Liberty Bell 7 attempted recovery

"John Mianowski" wrote in message
...
I'd like to see this demonstration.

Come on over.

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
t...

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
This is a problem with the MEASURING DEVICE. Scales do not 'define'
weight.

No, they *measure* it, in a constant manner. If Willshaw was correct, the
scale would provide the same measurement in or out of water.

No. Scales measure resultant downward force, so if there is a buoyant force
this will be subtracted from the weight. In air, if you were to push your
hand down on the body being weighed, its weight would not change, but the
measurement would.

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
. ..

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
news
So if I take hold of something sitting on a scale and lift on it, it
weighs less?

The measurement of weight is certainly less.

But the weight is not less.

I've simply added another force. Weight remains the same.

Tell that to the scale.

The scale is wrong. It's like pushing your hand down on the scale. The
item's weight won't increase but the measurement will.

Neil Gerace wrote:
"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
t...
No, they *measure* it, in a constant manner. If Willshaw was correct, the
scale would provide the same measurement in or out of water.

No. Scales measure resultant downward force, so if there is a buoyant force
this will be subtracted from the weight. In air, if you were to push your
hand down on the body being weighed, its weight would not change, but the
measurement would.

According to the "downward force" definition a 747 in
flight ascending to altitude has negative "weight".

"Scott Hedrick" wrote:

:
:"th" wrote in message
...
: Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Being closer to the centre of the Earth makes it weigh MORE, not less.
:
: No, at the centre of the earth the weight will be zero and increasing
: with the distance from the centre until you reach the surface, from
: which the weight will start to decrease with the distance from the centre.
:
:See, you're *both* right, because in the first instance, the capsule was out
f the water, so getting closer to the center of the earth by sinking to the
:bottom of the ocean, after removing bouyancy effects, means the capsule
:weighs more. Of course, the more it settled into the mud, the closer it got
:to the center, so it began to weigh less...

And thus would have eventually shot to the surface due to becoming
weightless.

"Christopher M. Jones" wrote in message
...

According to the "downward force" definition a 747 in
flight ascending to altitude has negative "weight".

That's right, so the scales would **incorrectly** read negative in that
case.

"Neil Gerace" wrote in message
...
"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
t...

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
This is a problem with the MEASURING DEVICE. Scales do not 'define'
weight.

No, they *measure* it, in a constant manner. If Willshaw was correct,
the
scale would provide the same measurement in or out of water.

No. Scales measure resultant downward force, so if there is a buoyant
force
this will be subtracted from the weight.

Bingo!

In air, if you were to push your
hand down on the body being weighed, its weight would not change, but the
measurement would.

Yeah, but I learned not to do that after stepping on the scale when my wife
was using it...