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
- Next message: John Popelish: "Re: Why do transformers hum"
- Previous message: spike1_at_freenet.co.uk: "Re: The serious momentum of a photon."
- In reply to: tadchem: "Re: How far does an object fall during the first half second after it's released?"
- Next in thread: Richard Henry: "Re: How far does an object fall during the first half second after it's released?"
- Reply: Richard Henry: "Re: How far does an object fall during the first half second after it's released?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2004 10:40:37 -0500
On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 10:09:32 -0400, "tadchem"
<tadchemNOSPAM@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"Gene Nygaard" <gnygaard@nccray.com> wrote in message
>news:0rbhe019puo36vodr5hij6p4b2it8uossc@4ax.com...
>
>*flush*
>
>> 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.
>
>Naive, possibly, but 'silly', hardly.
Seems to me like you are proposing a distinction without a difference.
> The extent of 'silliness' in physics
>is limited to such things as selecting names for novel concepts that will
>prevent confusion with previously established concepts. The names of the
>quark properties (charm, strangeness)
There is little chance of confusion with the other meanings of those
words in this instance. That's a big difference on the silliness
meter.
>and as-yet-undiscovered elements (such
>as 'Unununium') come to mind.
>
>The human imagination far outpaces any single language's (or individual's)
>vocabulary in rate of growth, so we are left with no alternative but to
>'recycle' the words we know in different contexts, with context-specific
>definitions. The word 'mercurial', for example, holds distinct meanings in
>chemistry, astronomy, and psychology. The word 'set' has (according to at
>least one authority) 464 different definitions.
So what's your point? The people who understand this aren't the ones
who have difficulty understanding the language issues under discussion
here. Rather, it is those who insist on a God-given meaning of the
word 'weight' which is always different from the God-given meaning of
the word 'mass.'
People who understand the ambiguity also understand that there will be
many cases in which they need to make their meaning clear.
>
>> This is a language specific problem, shared by
>> English with some other languages such as French, but not by other
>> languages such as Norwegian.
>
>The only languages I know of that do not apply words differently in
>different contexts are all dead: Sumerian, Vinca, Mayan, you get the idea.
>That is because the new contexts have arisen since people stopped using the
>languages.
>I believe you are misunderstanding your 'other languages such as Norwegian.'
>No language in which 'There is no cause for the confusion' is capable of
>supporting the favorite form of humor among growing intellects - the pun.
I didn't claim that their are no ambiguities in Norwegian.
Just that this particular one isn't a problem, because physicists had
more sense in choosing their jargon word for the force due to gravity,
using 'tyngde' rather than 'vekt' (wægt, etc., in earlier spellings)
for their jargon word for this quantity.
>
>> We who use the word "weight" in its normal meaning in commerce own
>> this word.
>
>*NOBODY* 'owns' a word. Even Bill Gates can't own the word 'windows'
>(unless he is willing to take responsibility for washing mine!)
What our "ownership" means is that just because someone else borrows
it and uses it with a different meaning, we don't lose our quite
proper and legitimate right to use it with the well-established older
meaning.
Yet that's exactly the argument that is often made by fools such as
Richard Henry, and a great many science teachers in the United States
(and occasionally elsewhere), who claim that we are "confused" about
the "difference between weight and mass" when we use the word weight
with that original meaning.
>> 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.
>
>Can you possibly become any more arrogant? If 'prior claim' meant anything,
>we should
>all be blue-green algae.
>
>> 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.
>
>The lack of imprecision you claim for the commercial use of 'weight'
>notwithstanding, you are painting yourself into a corner here: on one hand
>you say 'We use it consistently with the same meaning' and later *in the
>same sentence* you say 'many other people simply don't care about the
>precise meaning or how it might differ from other usage of the same words'.
What matters most is how the manufacturers or store owners measure
this "weight" and how the government regulates the accuracy of these
measurements. This is done in an entirely consistent manner across
the whole earth. Whether or not everybody understands how this is
done is irrelevant; the actual meaning remains the same, even if some
people who have been brainwashed by misguided science teachers into
thinking that "weight" is always something different from "mass" don't
understand what is being measured in this context.
What you mean isn't necessarily the same as what you think you mean.
>Either you are in a small group of linguistic perfectionists (a doomed
>species, I might add), or you have no qualms about contradicting yourself
>(in which case you have a career opportunity in republican politics).
Once again, you are confused. It is that horde of science teachers,
and fools like Richard Henry and Varney and the like on these
newsgroups, who claim one true God-given meaning for the word
'weight.'
Gene Nygaard
- Next message: John Popelish: "Re: Why do transformers hum"
- Previous message: spike1_at_freenet.co.uk: "Re: The serious momentum of a photon."
- In reply to: tadchem: "Re: How far does an object fall during the first half second after it's released?"
- Next in thread: Richard Henry: "Re: How far does an object fall during the first half second after it's released?"
- Reply: Richard Henry: "Re: How far does an object fall during the first half second after it's released?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
