Re: [Phys-l] definitions ... purely operational, or not

[Bernard Cleyet <bernardcleyet@redshift.com>]

There is no suggestion that there are other forces, etc.  Pure and simple;  the force is applied and the body accelerates.   Use of the subjunctive is mud.

bc



On 2010, Nov 11, , at 20:36, Rauber, Joel wrote:

> I'm not sure I want to jump down the rabbit hole of a grammar discussion; particularly since I suffered through "new English" in high school in the early seventies;  However, I think the use of the word "would" in the ISO definition quoted below is a classic example of the subjunctive mood.  
>
> The force applied would . . . implying if it existed by itself it would do such and such that is equivalent to the free-fall acceleration.  I.e. we have a conditional that may be contrary to fact.  Or so I think.
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of Bernard Cleyet [bernardcleyet@redshift.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 6:11 PM
> To: Forum for Physics Educators
> Subject: Re: [Phys-l] definitions ... purely operational, or not
>
> The use of "would" implies something else may affect the body or N2 invalid.  The force applied WILL or Shall.
>
> bc
>
>
> On 2010, Nov 11, , at 08:46, Rauber, Joel wrote:
>
> > In the context of the thread and with the use of quotes around the word 'Bartlett' and in view of the recent TPT article I stand by referring to it as the "Bartlett" definition within this conversational thread.  Since you mention the ISO standard, I assume that we agree that what I refer to as the "Bartlett" definition is equivalent to the ISO definition?  Though I prefer Bartlett's wording (less use of the subjunctive.)
> >
> > > The weight of a body in a specified reference system is that force
> > > which, when applied to the body, would give it an acceleration equal
> > > to the local acceleration of free fall in that reference system.
> > >
> > > Bartlett's paper in TPT should have cited ISO standard ISO 31-3 (1992).
>
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l