A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Station
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Microgravity parable



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old October 9th 03, 07:40 AM
Stuf4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Microgravity parable

From Herb Schaltegger:
The statement you are quoting has been accepted physics since it was
spelled out in detail in Isaac's Principia.


You and Newton on a first name basis these days?


At his mixers, he may have preferred to be called "Sir Isaac" to impress the ladies.


~ CT
Ads
  #23  
Old October 9th 03, 05:10 PM
stmx3
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Microgravity parable

Stuf4 wrote:
************************************************** ****************

Scientist: "I just measured this box with my ruler. It has one
human-foot."

CT: "You mean to say that the box is one foot long, right?"

Scientist: "I mean to say that it has one human-foot."

CT: "How can it have a human foot if it is just a box? I'm certain
that what you mean to say is that your box has the same length as one
human foot, with length being a common quality to both the box and the
foot. But a "human-foot" as a bodily appendage is distinctly
different from a "foot" as a measure of length."

Scientist: "You are just being pedantic. The terminology you are
using may apply to the field of biology, but it does not apply to my
specialty field of measuring boxes."

CT: "Um, no. I see a distinct conceptual difference between a human
foot and the length of the side of a box."

Scientist: "Now you're just playing with semantics!"


~


I think you've established your opinion on this topic. Here are a few
links to educate you and the public:

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/html/microgex.htm
"Many people mistakenly think that there is no gravity above the Earth's
atmosphere, i.e., in "space," and this is why there appears to be no
gravity aboard orbiting spacecraft."

http://microgravity.nasa.gov/wimg.html
"...scientists perform their experiments in microgravity - a condition
in which the effects of gravity are greatly reduced, sometimes described
as 'weightlessness.'"

http://microgravity.grc.nasa.gov/combustion/
"The study of combustion in an environment of apparent
weightlessness—microgravity..."

http://spacelink.nasa.gov/Instructio...hers.Guide.pdf
Note, this is a pdf document...if you don't want to open this document
directly, click on
http://spacelink.nasa.gov/Instructio.../Microgravity/


"By this definition, *a microgravity environment is one in which the
apparent weight of a system is small compared to its actual weight due
to gravity.*"
Elsewhere in the same document:
"However, freefall can be used to create a microgravity environment
*consistent with our primary definition of microgravity.*" (the emphasis
is mine)

http://www.esa.int/export/esaHS/ESAT...esearch_0.html
Note...this is an esa website ("microgravity" is an international
phenomenon)
"Scientists prefer the term microgravity to weightlessness or zero-g
because it is more accurate. There is always some residual acceleration
force, although in a good microgravity environment it is a very small
fraction of the full 1-g gravity that gives us our weight on the surface
of the Earth. Incidentally, microgravity does not mean that gravity
itself has been reduced, only gravity's effects."

http://www1.msfc.nasa.gov/NEWMSFC/slg.html
"Contrary to popular belief, Earth’s gravity still has an effect on a
spacecraft that is orbiting Earth. When in orbit around Earth, a
spacecraft has escaped only 10% of Earth’s gravitational pull. So why
does everything appear to float? Objects that are in orbit around Earth
are actually in a continuous state of freefall. This state of freefall
is called low-gravity, or microgravity, because the effects of gravity
have been greatly reduced."

http://spacelink.nasa.gov/Instructio...ce/.index.html
Note - this is a NASA educational website.
(If you can't reconstruct the link, try http://tinyurl.com/qbv6 )

"*Microgravity* literally means very little *gravity*. Another way to
think of 'micro-' is in measurement systems, such as the metric system,
where micro- means one part in a million or 1 x 10^-6 g. Scientists do
not use the term microgravity to accurately represent millionths of 1 g.
The microgravity environment, expressed by the symbol mu-g, is defined
as an environment where some of the effects of gravity are reduced
compared to what we experience at Earth's surface."


I could go on. Google gave me 340,000 returns on "microgravity". But,
it doesn't matter because you choose to look through filtered glasses
where you see only what you want to see.

Some of the articles above explicitly acknowledge that "microgravity"
doesn't mean there's no gravity in a freefall. That is what *you* think
it means. You are free to continue to subscribe to the belief that the
known is the prison of past conditioning and that you achieve the wisdom
of uncertainty by stepping into the unknown and join the dance of the
universe. But you're dancing alone and in some other universe.

Your opinion in this matter is irrelevant.

  #24  
Old October 9th 03, 05:10 PM
stmx3
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Microgravity parable

Stuf4 wrote:
************************************************** ****************

Scientist: "I just measured this box with my ruler. It has one
human-foot."

CT: "You mean to say that the box is one foot long, right?"

Scientist: "I mean to say that it has one human-foot."

CT: "How can it have a human foot if it is just a box? I'm certain
that what you mean to say is that your box has the same length as one
human foot, with length being a common quality to both the box and the
foot. But a "human-foot" as a bodily appendage is distinctly
different from a "foot" as a measure of length."

Scientist: "You are just being pedantic. The terminology you are
using may apply to the field of biology, but it does not apply to my
specialty field of measuring boxes."

CT: "Um, no. I see a distinct conceptual difference between a human
foot and the length of the side of a box."

Scientist: "Now you're just playing with semantics!"


~


I think you've established your opinion on this topic. Here are a few
links to educate you and the public:

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/html/microgex.htm
"Many people mistakenly think that there is no gravity above the Earth's
atmosphere, i.e., in "space," and this is why there appears to be no
gravity aboard orbiting spacecraft."

http://microgravity.nasa.gov/wimg.html
"...scientists perform their experiments in microgravity - a condition
in which the effects of gravity are greatly reduced, sometimes described
as 'weightlessness.'"

http://microgravity.grc.nasa.gov/combustion/
"The study of combustion in an environment of apparent
weightlessness—microgravity..."

http://spacelink.nasa.gov/Instructio...hers.Guide.pdf
Note, this is a pdf document...if you don't want to open this document
directly, click on
http://spacelink.nasa.gov/Instructio.../Microgravity/


"By this definition, *a microgravity environment is one in which the
apparent weight of a system is small compared to its actual weight due
to gravity.*"
Elsewhere in the same document:
"However, freefall can be used to create a microgravity environment
*consistent with our primary definition of microgravity.*" (the emphasis
is mine)

http://www.esa.int/export/esaHS/ESAT...esearch_0.html
Note...this is an esa website ("microgravity" is an international
phenomenon)
"Scientists prefer the term microgravity to weightlessness or zero-g
because it is more accurate. There is always some residual acceleration
force, although in a good microgravity environment it is a very small
fraction of the full 1-g gravity that gives us our weight on the surface
of the Earth. Incidentally, microgravity does not mean that gravity
itself has been reduced, only gravity's effects."

http://www1.msfc.nasa.gov/NEWMSFC/slg.html
"Contrary to popular belief, Earth’s gravity still has an effect on a
spacecraft that is orbiting Earth. When in orbit around Earth, a
spacecraft has escaped only 10% of Earth’s gravitational pull. So why
does everything appear to float? Objects that are in orbit around Earth
are actually in a continuous state of freefall. This state of freefall
is called low-gravity, or microgravity, because the effects of gravity
have been greatly reduced."

http://spacelink.nasa.gov/Instructio...ce/.index.html
Note - this is a NASA educational website.
(If you can't reconstruct the link, try http://tinyurl.com/qbv6 )

"*Microgravity* literally means very little *gravity*. Another way to
think of 'micro-' is in measurement systems, such as the metric system,
where micro- means one part in a million or 1 x 10^-6 g. Scientists do
not use the term microgravity to accurately represent millionths of 1 g.
The microgravity environment, expressed by the symbol mu-g, is defined
as an environment where some of the effects of gravity are reduced
compared to what we experience at Earth's surface."


I could go on. Google gave me 340,000 returns on "microgravity". But,
it doesn't matter because you choose to look through filtered glasses
where you see only what you want to see.

Some of the articles above explicitly acknowledge that "microgravity"
doesn't mean there's no gravity in a freefall. That is what *you* think
it means. You are free to continue to subscribe to the belief that the
known is the prison of past conditioning and that you achieve the wisdom
of uncertainty by stepping into the unknown and join the dance of the
universe. But you're dancing alone and in some other universe.

Your opinion in this matter is irrelevant.

  #25  
Old October 9th 03, 05:10 PM
stmx3
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Microgravity parable

Stuf4 wrote:
************************************************** ****************

Scientist: "I just measured this box with my ruler. It has one
human-foot."

CT: "You mean to say that the box is one foot long, right?"

Scientist: "I mean to say that it has one human-foot."

CT: "How can it have a human foot if it is just a box? I'm certain
that what you mean to say is that your box has the same length as one
human foot, with length being a common quality to both the box and the
foot. But a "human-foot" as a bodily appendage is distinctly
different from a "foot" as a measure of length."

Scientist: "You are just being pedantic. The terminology you are
using may apply to the field of biology, but it does not apply to my
specialty field of measuring boxes."

CT: "Um, no. I see a distinct conceptual difference between a human
foot and the length of the side of a box."

Scientist: "Now you're just playing with semantics!"


~


I think you've established your opinion on this topic. Here are a few
links to educate you and the public:

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/html/microgex.htm
"Many people mistakenly think that there is no gravity above the Earth's
atmosphere, i.e., in "space," and this is why there appears to be no
gravity aboard orbiting spacecraft."

http://microgravity.nasa.gov/wimg.html
"...scientists perform their experiments in microgravity - a condition
in which the effects of gravity are greatly reduced, sometimes described
as 'weightlessness.'"

http://microgravity.grc.nasa.gov/combustion/
"The study of combustion in an environment of apparent
weightlessness—microgravity..."

http://spacelink.nasa.gov/Instructio...hers.Guide.pdf
Note, this is a pdf document...if you don't want to open this document
directly, click on
http://spacelink.nasa.gov/Instructio.../Microgravity/


"By this definition, *a microgravity environment is one in which the
apparent weight of a system is small compared to its actual weight due
to gravity.*"
Elsewhere in the same document:
"However, freefall can be used to create a microgravity environment
*consistent with our primary definition of microgravity.*" (the emphasis
is mine)

http://www.esa.int/export/esaHS/ESAT...esearch_0.html
Note...this is an esa website ("microgravity" is an international
phenomenon)
"Scientists prefer the term microgravity to weightlessness or zero-g
because it is more accurate. There is always some residual acceleration
force, although in a good microgravity environment it is a very small
fraction of the full 1-g gravity that gives us our weight on the surface
of the Earth. Incidentally, microgravity does not mean that gravity
itself has been reduced, only gravity's effects."

http://www1.msfc.nasa.gov/NEWMSFC/slg.html
"Contrary to popular belief, Earth’s gravity still has an effect on a
spacecraft that is orbiting Earth. When in orbit around Earth, a
spacecraft has escaped only 10% of Earth’s gravitational pull. So why
does everything appear to float? Objects that are in orbit around Earth
are actually in a continuous state of freefall. This state of freefall
is called low-gravity, or microgravity, because the effects of gravity
have been greatly reduced."

http://spacelink.nasa.gov/Instructio...ce/.index.html
Note - this is a NASA educational website.
(If you can't reconstruct the link, try http://tinyurl.com/qbv6 )

"*Microgravity* literally means very little *gravity*. Another way to
think of 'micro-' is in measurement systems, such as the metric system,
where micro- means one part in a million or 1 x 10^-6 g. Scientists do
not use the term microgravity to accurately represent millionths of 1 g.
The microgravity environment, expressed by the symbol mu-g, is defined
as an environment where some of the effects of gravity are reduced
compared to what we experience at Earth's surface."


I could go on. Google gave me 340,000 returns on "microgravity". But,
it doesn't matter because you choose to look through filtered glasses
where you see only what you want to see.

Some of the articles above explicitly acknowledge that "microgravity"
doesn't mean there's no gravity in a freefall. That is what *you* think
it means. You are free to continue to subscribe to the belief that the
known is the prison of past conditioning and that you achieve the wisdom
of uncertainty by stepping into the unknown and join the dance of the
universe. But you're dancing alone and in some other universe.

Your opinion in this matter is irrelevant.

  #26  
Old October 9th 03, 05:26 PM
stmx3
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Microgravity parable

Stuf4 wrote:
From Scott Hedrick:

(Stuf4) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

- Gravity is *distinctly different* from acceleration.

While gravity has a property of acceleration, it is *not*
acceleration.

Verifiable reference, please. Not just the name of a book, please provide
the specific page and a quote.



I just found this page that gives a good set of q/a's:

http://amos.indiana.edu/library/scri...rogravity.html

Excerpts:

"...there's no such thing as zero gravity."

"...weightlessness and zero gravity are two different things."


I'm sure there are lots more references with accurate physics. Hey,
maybe even *NASA* has an accurate webpage on this. I'll check there
and let you know if I find something good.


~ CT


In response to your opening post, I listed many more references. I also
tried to find sources which discredit "microgravity". Mostly I found
sources which defined microgravity. But here are mo

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=microgravity
1. An environment in which there is very little net gravitational
force, as of a free-falling object, an orbit, or interstellar space.
2. A minute shift in gravity that can occur through geologic factors
in a region, such as the movement of the earth's crust along fault lines.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
microgravity
a condition in space in which only minuscule forces are experienced :
virtual absence of gravity; broadly : a condition of weightlessness

http://www.bartleby.com/cgi-bin/texi...avity&db=a hd
....1. An environment in which there is very little net gravitational
force, as of a free-falling object, an orbit, or interstellar space. 2.
A minute shift in gravity...

Hmmm...the term is part of the vernacular language.

  #27  
Old October 9th 03, 11:32 PM
Stuf4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Microgravity parable

From Dave Fowler:
(Stuf4)


I hope this analogy helps to illuminate the fundamental problem with
the widely used terminology: zero/microgravity.


No.... it just proves again that you're the same smug, self-satisfied jerk that
you always were.....


It is said that, "You can't please everyone."

But my understanding of the way things work is that -you can't please
*anyone*- beside yourself. They must find their own happiness, and if
they happen to be malcontent that is their choice, not mine. So I
would agree with the part about me being self-satisfied, and I
consider that to be a worthy goal.

Perhaps Polonius said it best: "to thine own self be true".


~ CT
  #28  
Old October 10th 03, 02:09 AM
Stuf4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Microgravity parable

From Rand:
Well, if one wants to get pedantic, gravity is a quantitative
mathematical model invented by Newton to explain why apples fall from
trees and planets orbit suns.


Please note that we have been discussing gravity and acceleration as
actual physical phenomena, not just math models.


No, we've been discussing math models of physical phenomena.


(Disagreement noted.)

The main point of focus has been that the concept of gravity is
distinct from the concept of acceleration. While the force of gravity
causes acceleration, many accelerations are not caused by the force of
gravity.


Which is irrelevant to your lunatic theory that space engineers and
scientists don't understand the theory.


Perhaps you'd like to offer an explanation as to why astronauts are
quoted as speaking about "no gravity" in orbit, or why NASA scientists
advertise facilities with "low gravity".


~ CT
  #29  
Old October 10th 03, 02:22 AM
Stuf4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Microgravity parable

From stmx3:

In response to your opening post, I listed many more references. I also
tried to find sources which discredit "microgravity". Mostly I found
sources which defined microgravity. But here are mo

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=microgravity
1. An environment in which there is very little net gravitational
force, as of a free-falling object, an orbit, or interstellar space.
2. A minute shift in gravity that can occur through geologic factors
in a region, such as the movement of the earth's crust along fault lines.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
microgravity
a condition in space in which only minuscule forces are experienced :
virtual absence of gravity; broadly : a condition of weightlessness

http://www.bartleby.com/cgi-bin/texi...avity&db=a hd
...1. An environment in which there is very little net gravitational
force, as of a free-falling object, an orbit, or interstellar space. 2.
A minute shift in gravity...

Hmmm...the term is part of the vernacular language.


....and NASA put it there! I consider it NASA's civic duty to take it
out. That requires education. Today I was glad to find this webpage
from Jim Oberg, former employee at NASA JSC:

http://www.jamesoberg.com/myth.html

Space Myths and Misconceptions
OMNI magazine, May 1993, pp. 38ff

Quote:

"The myth that satellites remain in orbit because they have "escaped
Earth's gravity" is perpetuated further (and falsely) by almost
universal use of the zingy but physically nonsensical phrase "zero
gravity" (and its techweenie cousin, "microgravity") to describe the
free-falling conditions aboard orbiting space vehicles. Of course,
this isn't true; gravity still exists in space. It keeps satellites
from flying straight off into interstellar emptiness. What's missing
is "weight," the resistance of gravitational attraction by an anchored
structure or a counterforce."

If one person at NASA can keep this all straight, I don't see why the
entire agency can as well. But in scrubbing that URL TLD for the term
"zero gravity", I was disappointed to see usage of the term subsequent
to the date on this OMNI article. This supports the view that people
*do* know the difference and they just use the bogus terms anyway.

Along the lines of:

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


~ CT
  #30  
Old October 10th 03, 02:35 AM
Stuf4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Microgravity parable

From stmx3:
snip
http://spacelink.nasa.gov/Instructio...ce/.index.html
Note - this is a NASA educational website.
(If you can't reconstruct the link, try http://tinyurl.com/qbv6 )

"*Microgravity* literally means very little *gravity*. Another way to
think of 'micro-' is in measurement systems, such as the metric system,
where micro- means one part in a million or 1 x 10^-6 g. Scientists do
not use the term microgravity to accurately represent millionths of 1 g.
The microgravity environment, expressed by the symbol mu-g, is defined
as an environment where some of the effects of gravity are reduced
compared to what we experience at Earth's surface."


I could go on. Google gave me 340,000 returns on "microgravity". But,
it doesn't matter because you choose to look through filtered glasses
where you see only what you want to see.

Some of the articles above explicitly acknowledge that "microgravity"
doesn't mean there's no gravity in a freefall. That is what *you* think
it means.


....and the view I hold is in agreement with a quote that you yourself
provided:

"*Microgravity* literally means very little *gravity*."

You are free to continue to subscribe to the belief that the
known is the prison of past conditioning and that you achieve the wisdom
of uncertainty by stepping into the unknown and join the dance of the
universe. But you're dancing alone and in some other universe.

Your opinion in this matter is irrelevant.



~ CT
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Relevancy of the Educator Astronaut to the Space Program stmx3 Space Shuttle 201 October 28th 03 12:00 AM
Microgravity parable Stuf4 Space Shuttle 90 October 24th 03 03:28 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.