Re: A weighty subject

[Joel Rauber <Joel_Rauber@SDSTATE.EDU>]

> My point is that there is no fundamental physics which gives
> much of a damn
> about "weight" per se so there is not much value in arguing over its
> definition -- certainly not in an intro class.
>
> Jim Green

My guess is that the above is precisely why we can have such a long and
vigourous debate on this subject.

> Jim,
>
> Keep it up.  Teach your own definitions to your students.
> Perhaps someday
> they will pass their data on to NASA as a contractor.
> Another crash and
> burn.  Definitions are important for communication.  Change
> them through
> appropriate means, but please use the accepted definitions
> until the change
> is accepted.  If you don't know what the accepted definition
> is, then look
> it
> up.  All sources I look at say the same thing.
>
> Bob Carlson

I have to defend Jim here; although I know from all the heat discussions he
is fully capable of doing so himself.  Definitions are important for
communication, it strikes me that Phys-L is the perfect place to discuss and
explore what should be the accepted definition of a technical physics term;
both the theoretical and pedagogical implications.  Jim has a point when he
points out that the "accepted" definition is apparently not all that
accepted.  There is certainly a significant minority on this list that
doesn't accept it.  And he makes an important point when he mentions that a
definition can't be wrong.  It might be ill-advised, confusing, non-standard
etc., but it is the whole point of a definition that it is a quantity to be
defined.

Joel