Liberal Media flunks physics test; Describes objects in Weightless environment as having weight

Reuters and AP Articles -- URL in Body of Article | 11-26-02 | Various -- AP and Reuters

[topher]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/space/20021126/sc_space/endeavour_docks_with_space_station__crews_greet_each_other

http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/11/26/shuttle.spacewalk.ap/index.html

The above articles have inaccuracies that will help students flunk physics.

Both the AP and Reuters have botched articles on the space shuttle Endeavor doing work on ISS.

The articles refer to the "weight" of the girder to be put in place and, even the AP article refers to the weight of the Space Station.

However, this shows how uneducated the media really is:

A quote from CNN-AP article:

The 14-ton girder, an aluminum beam crammed with wiring and loaded with a rail cart and radiators, increased the mass of the entire space station to almost 200 tons.

In outer space, it is a weightless environment. To describe the "weight" of the space station is a serious "science" error -- it should be described in terms of mass.

The Reuters/Yahoo article has the same problem. Here is a quote from that article:

The heavy lifting for that job is to be done -- literally -- on Tuesday.

Wetherbee will operate the shuttle's robot arm and is to pluck the 14.5-ton truss from the cargo bay beginning about 10:20 a.m. EST (1520 GMT). Once clear of the bay, Wetherbee will hand off the truss to the space station's robot arm, which Whitson will operate.

Heavy lifting in a weightless environment -- this truly shows how bad the media is in this country.

This is a "science" article -- so there is no excuses.

And since the culprits are Reuters and AP, two of the major wire services, it shows how they have a flunking grade.

To correctly describe objects in Outer Space, the term "mass" is used, and not weight.

[topher]

Admittedly, most of the body of the article are "vanity" comments. But I had to point out the "flaws" in the reporting by the two articles.

It is a a very bad example for our children -- the reporters should know the difference between "mass" and "weight" and how outer space affects that.

[rvoitier]

Mr. Wizard bump

[pabianice]

Where have you been? Most of today's "professional journalists" were students too stupid to get a degree in that most demanding of fields, secondary education...

[Pilsner]

"Weight is what you lift. Mass is what hurts when it hits you. Weight depends on gravity. Mass is constant."

H. Beam Piper

[DWSUWF]

"...Where have you been? Most of today's "professional journalists" were students too stupid to get a degree in that most demanding of fields, secondary education..."

Exactly.

These are the same village idiots who use precise, descriptive terms like 'Assault Rifle', 'Submachinegun' and 'Semi-Automatic Pistol' interchangeably, with gleeful ignorance.

They’re liars, with an agenda, yes…

But their constant factual errors are frequently as much the product of their astonishing stupidity as they are of their intentional misrepresentation.

[Lokibob]

You are 100% right and about 80% wrong.

The shuttle lifted a 14.5 ton girder to the station. The total weight lifted to space for this project is 200 tons. The public understands tons, and if you are going to write for the public, you don't bury them in technical details. At least you don't if you want them to read what you wrote.

I'm off to look to see what "Scientific American" has written about the mass of the space shuttle.

[Izzy Dunne]

The articles refer to the "weight" of the girder to be put in place and, even the AP article refers to the weight of the Space Station.
A quote from CNN-AP article:
The 14-ton girder, an aluminum beam crammed with wiring and loaded with a rail cart and radiators, increased the mass of the entire space station to almost 200 tons.

--- What's your beef with that? They clearly said "mass", when you claim they said "weight". Adding 14 tons of mass to what was there makes it almost 200 tons of mass.

[supercat]

True, force and mass are different, but in common usage the metric units "pound", "ton", etc. are used frequently as both measures of force and of mass (the amount of mass required to produce a specified level of gravitational force on the surface of Earth). Indeed, it's also quite common to use the metric mass units (g, kg) to describe force. Probably has to do with the fact that more people are familiar with the conversions between kg and lb (0.454kg/lb) than N and lb (4.45N/lb?)

[coloradan]

Don't forget! The mass media is absoluetly 100% factually correct about every single technical detail in every single story except for those rare stories about which you just happen to have personal knowledge. Those are the only mass media stories in error!

[Lokibob]

Hmm, this article in Scientific Americn makes it absolutely clear:

 

http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=000ACD5C-5FD7-1C71-9EB7809EC588F2D7&catID=3&topicID=13

 

 

How do scientists measure or calculate the weight of a planet?

Rusi Yan
Marlborough, Mass.

  1   2   next »

Barry Lienert, a geophysicist at the University of Hawaii, provides the following explanation.

We start by determining the mass of the Earth. Issac Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation tells us that the force of attraction between two objects is proportional the product of their masses divided by the square of the distance between their centers of mass. To obtain a reasonable approximation, we assume their geographical centers are their centers of mass.

Because we know the radius of the Earth, we can use the Law of Universal Gravitation to calculate the mass of the Earth in terms of the gravitational force on an object (its weight) at the Earth's surface, using the radius of the Earth as the distance. We also need the Constant of Proportionality in the Law of Universal Gravitation, G. This value was experimentally determined by Henry Cavendish in the 18th century to be the extemely small force of 6.67 x 10^-11 Newtons between two objects weighing one kilogram each and separated by one meter. Cavendish determined this constant by accurately measuring the horizontal force between metal spheres in an experiment sometimes referred to as "weighing the earth."

Calculating the Sun's Mass

Knowing the mass and radius of the Earth and the distance of the Earth from the sun, we can calculate the mass of the sun (right), again by using the law of universal gravitation. The gravitational attraction between the Earth and the sun is G times the sun's mass times the Earth's mass, divided by the distance between the Earth and the sun squared. This attraction must be equal to the centripetal force needed to keep the earth in its (almost circular) orbit around the sun. The centripetal force is the Earth's mass times the square of its speed divided by its distance from the sun. By astronomically determining the distance to the sun, we can calculate the earth's speed around the sun and hence the sun's mass.

Once we have the sun's mass, we can similarly determine the mass of any planet by astronomically determining the planet's orbital radius and period, calculating the required centripetal force and equating this force to the force predicted by the law of universal gravitation using the sun's mass.

Additional details are provided by Gregory A. Lyzenga, a physicist at Harvey Mudd College in Claremont, Calif.

The weight (or the mass) of a planet is determined by its gravitational effect on other bodies. Newton's Law of Gravitation states that every bit of matter in the universe attracts every other with a gravitational force that is proportional to its mass. For objects of the size we encounter in everyday life, this force is so minuscule that we don't notice it. However for objects the size of planets or stars, it is of great importance.

In order to use gravity to find the mass of a planet, we must somehow measure the strength of its "tug" on another object. If the planet in question has a moon (a natural satellite), then nature has already done the work for us. By observing the time it takes for the satellite to orbit its primary planet, we can utilize Newton's equations to infer what the mass of the planet must be.

Image: NEAR

MASS of asteroid Mathilde was calculated by measuring gravitational perturbations in the course of the passing NEAR spacecraft.

For planets without observable natural satellites, we must be more clever. Although Mercury and Venus (for example) do not have moons, they do exert a small pull on one another, and on the other planets of the solar system. As a result, the planets follow paths that are subtly different than they would be without this perturbing effect. Although the mathematics is a bit more difficult, and the uncertainties are greater, astronomers can use these small deviations to determine how massive the moonless planets are.

[okie01]

The Mainstream Media:
IGNORANCE ON PARADE.

Any news article that deals with one's area of technical expertise will invariably be found to have egregious errors of fact. Occasionally, it's an honest mistake. More often the culprit is either stone ignorance or simple inability to comprehend anything beyond the mundane.

Even if the article is non-technical and concerned with a particular news event, the acute observer who was there or actually participated in the event will almost always find errors in the reporting. Some of them not just errors of detail, but fundamental to the story.

The fact is, while prostitution might be the "oldest profession", journalism is assuredly the "dumbest profession."

[RightOnline]

Well, the weight of the turkey and fixin's that I will soon consume will undoubtedly increase my body mass significantly. This will necessitate additional workouts at the gym in order to decrease said mass to an acceptable, manageable level.

"...n' that's all I've got to say 'bout that."
Forrest Gump

[Leisler]

How do people who are knowledgeable and skilled bout nothing, believe they can accurately report on everything?

Am I missing something her? I mean I see a event, and then I see people who have spent their entire lives studying this type of event are arguing. Meanwhile the reports just lala an article together and palm it off as true.

[topher]

The shuttle lifted a 14.5 ton girder to the station. The total weight lifted to space for this project is 200 tons. The public understands tons, and if you are going to write for the public, you don't bury them in technical details. At least you don't if you want them to read what you wrote.

The reporter could have said that when the shuttle Endeavor blasted off, the girder weighed 14.5 tons (actually more during liftoff), and that in the weightless environment of space, it has no weight, but has mass.

In other words, the reporter could have given a simple explanation, and an educational one, without being too "technical". Even children would understand that astronauts "floating" in "outer space" means that they are in a "weightless environment".

Many conservatives will remember the "hell" given to VP Quayle for mispelling potato -- a very simple mistake.

If they choose to do that, then I can roast the liberal media for serious errors on a science article supposedly written by someone knowledgeable enough to write about the shuttle mission.

[IronJack]

Technically the term is "mass." But if you're writing for the average fourth grader -- which is what the reading audience is these days -- splitting physical hairs won't get you many readers.

Sad but true, most journalists wouldn't know the difference between mass and weight if you explained it using a sock puppet. They didn't become journalists because they were good at physics.

[okie01]

"How do people who are knowledgeable and skilled bout nothing, believe they can accurately report on everything?"

Truth and accuracy are no longer at the top of a reporter's priority list.

Hell, they may not even be at the bottom...

[Monty22]

Space is not weightless. orbiting shuttles/space stations are in a situation called 'microgravity'. It's only relatively close to zero gravity in relationship to the Earth since it is in constant free-fall. It's still under the influence of gravity from the moon, sun, stars, whatever.

Also, mass itself is never constant. Much like time and energy, it changes with velocity. As you approach the speed of like, your mass increases and time slows down. Relatively speaking..

[Lokibob]

Now you are splitting hairs. Ok,the girder weighed 14.5 tons on liftoff. It probably pulled 3 gee's. That means it probably weighed 43.5 tons at sometime during the trip.

When the girder went into freefall, it had a mass of 14.5 tons (splitting hairs, a little less since it is further from the earth), but the 14.5 tons still works.

Interesting fact, 14.5 tons in orbit can be moved with a robotic arm that only exerts 50 lb force maximum. The momentum, if it hit something, would be like 14.5 tons traveling at the speed generated by the arm. That is why they move so slow. Things could get out of hand very quickly.

Here is another shuttle factiod:
The shuttle could actually fly thru 100 mph wind at altitude, but be grounded for winds that were 30 mph. Why? If the 100 MPH wind were steady, the shuttle would correct for it, however, a 30 mph VARIABLE wind would cause the shuttle to correct violently. With the forces the shuttle puts out, all this correction would over-stress the frame, causing distruction.

[Godel]

When the girder went into freefall, it had a mass of 14.5 tons (splitting hairs, a little less since it is further from the earth), but the 14.5 tons still works.

You're missing the entire point. Lbs and Tons are a measure of weight, not mass. They are two different things. Saying "a mass of 14.5 tons" is as nonsensical as saying "a volume of 5 feet" or "a length of 3 grams"

Mass is invariant, weight is simply a measure of the gravity acting on the mass at any given moment. If you take an object with a mass of 100kg, its mass will be the same on Earth, the Moon, Jupiter, or orbit. But it's weight will be different each place.

[nicollo]

You think this is bad? Wait 'till they start reporting on the economy, or politics.