## Re: weight vs. mass

Expand Messages
• ... 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.
• 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
• 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.