Re: How far does an object fall during the first half second after it's released?

From: Gene Nygaard (gnygaard_at_nccray.com)
Date: 07/05/04 

Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2004 21:27:47 -0500

On Sun, 4 Jul 2004 15:46:57 -0700, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com>
wrote:

>
>"Gene Nygaard" <gnygaard@nccray.com> wrote in message
>news:0n7ge09ik82e028hchhi772elq33n0qsf4@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 3 Jul 2004 12:23:40 -0700, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Gene Nygaard" <gnygaard@nccray.com> wrote in message
>> >news:glbde0lmfdnu3o0g0mmmh6hhjje6od8o2h@4ax.com...
>> >> On Sat, 3 Jul 2004 05:55:52 -0700, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"Gene Nygaard" <gnygaard@nccray.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:d7vce0dhbjt45oopeo0b689n1chb13ptfd@4ax.com...
>> >> >> On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 15:32:00 -0700, "Richard Henry"
><rphenry@home.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >"Gene Nygaard" <gnygaard@nccray.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> >news:g39be01bfq6v1nli0bf1d0a857l8t4fc1r@4ax.com...
>> >> >> >> On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 13:02:21 GMT, Sam Wormley
><swormley1@mchsi.com>
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >"Donald G. Shead" wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> "Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> >news:<HTZEc.6180$151.4316@fed1read02>...
>> >> >> >> >> > "Donald G. Shead" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote
>> >> >> >> >> Cut<
>> >> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> >> > > Virtually all good weight-scales, _if set to zero when
>> >empty_;
>> >> >in
>> >> >> >the
>> >> >> >> >> > > controled environment of a laboratory: Whether at the
>equator
>> >or
>> >> >> >the
>> >> >> >> >> > > poles will register the same weight for any item!
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > No they don't.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Will you please tell me why they don't.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > w = mg
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > g has different values at different altitudes and different
>> >> >locations
>> >> >> >> > on the Earth at the same altitude. This is a problem for
>spring
>> >> >scales.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Big deal. You are adding additional specifications, narrowly
>> >> >> >> restricting the type of scales you are talking about.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> So "No, they don't" should not be changed to "Yes, they do" but
>> >rather
>> >> >> >> to "Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't."
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Really? With which of these statements do you disagree:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >1. The original statement described "weight-scales".
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >2. Weight = mass times g, the local gravitational acceleration.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >3. g varies over the surface of the Earth, especially at "the
>equator
>> >or
>> >> >> >the poles", as in the original statement.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >4. Weight varies over the surface of the Earth, especially at "the
>> >> >equator
>> >> >> >or the poles", as in the original statement.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 2 and 4, of course.
>> >> >Ah. The New Physics. What is the p[roper relationship of weight and
>> >mass,
>> >> >then, when the speaker is making references to variations (or lack
>> >thereof)
>> >> >over the surface of the earth?
>> >>
>> >> Depends on which meaning of each of those ambiguous words is intended.
>> >>
>> >> 1. The atomic weight of helium does not vary over the surface of the
>> >> earth. Similarly for molecular weight or formula weight.
>> >>
>> >> 2. The troy weight of a bar of platinum does not vary oer the surface
>> >> of the earth.
>> >>
>> >> 3. The carat weight of a diamond doesn't vary over the surface of the
>> >> earth.
>> >>
>> >> 4. The net weight of a box of cereal does not vary over the surface
>> >> of the earth, not does the tare weight of the packaging.
>> >>
>> >> 5. My body weight does not vary over the surface of the earth, if I
>> >> am using the definition of weight normal for medicine or sports, the
>> >> reasons we usually weigh ourselves. Just because some fools writing
>> >> physics textbooks or designing science museum exhibits use a
>> >> nonstandard meaning of the word "weight" in this context doesn't
>> >> change the fact that the kilograms used throughout the world
>> >> (including many hospitals in the U.S.A.) for this weight are the
>> >> proper SI unitf for the purpose.
>> >>
>> >> So, what the hell do you think that the "proper relationship between
>> >> weight and mass" is in cases 1 through 5 above? Since I'm "making
>> >> reference to variations over the surface of the earth" and since the
>> >> weight in these instances does not vary, does that mean that you'd
>> >> think that there is some other quantity called "mass" which does vary
>> >> in these cases?
>> >>
>> >> >To complicate matters, I bought a yard chain for the new dog
>yesterday.
>> >> >Printed on the package was the statement "Breaking strength over 515
>> >> >kilograms".
>> >>
>> >> That's not really a complication to this particular discussion--that
>> >> quantity is not called "weight" in anybody's book. (Fishing line is a
>> >> different story, however.)
>> >>
>> >> But what about my ketchup bottle: "Net wt. 24 oz (1 lb 8 oz) 680 g"?
>> >> What are those grams? What are those pounds and ounces?
>> >>
>> >> Don't you pay any attention whatsoever to the world around you? Why
>> >> do you put your blinders on when you run across examples like this, or
>> >> my examples above?
>> >>
>> >> Certainly we do still see many vestiges of the use of the
>> >> once-legitimate kilograms force. But when kilograms are used for
>> >> something that is called "weight," the overwhelming majority of the
>> >> time these are the units legitimate in the modern metric system, the
>> >> International System of Units. They are units of mass. They are not
>> >> kilograms force.
>> >
>> >You have given many fine examples and a logical arguemnt. Unfortunately,
>it
>> >has very little to do with Mr. Shead's original statement.
>>
>> It doesn't cost you any more to pay attention. In fact, it is
>> directly on point to Shead's original statement.
>
>I have been paying attention to Mr. Shead's whining for some time. He
>argues that force (aka "weight") is a more fundamental quantity than mass.
>This current thread is another futile chapter in that campaign.
>
>Along the way, Mr. Shead has gathered up a few distractors such as yourself
>who argue that the commercial use of the term "weight" blur the distinction
>with the physical-science term "mass".

They don't "blur" a distinction which doesn't exist.

>I agree that the world is confusedly
>imprecise in this matter.

There is no cause for the confusion, other than a very silly choice by
physicists using the English language for a jargon word for the force
due to gravity. This is a language specific problem, shared by
English with some other languages such as French, but not by other
languages such as Norwegian.

We who use the word "weight" in its normal meaning in commerce own
this word. We have a prior claim to it by hundreds of years over the
physicists who recently borrowed it and often use it with another
meaning. We use it consistently with the same meaning; there is no
real imprecision in that usage--even if some people such as yourself
are too dumb to understand that, and even if many other people simply
don't care about the precise meaning or how it might differ from other
usage of the same words.

So if you want to complain about it being "confusedly imprecise," I
just want to be damn sure you know exactly who you should blame for
this confusion. And who has the power to change this, by shopping for
a new jargon word. Or by properly identifying the meaning they
intend, if they do continue to use the same word as their jargon
word--something that cannot really be accomplished, if those people
don't admit the simple fact that the word is ambiguous in the first
place.

In other words, pretending that weight only has one God-given meaning,
a meaning contrary to the most common usages of the word, can NEVER
reduce that confused imprecision.

> However, Mr. Shead is explicity calling out the
>difference in the force of gravity over the surface of the earth. His magic
>"weight-scales", with the g-cancelling zero-offset control, do not exist.

What's your point? Sure, Shead is an idiot who doesn't know the
difference between zeroing and calibration. So what? You never even
addressed that point yourself.

But those scales as he described them do exist. There are balances
with zeroing devices. There are also spring scales with zeroing
devices. There are also electronic load cell scales with both zeroing
and calibration; it is, after all, the microchip which which made that
possible which has led to the great increase in their use in the last
three or four decades. The zeroing is normally available on the
buttons used by the operator; the calibration is deliberately made
more difficult than it needs to be, requiring going "under the hood"
to make the necessary adjustments.

Those magical "weight-scales" with the g-cancelling property are the
only "weight-scales" that anybody had ever used even 200 years ago,
and people had been measuring "weight" for thousands of years, and
calling it "weight" in English for over 800 years, before then.

Furthermore, Shead has made it quite clear in at least three of his
messages in this very thread that the "weight-scales" to which he was
referring includes balances. You simply were not paying attention.
Go back and read Shead's postings in this thread. Those g-cancelling
weight scales are just what we are looking for, to measure the weight
in all those applications I mentioned in my earlier reply quoted
above. Right on topic as far as Shead's comments go.

The calibration feature discussed above allows load cell devices to
emulate those balances which served us so well for so long, giving us
not an automatic compensation for variation in g, but something which
can easily accomplish the task with a little operator intervention,
giving us the equivalent to what the balances gave us:

   HONEST WEIGHT
    NO SPRINGS

It's only idiots who won't admit that "weight" has this quite
legitimate and proper meaning which have difficulty understanding
this. Those idiots are the very same fools who increase the
confusion, by putting on blinders and refusing to see the need to
identify the meaning of the ambiguous word "weight" which they are
using.

Gene Nygaard

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How far does an object fall during the first half second after its released?
    ... >> physicists using the English language for a jargon word for the force ... >prevent confusion with previously established concepts. ... it is those who insist on a God-given meaning of the ... the "difference between weight and mass" when we use the word weight ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Car setup discussion
    ... There is only ONE meaning to the words "spring rate". ... It refers to how much weight it takes to compress a spring one inch. ... I've bought dozens of racing springs, ...
    (rec.autos.sport.nascar)
  • Re: Rows vs. press
    ... deadlift with a shrug at the end and barely noticeable flexion at the ... press is a lift, meaning you go for a max with it (weight, reps, ... whatever), row is an exercise, meaning you do it for the benefits it ... the same about pullups and dips, respectively - too many ways to perform ...
    (misc.fitness.weights)
  • Re: Examples of SQL anomalies?
    ... What can be meaningfully asked is determined by the meaning ... If the schema specifies that the weight attribute is nullable, ...
    (comp.databases.theory)
  • Re: How can I tell if F is a string or if it is a number?
    ... If it does, its meaning is ... So why does it cancel? ... Suppose you have two coins of unknown weight. ... A is the length of the first arm. ...
    (comp.theory)