Microgravity parable

"Stuf4" wrote in message
om...
From Herb Schaltegger:
(Stuf4) wrote:

Stuf4 wrote:
This supports the view that people
*do* know the difference and they just use the bogus terms anyway.

So do you know subscribe to the accepted opinion that NASA
astronauts
and scientists understand that the effects of Earth's Gravity is not
zero...not even micro...in LEO?

While the evidence might give more weight to that view, it's not
enough to persuade me. So, no. My estimation still weighs toward the
view that people who know the difference would be bothered enough by
it to not use those terms.

Pretty much everyone who posts regularly to these groups knows the
difference and we're not bothered. Stop extrapolating your views and
feelings to the rest of the world.

How ironic that you offer your extrapolation regarding "pretty much
everyone..." while chastising my extrapolation.

This reads as another form of "I'm right/you're wrong", coated with a
heavy tinge of hypocrisy.


Bull. It's pretty much accurate.

Let's see... to the normal person, "pretty much everyone..." means a clear
majority.

Since not a single person here has posted to agree with you and anyone who
has posted disgrees with you, I'd say this is a clear majority.

This is not a case of "I'm right/you're wrong coated with hypocrisy." This
is a case of Herb stating a stastitic that is backed by the facts.

A single data point does not make a line, let alone a plot. Multiple data
points do start to make a plot. You've extrapolated from YOUR beliefs.
Herb extrapolated from ALL the other posts disagreeing with you.


~ CT

In article ,
(Stuf4) wrote:

How ironic that you offer your extrapolation regarding "pretty much
everyone..." while chastising my extrapolation.

This reads as another form of "I'm right/you're wrong", coated with a
heavy tinge of hypocrisy.

And how many posters are publicly supporting your continued games of
semanticism, pedantry, prevarication, equivocation and hand-waving?
None.

But let me guess: the lurkers all support you in email.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
"Heisenberg might have been here."
~ Anonymous

From Greg Moo
"Stuf4" wrote

From Herb Schaltegger:
(Stuf4) wrote:

Stuf4 wrote:
This supports the view that people
*do* know the difference and they just use the bogus terms anyway.

So do you know subscribe to the accepted opinion that NASA
astronauts
and scientists understand that the effects of Earth's Gravity is not
zero...not even micro...in LEO?

While the evidence might give more weight to that view, it's not
enough to persuade me. So, no. My estimation still weighs toward the
view that people who know the difference would be bothered enough by
it to not use those terms.

Pretty much everyone who posts regularly to these groups knows the
difference and we're not bothered. Stop extrapolating your views and
feelings to the rest of the world.

How ironic that you offer your extrapolation regarding "pretty much
everyone..." while chastising my extrapolation.

This reads as another form of "I'm right/you're wrong", coated with a
heavy tinge of hypocrisy.


Bull. It's pretty much accurate.

Let's see... to the normal person, "pretty much everyone..." means a clear
majority.

Since not a single person here has posted to agree with you and anyone who
has posted disgrees with you, I'd say this is a clear majority.

This is not a case of "I'm right/you're wrong coated with hypocrisy." This
is a case of Herb stating a stastitic that is backed by the facts.

A single data point does not make a line, let alone a plot. Multiple data
points do start to make a plot. You've extrapolated from YOUR beliefs.
Herb extrapolated from ALL the other posts disagreeing with you.

Majority rules. Interesting brand of "science".


~ CT

From Herb Schaltegger:
(Stuf4) wrote:

How ironic that you offer your extrapolation regarding "pretty much
everyone..." while chastising my extrapolation.

This reads as another form of "I'm right/you're wrong", coated with a
heavy tinge of hypocrisy.

And how many posters are publicly supporting your continued games of
semanticism, pedantry, prevarication, equivocation and hand-waving?
None.

But let me guess: the lurkers all support you in email.

Umm, they're not lurking. If you've been following the thread
thoroughly you've seen that Jim Oberg's website has a page that fits
in total agreement with what I've been saying here.

So if, by assumption, Jim agrees with the position I have put forward,
one might ask why he has remained silent. And an obvious follow up is
to ask why others who might agree have remained silent.

My best guess is that there is so much hostility among those who
persist in abusive behavior that a silent majority/minority (?) prefer
to sit out a would be scientific discussion.

(3rd Reich lessons learned have previously been provided as to their
application here at sci.space.)


~ CT

(Stuf4) wrote in message . com...
From stmx3:
Stuf4 wrote:
This supports the view that people
*do* know the difference and they just use the bogus terms anyway.

So do you know subscribe to the accepted opinion that NASA astronauts
and scientists understand that the effects of Earth's Gravity is not
zero...not even micro...in LEO?

While the evidence might give more weight to that view, it's not
enough to persuade me. So, no. My estimation still weighs toward the
view that people who know the difference would be bothered enough by
it to not use those terms.

I think it's in the nature of the beast to use language rather carelessly. I
know it bothers some people (a fairly famous skeptic comes to mind) to throw
around words conversationally when explicitness (explicity?) is required to
ensure there is no confusion in an argument, debate, statement, etc. As
emotional, social creatures, this is not so easily done. I may say, for
example, "It's pretty obvious that what goes up must come down". The respone
might be:
1) Obvious to whom?
2) What's 'pretty' about it?
3) In whose reference frame?
4) The statement is untrue. Consider Voyager 1 & 2.

If mu-g or microgravity is defined to be (1x10^-6)(9.8 m/s^2), a literal
interpretation of the term, then it is indeed incorrect to say ISS is in
microgravity (or microgravity environment, etc.)

If, however, microgravity defined to refer to an environment where the net
acceleration is reduced to some small fraction of that felt at the Earth's
surface due to gravity, then we can all feel comfortable using it, knowing
somewhere there is a standard definition to back us up.

You may argue that this "definition" is hogwash, something invented for
convenience because it sounds slick but is literally untrue (in the majority
of the instances when we use it). Furthermore, one may argue, as you do, that
a right-minded individual would never use this phrase if they knew its literal
meaning. Therefore, those that do use it, do not understand it literal meaning.

I can concur and support everything up to this last sentiment. I believe
that the majority of people working in the field do not give weight to this
issue. What matters to them is what the equations say. These, built on the
logic of mathematics, incorporate well defined symbols and operators and the
only thing that matters is the number to the right of the equal sign. If there
are those who don't like the term, perhaps they are resigned to use it. If
there are those who are not resigned to accept it, perhaps they are vocal in
the community, but like the ASAP, their words go unheeded. Perhaps they
threaten to count off on exams if their students ever use 'microgravity' in
the 'wrong' way. Perhaps their are other categories you can design to explain
the acceptance (or non acceptance) of the term.

So, I find fault with your categorizing all individuals into one of two units
(considering usage of 'microgravity' in, for example, LEO cases):

1) People use 'microgravity' because they don't understand the literal meaning.
2) People don't use 'microgravity'

Please give consideration to the other categories I listed above. Perhaps they
will sway your opinion.


Along the lines of:

"...what I said was "no gravity"...but you know what I meant."

Yup. That's what they do.

This goes back to the parable of the emperors clothes. Everyone with
eyes to see knows that he's naked, but people curiously just play
along with it as though it's perfectly normal.

On top of that, they see the blind subjects tear off their clothes
because they've been told that going around naked is perfectly normal.
Certain to cause problems throughout the winter, if not throughout
the rest of the year as well.

*

This view, if accurate, makes for paramount hypocrisy when NASA
presents itself as an agency that cares about promoting science.

I iterate that this view is not as black & white as you present it.

~ CT

"Stuf4" wrote in message
om...
From Greg Moo

Majority rules. Interesting brand of "science".

Ayup. Majority rules when it comes to science.

If 100 scientists drop an item and say, "hmm, it seems to fall at 9.2m/s"
and you drop it and say, "no, I think it drops it at 7.5 m/s" you're going
to have to do a LOT of convincing to show that you're measurement is correct
and all those are wrong.

It's called preponderance of the evidence. You have yet to show that anyone
other than you is confused by the term zero-gravity. So yes, majority
"rules."




~ CT

"Stuf4" wrote in message
om...
From Herb Schaltegger:
(Stuf4) wrote:

How ironic that you offer your extrapolation regarding "pretty much
everyone..." while chastising my extrapolation.

This reads as another form of "I'm right/you're wrong", coated with a
heavy tinge of hypocrisy.

And how many posters are publicly supporting your continued games of
semanticism, pedantry, prevarication, equivocation and hand-waving?
None.

But let me guess: the lurkers all support you in email.

Umm, they're not lurking. If you've been following the thread
thoroughly you've seen that Jim Oberg's website has a page that fits
in total agreement with what I've been saying here.

So if, by assumption, Jim agrees with the position I have put forward,
one might ask why he has remained silent. And an obvious follow up is
to ask why others who might agree have remained silent.

Oh BS. Jim and others have never shied away from controversy before. Why
would they do so on THIS issue, but not others?

If anything it's in Jim's interests to elicit controversy as it helps sell
papers. And as a writer, that helps.


~ CT

"Stuf4" wrote in message
om...
Umm, they're not lurking. If you've been following the thread
thoroughly you've seen that Jim Oberg's website has a page that fits
in total agreement with what I've been saying here.

Please provide verifiable references to a post in which Jim Oberg has
expressly stated that he agrees with your position that NASA engineers do
not understand the concept of gravity. For that matter, why not simply ask
publically, right here, if Jim supports you on that specific point?

So if, by assumption

Well, we all know what happens when *you* make an assumption...
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.

In article ,
(Stuf4) wrote:

From Herb Schaltegger:
(Stuf4) wrote:

How ironic that you offer your extrapolation regarding "pretty much
everyone..." while chastising my extrapolation.

This reads as another form of "I'm right/you're wrong", coated with a
heavy tinge of hypocrisy.

And how many posters are publicly supporting your continued games of
semanticism, pedantry, prevarication, equivocation and hand-waving?
None.

But let me guess: the lurkers all support you in email.

Umm, they're not lurking.

Then where are your supporters? Your detractors have had no qualms
about telling you when you're completely out in left field.

If you've been following the thread
thoroughly you've seen that Jim Oberg's website has a page that fits
in total agreement with what I've been saying here.

So if, by assumption, Jim agrees with the position I have put forward,
one might ask why he has remained silent.

Perhaps he's got you killfiled? Perhaps he has more interesting things
to do these days on the eve of a manned Chinese launch. (And please
spare us any tedium regarding Webster's definition of "eve.")

And an obvious follow up is
to ask why others who might agree have remained silent.

Because you're sanctimonious insistence on precise definition of terms
(even when proven wrong; see, e.g., Jorge Frank's post regarding
precession last night) renders you a bit of a boor, if a well-spoken
one. As I said a week or two ago, your schtick is tiresome. Especially
when you drop intimations of "insider" status yet insist on hiding
behind a pseudonym.

My best guess is that there is so much hostility among those who
persist in abusive behavior that a silent majority/minority (?) prefer
to sit out a would be scientific discussion.

Right. It's "abusive" to tell you that you're being pedantic and that
your prevarications are annoying as hell. Now, tell us all again who is
stretching definitions here?

(3rd Reich lessons learned have previously been provided as to their
application here at sci.space.)


Watch who you're calling a Nazi; Uncle Ashcroft's Patriot Act Though
Police might come tracing your IP address and subpoena your name and
address.

~ CT

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
"Heisenberg might have been here."
~ Anonymous

On 11 Oct 2003 20:32:10 -0700, (Stuf4) wrote:

My best guess is that there is so much hostility among those who
persist in abusive behavior that a silent majority/minority (?) prefer
to sit out a would be scientific discussion.

(3rd Reich lessons learned have previously been provided as to their
application here at sci.space.)

I think this is close enough to a Hitler reference. Per Godwin's Law, we're
done with any useful discussion here.

(Not that an argument with Stuf could be considered useful discussion....)