Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: weight vs. mass

Expand Messages
  • Simon Vollam
    ... Is that a threat? :-) S.
    Message 1 of 5 , Jul 2, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In Czechlist@y..., "Kostas Zgafas" <kzgafas@t...> wrote:
      > Also, don´t mess "weight" with "weights".
      >
      > K.

      Is that a threat? :-)

      S.
    • padamek@mbox.dkm.cz
      S potesenim zjistuji, ze veda je na celem svete stejna. Petr ... other ... inside ... force of ... a ... (as it ... worth ... to ... underlying ... do
      Message 2 of 5 , Jul 2, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        S potesenim zjistuji, ze veda je na celem svete stejna.
        Petr
        --- In Czechlist@y..., "Rachel Thompson" <rachel.thompson@s...> wrote:
        > > I have a vague recollection from high school chemistry class that
        > there
        > > actually is a scientific distinction between "mass" and "weight"
        >
        > Yes, of course, as Simon already explained:
        >
        > "To answer the mass-vs-weight query, I was always taught that,
        > strictly speaking, mass is measured in grammes whereas weight (being
        > a force) is measured in Newtons. A man on the moon, for example,
        > weighs much less than on earth, but his mass is the same regardless
        > of location (relativistic considerations aside)."
        >
        > > For convenience, the "mass" of any particular body is generally
        > expressed
        > > in the same terms as the "weight" that same body has when here on
        > earth, at
        > > sea level.
        >
        > Actually, what we think of as "weight" is actually mass, not the
        other
        > way round. 1kg is a mass, not a weight. A 1kg object has 1kg of
        > "stuff" in it, and will always have the same amount of "stuff"
        inside
        > it, even if it is floating "weightless" in orbit. On earth, 1kg
        > "weighs" 10N. This means it "pushes down" on the earth with a
        force of
        > 10 Newtons. But in different conditions it could weigh something
        > completely different.
        >
        > > And, indeed, I suspect that in many contexts this entire
        > > distinction is completely irrelevant.
        >
        > Yes, of course, in everyday contexts it is irrelevant. However, in
        a
        > scientific text (which was what we were discussing), it is more
        > important to retain the distinction. It could actually be argued
        (as it
        > was quite persuasively by my Physics teacher at school) that it's
        worth
        > trying to make the distinction in everyday speech as well, in order
        to
        > help children to understand the totally different concepts
        underlying
        > the scientific definitions (since children often find them extremely
        > difficult to grasp). I don't know that I'd go that far, because it
        > seems to me that weight is so much a part of everyday speech, but I
        do
        > think it's important not to dismiss the distinction in a scientific
        > context.
        >
        > Rachel
      • Sabina Králová
        Hi everybody, Would you know, please, what to use for nuceny spravce ? (receiver - according to the dictionary??) Thanks Sabina
        Message 3 of 5 , Jul 2, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi everybody,

          Would you know, please, what to use for "nuceny spravce"? (receiver -
          according to the dictionary??) Thanks Sabina
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.