## "The only instance where mass and weight are different."

For the discussion of the sciences. Physics problems, chemistry equations, biology weirdness, it all goes here.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

wtfxcore
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 6:45 pm UTC

### "The only instance where mass and weight are different."

So, this topic comes from my middle school sister's science homework.

The question is, "What is the only instance where your mass and weight are different?"
The answer that her teacher gave her is "Anywhere other than Earth."

My argument is, technically on Earth, your mass and weight aren't the same either.
Mass is measured in (kilo)grams, weight is measured in Newtons.

I know I may be being overly critical, but it bugs me.
On Earth, my mass could be, let's say, 50kg. So my weight on Earth would be roughly 9.8 TIMES 50kg.
Those aren't the same numbers, correct? I know that, informally, we use weight and mass interchangeably. But that doesn't mean technically that mass and weight are the same!

What do you think? Do you agree with me, or am I just overthinking things?

Dr. Diaphanous
Posts: 252
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 9:38 pm UTC
Location: UK

### Re: "The only instance where mass and weight are different."

Wouldn't your weight and mass also be different*, even on Earth, when you are accelerating or decelerating, such as in a lift or in free fall? Maybe the question is asking something to do with that.

*I suppose the question is using "different" to mean "not in a 9.8N/kg ratio"
"God works in mysterious and breathtakingly cruel ways."

Tass
Posts: 1909
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:21 pm UTC
Location: Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen.

### Re: "The only instance where mass and weight are different."

wtfxcore wrote:So, this topic comes from my middle school sister's science homework.

The question is, "What is the only instance where your mass and weight are different?"
The answer that her teacher gave her is "Anywhere other than Earth."

My argument is, technically on Earth, your mass and weight aren't the same either.
Mass is measured in (kilo)grams, weight is measured in Newtons.

I know I may be being overly critical, but it bugs me.
On Earth, my mass could be, let's say, 50kg. So my weight on Earth would be roughly 9.8 TIMES 50kg.
Those aren't the same numbers, correct? I know that, informally, we use weight and mass interchangeably. But that doesn't mean technically that mass and weight are the same!

What do you think? Do you agree with me, or am I just overthinking things?

In SI indeed mass and weight are proportional but not equal anywhere. As you say they have different units.

But he might have a point (not really but you could make an argument for it) if you are using the units pounds weight and pounds force, both are commonly just called pounds, and there is only a one to one relationship when the gravitational acceleration is g.

Anyway it is still not true on Earth in accelerated frames.

doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5528
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

### Re: "The only instance where mass and weight are different."

Yeah, you can find elevators on earth. This is a sloppy question.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3712
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

### Re: "The only instance where mass and weight are different."

Also consider that the force of gravity acting on you varies depending on altitude and latitude.

So, even on Earth, standing perfectly still on solid ground, Mass != Weight.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

### Re: "The only instance where mass and weight are different."

Not to mention the presence of groundwater, which is why we can use gravity detectors to map the Earth with satellites.
In fact, mass and weight have entirely different dimensions, so they can't be said to be equal. Your mass is your resistance to acceleration, your weight is the force necessary to stop your acceleration. So your sister could probably argue to get her marks back, if she lost any.
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?

curtis95112
Posts: 638
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 5:23 pm UTC

### Re: "The only instance where mass and weight are different."

If the teacher is reasonable, she could get her points back by claiming that the gravitational acceleration isn't exactly g on most places on Earth.

But anyway, bad question. Mass doesn't equal weight. They're different concepts and the question isn't helping the students.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Роберт wrote:Sure, but at least they hit the intended target that time.

Well, if you shoot enough people, you're bound to get the right one eventually.

Thats the best description of the USA ever.

Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

### Re: "The only instance where mass and weight are different."

Not to mention the terrible phrasing. "everywhere but x" is not a single instance.

Q: "Who was the only person that didn't write Hamlet?"
A: Everybody who wasn't Shakespeare.

Also the answer is wrong for another reason as the one already given as well. If I'm on a spaceship accelerating at 1 g my mass equals my weight (for a certain definition of equals), but I'm not on earth.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7588
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

### Re: "The only instance where mass and weight are different."

Diadem wrote:Q: "Who was the only person that didn't write Hamlet?"
A: Everybody who wasn't Shakespeare.

There were versions of Hamlet before Shakespeare. [/pedantic]

AvatarIII
Posts: 2098
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:28 pm UTC
Location: W.Sussex, UK

### Re: "The only instance where mass and weight are different."

Diadem wrote:Not to mention the terrible phrasing. "everywhere but x" is not a single instance.

Q: "Who was the only person that didn't write Hamlet?"
A: Everybody who wasn't Shakespeare.

Also the answer is wrong for another reason as the one already given as well. If I'm on a spaceship accelerating at 1 g my mass equals my weight (for a certain definition of equals), but I'm not on earth.

yeah this was my complaint too.

curtis95112
Posts: 638
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 5:23 pm UTC

### Re: "The only instance where mass and weight are different."

If your sister has any intention of going into a STEM field, it might be beneficial to find a new teacher if possible or to get someone competent to privately tutor her. The knowledge you're exposed to during your formative years is very important.
While you can't generally tell the competence of a teacher from a single question, that question is horrible enough to warrant suspicion.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Роберт wrote:Sure, but at least they hit the intended target that time.

Well, if you shoot enough people, you're bound to get the right one eventually.

Thats the best description of the USA ever.

Aelfyre
Posts: 358
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 4:22 pm UTC
Location: 3 decades west of the teenage wasteland
Contact:

### Re: "The only instance where mass and weight are different."

Does your teacher have a particularly bad sense of humor? Maybe the answer they are looking for is "At a Catholic church."
Xanthir wrote:To be fair, even perfectly friendly antimatter wildebeests are pretty deadly.

Gigano
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 8:38 pm UTC
Location: Groningen, The Netherlands

### Re: "The only instance where mass and weight are different."

Aelfyre wrote:Does your teacher have a particularly bad sense of humor? Maybe the answer they are looking for is "At a Catholic church."

*groan*

The pun is good, but it's just so amazingly lame. :')

OT: I agree with what has been said here: mass and weight aren't the same concepts, have different units and weight is too much dependent on environmental factors for it to be ever considered a constant quantity such as mass. Tell the teacher, via your sister, never to ask that question again and suggest reading up on same basic physics.
Omne ignotum pro magnifico.

dainbramage
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 6:25 am UTC

### Re: "The only instance where mass and weight are different."

Yes, the teacher is completely wrong. The correct answer would be "the only instance where mass and weight are different is all the fricking time". Bad science teachers seem to be very common (I had a terrible physics teacher... I think my favourite moment was getting docked marks in an exam for not putting units on a dimensionless constant). Hopefully your sister's bright enough to know when they're wrong, and/or look up the material herself. If you haven't already done so, you should probably make sure your sister understands that they're different.

Tass
Posts: 1909
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:21 pm UTC
Location: Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen.

### Re: "The only instance where mass and weight are different."

dainbramage wrote:I think my favourite moment was getting docked marks in an exam for not putting units on a dimensionless constant.

Wow. Which constant? And what units did the teacher want?

mfb
Posts: 948
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 7:48 pm UTC

### Re: "The only instance where mass and weight are different."

wtfxcore wrote:The question is, "What is the only instance where your mass and weight are different?"

May be expanded for models with multiple universes.

The question is really strange...

curtis95112
Posts: 638
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 5:23 pm UTC

### Re: "The only instance where mass and weight are different."

Tass wrote:
dainbramage wrote:I think my favourite moment was getting docked marks in an exam for not putting units on a dimensionless constant.

Wow. Which constant? And what units did the teacher want?

Maybe an equilibrium constant?
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Роберт wrote:Sure, but at least they hit the intended target that time.

Well, if you shoot enough people, you're bound to get the right one eventually.

Thats the best description of the USA ever.

wtfxcore
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 6:45 pm UTC

### Re: "The only instance where mass and weight are different."

Anyway, it's been a while since I've checked the thread.

Thank you guys for all the responses- I was getting so fired up that day and I wanted to make sure I wasn't in the wrong!

My sister is 13 and chose to take that opportunity to argue with me (one of her favorite pastimes.) She said "I think my teacher knows more than you do" - even though I'm in school for Secondary Physics Education, no big deal. She said that her science teacher previously worked for NASA, so I couldn't possibly be right.

Oh, youngins. Her dream careers at this point are lawyer, marine biologist, and professional cheerleader.
I still highly suspect that one of us was switched at birth.

dainbramage
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 6:25 am UTC

### Re: "The only instance where mass and weight are different."

Tass wrote:
dainbramage wrote:I think my favourite moment was getting docked marks in an exam for not putting units on a dimensionless constant.

Wow. Which constant? And what units did the teacher want?

Gamma in relativity. Which I guess isn't a constant, but eh. It was the same 3 times for the question, so I calculated it once at the start then reused it. I'm not sure what units she wanted, just that "everything has to have units". Trying to show her that it didn't have units through dimensional analysis only resulted in "if you keep pestering me, I'm going to dock you marks". There were a few other cases with the same teacher, such as a question where I gave a more detailed answer than they required, and lost marks for it (A diagram of two parallel wires with currents being run through them. Question: why are they pulled together? I wrote about how the current in one wire produces a magnetic field which interacts with the current in the other wire. The correct answer was "because the currents are parallel"). I can't remember the rest, but there were several other cases similar to that. And it wasn't just exam stuff, she was consistently wrong about a lot of stuff when teaching it. That is, when her teaching involved more than spending the first 15 minutes of class googling whatever she was meant to be teaching for that day. Oh, and she always pronounced de Broglie as "de-bro-glee".

In retrospect I should have gone to the head of curriculum at my school (who was nice and always reasonable), since this occurred in the final year of our secondary education where every mark you do or don't get is important for university entry, plus her teaching would have put the whole class at a disadvantage come the end-of-year exams which are universal rather than set by the school. The random docking of marks also cost me my first place in physics, which is extremely important with how the system worked (basically, marks are split into internal, which are done by the school, and external, which are sat by everyone. Internal marks are scaled by external, such that the highest rank internally gets the top mark from that school in the external exam, and the second rank will get approximately the second highest mark in the external exam).

Tass
Posts: 1909
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:21 pm UTC
Location: Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen.

### Re: "The only instance where mass and weight are different."

dainbramage wrote:Gamma in relativity. Which I guess isn't a constant, but eh. It was the same 3 times for the question, so I calculated it once at the start then reused it. I'm not sure what units she wanted, just that "everything has to have units". Trying to show her that it didn't have units through dimensional analysis only resulted in "if you keep pestering me, I'm going to dock you marks". There were a few other cases with the same teacher, such as a question where I gave a more detailed answer than they required, and lost marks for it (A diagram of two parallel wires with currents being run through them. Question: why are they pulled together? I wrote about how the current in one wire produces a magnetic field which interacts with the current in the other wire. The correct answer was "because the currents are parallel").

Ouch.

Macbi
Posts: 941
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 8:32 am UTC
Location: UKvia

### Re: "The only instance where mass and weight are different."

dainbramage wrote: Oh, and she always pronounced de Broglie as "de-bro-glee".
Aww... dammit. How is it supposed to be pronounced?
Indigo is a lie.
Which idiot decided that websites can't go within 4cm of the edge of the screen?
There should be a null word, for the question "Is anybody there?" and to see if microphones are on.

eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

### Re: "The only instance where mass and weight are different."

It's pronounced "de broy" (with broy rhyming with boy).
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

thoughtfully
Posts: 2253
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 12:25 am UTC
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

### Re: "The only instance where mass and weight are different."

and Euler is pronounced oiler

Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Dopefish
Posts: 855
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 5:46 am UTC
Location: The Well of Wishes

### Re: "The only instance where mass and weight are different."

Hum, I knew it wasn't "de-bro-glee", but I thought it was de-broy-lee. Good to know theres apparently no lee part and the entire end of his name is just there to throw people off.

Another oft mispronounced thing: LaTeX is lay-tech.
Last edited by Dopefish on Thu Oct 27, 2011 11:19 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5528
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

### Re: "The only instance where mass and weight are different."

Lah-tech is also acceptable in certain circles.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

Tass
Posts: 1909
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:21 pm UTC
Location: Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen.

### Re: "The only instance where mass and weight are different."

thoughtfully wrote:and Euler is pronounced oiler

Of course. How else would you pronounce it?

yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

### Re: "The only instance where mass and weight are different."

Many people say You-ler
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?

Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7588
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

### Re: "The only instance where mass and weight are different."

Euler and de Broglie are different cases. Euler has just the natural pronunciation in German, but "de Broglie" is not obvious to French speakers either. It's like Lancastershire.

jmorgan3
Posts: 710
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 12:22 am UTC

### Re: "The only instance where mass and weight are different."

Tass wrote:
thoughtfully wrote:and Euler is pronounced oiler

Of course. How else would you pronounce it?

Out of curiosity, how do you pronounce "Euclid"?
This signature is Y2K compliant.
Last updated 6/29/108

cpt
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 5:02 am UTC
Location: Boston/Cambridge

### Re: "The only instance where mass and weight are different."

jmorgan3 wrote:
Tass wrote:
thoughtfully wrote:and Euler is pronounced oiler

Of course. How else would you pronounce it?

Out of curiosity, how do you pronounce "Euclid"?

I believe that this one actually is "You-clid". Reinforced by the way every single person I have ever heard has pronounced "Euclidean"

Tass
Posts: 1909
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:21 pm UTC
Location: Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen.

### Re: "The only instance where mass and weight are different."

jmorgan3 wrote:Out of curiosity, how do you pronounce "Euclid"?

Its been a long time since I've had to pronounce it as part of an english sentence. Every dane I know pronounces it (in danish talk) as "øvklid". Hmm I don't know how to write that so the pronounciation is clear to an english speaker, I should really learn the phonetic alphabet one of these days. I guess the wowel as in french "neuf" followed by a v or w, and ending with the soft danish d. I know it is wrong but You-klid would sound terribly out of place in a danish sentence.

I guess if I actually had to say euclid while speaking english I would stumple on it because the danish pronunciation I am used to would sound awfully out of place in an english sentence. Unless I had thought about it before hand and remembered to say you-klid.

Euler we pronounce as "øgler", except with more force on the first syllable, "oiler" comes pretty close in this case though again the force on the first syllable is more than the spelling indicates. So, yeah, "eu" gets pronounced differently in the two names. (Even though curiously I would use the same 'Ø' to write it phonetically in danish. Danish is almost as irregular as english.)

Unsurprisingly we get the german right but the greek wrong. Closeness of language probably have a lot to do with it.

Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7588
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

### Re: "The only instance where mass and weight are different."

You sure the Greek one is wrong? Pronunciation of dead languages is fraud with uncertainty, but what I was taught as best guess sounds a lot like "eu as in neuf, followed by a w". Perhaps a bit closer to "a as in english bane, followed by w".

So euclides would then be something like "aw-clee-des", with the a from bane and the last e from bed. Or perhaps "aou", using the same long "a", but the ou from you.

That's not how it is pronounced here, just what they taught me in school as how Greek was perhaps pronounced, somewhere around 400 BC or so, in the neighbourhood of Athens.

eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

### Re: "The only instance where mass and weight are different."

Zamfir wrote:Euler and de Broglie are different cases. Euler has just the natural pronunciation in German, but "de Broglie" is not obvious to French speakers either. It's like Lancastershire.

No, even though it is the shire of Lancaster, it's spelt Lancashire so its pronunciation is fairly obvious. Better examples in English would Cholmondeley (pronounced chum-lee) or possibly Leicester (less-ter).

cpt wrote:
jmorgan3 wrote:
Tass wrote:
thoughtfully wrote:and Euler is pronounced oiler

Of course. How else would you pronounce it?

Out of curiosity, how do you pronounce "Euclid"?

I believe that this one actually is "You-clid". Reinforced by the way every single person I have ever heard has pronounced "Euclidean"

I believe this is the standard pronunciation of a greek "eu" in English, because [eʊ̯] (the sound Zamfir is describing) is a very hard diphthong for most English speakers to pronounce and mutates into "you" fairly naturally by simply making it a rising diphthong and a couple of small movements to make it fit the usual phones.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7588
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

### Re: "The only instance where mass and weight are different."

eSOANEM wrote:
Zamfir wrote:Euler and de Broglie are different cases. Euler has just the natural pronunciation in German, but "de Broglie" is not obvious to French speakers either. It's like Lancastershire.

No, even though it is the shire of Lancaster, it's spelt Lancashire so its pronunciation is fairly obvious. Better examples in English would Cholmondeley (pronounced chum-lee) or possibly Leicester

Doh! I meant to use Leicester, but mixed them up somewhere in between.

gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26726
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

### Re: "The only instance where mass and weight are different."

Tass wrote:
jmorgan3 wrote:Out of curiosity, how do you pronounce "Euclid"?
Every dane I know pronounces it (in danish talk) as "øvklid".
...
Euler we pronounce as "øgler"
The point being, both begin in English with "eu", so it's natural for an English speaker unfamiliar with one or the other to be inclined to pronounce them beginning with the same sound.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

tomandlu
Posts: 1111
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 10:22 am UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

### Re: "The only instance where mass and weight are different."

wtfxcore wrote:What do you think? Do you agree with me, or am I just overthinking things?

In fairness to the teacher, although inaccurate for the all the reasons others have pointed out, as an introduction to the difference between weight and mass, it strikes me as a reasonable approximation.
How can I think my way out of the problem when the problem is the way I think?

thoughtfully
Posts: 2253
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 12:25 am UTC
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

### Re: "The only instance where mass and weight are different."

tomandlu wrote:
wtfxcore wrote:What do you think? Do you agree with me, or am I just overthinking things?

In fairness to the teacher, although inaccurate for the all the reasons others have pointed out, as an introduction to the difference between weight and mass, it strikes me as a reasonable approximation.

It would be far better stated as "the only instance when mass and weight are the same". I don't think I'd quibble much with that.

Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Soralin
Posts: 1347
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:06 am UTC

### Re: "The only instance where mass and weight are different."

Even then it doesn't really fit, they're different units, weight has units of force, not mass. The only way it really fits is by people colloquially and incorrectly using units of mass when they mean weight, or vice-versa.

I'd say something like this might be a better introduction:

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/misconceptions.php
Mass Is Not Weight

There is a difference between weight and mass. An object's mass is always the same, but an object's weight depends upon what planet it is sitting on. A brick with a mass of one kilogram will have a weight of 9.81 newtons (2.2 pounds) on Terra, a weight of 1.62 newtons on Luna (0.36 pounds), and a weight of zero newtons (0 pounds) on the International Space Station. But in all cases it's mass will be the same: one kilogram. (Chris Buzon points out that if the object is moving at relativistic velocities relative to you, you will measure a mass increase. But this is not noticeable at ordinary relative velocities.)

The practical consequence is that if you are in a spacesuit on the Space Station, you cannot move everything by tapping it with your pinky finger (you may start it moving at a rate of one millimeter per week, but that is close enough to "cannot" for government work). The Space Shuttle may be floating next to the station with a weight of zero, but it still has a mass of 90 metric tons. If it is stationary and you pushed on it, there will be very little effect (in fact, about the same effect as if the Shuttle was sitting on the tarmac at Cape Kennedy and you gave it a shove).

And if it is moving slowly on a collision course with the station, and you are in between, the fact that it has zero weight will not prevent it from crushing you like a bug despite your attempts to stop it. It takes just as much energy to stop an object as it took to start it moving.

Sorry, but your orbital construction crews will NOT be able to manually manipulate multi-ton girders like they were toothpicks.

The other factor to consider is Newton's Third Law. If you push on a girder, there will be both action and reaction. Since the girder has more mass, it will start moving a microscopic amount. But since you have less, you will start moving in the opposite direction with much more velocity. This renders many common tools unusable in the free fall environment, such as hammers and screwdrivers.

Tass
Posts: 1909
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:21 pm UTC
Location: Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen.

### Re: "The only instance where mass and weight are different."

Soralin wrote:
And if it is moving slowly on a collision course with the station, and you are in between, the fact that it has zero weight will not prevent it from crushing you like a bug despite your attempts to stop it. It takes just as much energy to stop an object as it took to start it moving.

Of course things are somewhat easier to move when they have no weight given that you can apply force over time. If "slowly" here is something like 10cm/s then you should be able to stop it you push against it with all your strength while slowly squatting, but if you reach the end of your range of motion and it is still moving considerably then you are in big trouble.

Soralin
Posts: 1347
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:06 am UTC

### Re: "The only instance where mass and weight are different."

Tass wrote:
Soralin wrote:
And if it is moving slowly on a collision course with the station, and you are in between, the fact that it has zero weight will not prevent it from crushing you like a bug despite your attempts to stop it. It takes just as much energy to stop an object as it took to start it moving.

Of course things are somewhat easier to move when they have no weight given that you can apply force over time. If "slowly" here is something like 10cm/s then you should be able to stop it you push against it with all your strength while slowly squatting, but if you reach the end of your range of motion and it is still moving considerably then you are in big trouble.

Well let's see, it's listed as 90 tons. Lets say that you stand between the two of them, and can start pushing against it and the station when it's 2 meters away, and at 0.5m away is when you start getting crushed. at 10cm/s, it would traverse that distance over a period of 15s. If you're able to apply constant force to bring it to a stop over that distance, then it would take 30s to travel the whole 1.5m, before coming to a stop. Which means you have to provide 0.1m/s of acceleration to a 90,000kg object over 30 seconds. So, 0.003333 m/s2, of acceleration to a 90,000 kg object, is 300N. Or approximately the amount of force of holding a 30.6kg mass above your head on Earth. Although not quite as easily, as you have to keep providing that force as it's lowering down against you.

So at that speed, that might actually be doable, although there's still the potential for doing some damage to you if you can't apply that much force that whole time, or if it's moving a little bit faster than that, etc (say if it was moving at 0.2m/s, and you had 1m to apply the force in, you'd have to apply a constant 1800N over 10s, or the equivalent of holding up a 183.7kg object on Earth). You might even get a bit of extra time from the station below you getting pushed back a bit, although the ISS is about 450 tons, so it wouldn't move as much. Also make sure the place you're standing is well reinforced, your feet getting pushed through the floor might prevent you from getting crushed, but you probably don't want to depressurize the station.

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests