Gene,
This so much splitting of hairs, especially in the context of general information about using metric measures for body mass and height.
I disagree that any of the suggestions that you have commented below improve on the scientific accuracy, or unambiguously clarify the physical concepts of 'weight'.
I will, however, try to respect your concerns about how your example might be cited or presented. Please be advised, however, that your opinions of the language are limited in merit.
There is still the matter of a critical need for quality information about using metric units for measuring body mass and height in the USMA communities.
Unfortunately, your comments relating to usages of the term 'weight' do not in themselves provide a practical nor coherent rule for usage of concepts relating to 'weight'. I think that other approaches would be much more productive, and not less accurate. Such approaches would also be more metric.
On 2008 Mar 15 Sat DoY 075, at 10:38, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
Ron, See my replies below. Gene. ---- Original message ----Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 01:16:30 -0700 From: Ron Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [USMA:40528] revised usage of measures for body mass To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------Metric units are practical and suitable for everyday measures of body mass...OK (oftentimes inferred by a measure of weight on a scale*)Delete this. Even bathroom spring scales are *calibrated* to display body mass *at a particular location*. Of course, balance scales free of springs measure mass more directly even though gravitational forces bring the masses into balance.*Mass is oftentimes referenced by a measure of weight on a scale,Delete this.however 'weight' is more specifically the product of a force such as gravity that bears on a mass.This statement is completely false! Delete it.In a frame of reference other than the surface of the earth, such as the surface of the moon; the same body mass would experience a weight or force of gravity that is only aboutYou may use the example *without* the adulteration to which I objected above.1/6 the gravity on the earth. Replace "gravity" by "weight" ------------I also like the example you wrote. Would you mind if I include the three paragraphs below for purposes of general information handouts?On 2008 Mar 12 Wed DoY 072, at 09:26, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:A person of 60 kilograms body mass has a weight of about 600 newtons on the surface of the earth. That same person has the same body mass of 60 kilograms on the surface of the moon, but a weight of only 100 newtons on the surface of the moon where the acceleration of gravity is only 1/6 its value on the surface of the earth. All the above is by Newton's Second Law: "weight" is mass times the *local* acceleration of gravity in a specified (or implied) frame of reference, 9.8 meters per second squared on the surface of the earth with respect to the earth.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Stone
e:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
web:
http://www.enhanceability.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -
this message does not necessarily reflect
the views of any organization I may be affiliated with,
and should be regarded as personal opinion.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
