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

weight vs. mass - jako v cestine

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.