3 ms·
I was under the impression that zero-g is the accepted terminology for when you experience free fall (in orbit, in an elevator). Is that wrong? Regardless of t
by close04 8y ago
I was under the impression that zero-g is the accepted terminology for when you experience free fall (in orbit, in an elevator). Is that wrong?
Regardless of terminology, I tried to highlight the fact that floating in space is not due to the absence of gravity as many people assume. You're experiencing about 90% of the gravity at the planet's surface just that everything else around you is accelerating along with you.
- amluto 8y agoAs far as I know, people do call it zero-g. My point is that gravity is always around, so the more interesting thing to talk about is the acceleration due to gravity in one’s reference frame. For example, here on Earth, we usually neglect the Sun’s gravity unless we’re making accurate predictions of tides.
- russdill 8y agoYup. Creating a pedantic definition of zero-g to mean "no gravitational field" is pretty useless since you'll always be in the presence of a gravitational field no matter where you are in the universe. The accepted definition is just that your g-meter reads zero. The term microgravity get used because things in orbit due to tidal forces, different orbital planes, air resistance, solar wind, and radiation pressure. There's a lot of really strong feelings on the subject though. I'd like to think that GR would let people reach some common ground, but not so much. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Micro-g_environment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Micro-g_environment
- close04 8y agoHey, it's HN, it's the perfect place to clear up misconceptions. It's definitely not pedantry.
- detuur 8y agoI would consider "misconceptions" which are irrelevant to the point being made to be the exact definition of pedantry. It detracts from the point being discussed, often is centered around some or other strict definition of a word, and is all-in-all about as constructive as being a grammar nazi. Yes, there is a gravitational field in LEO, but LEO is so negligibly close to an actual inertial frame of reference that for all intents and purposes we could (and do) call it one. The people and materials in LEO are in fact experiencing "zero gravity". Calling it zero gravity is only technically wrong in Newtonian physics, but Newtonian physics are more than just technically wrong when it comes to the reality of general relativity.
- close04 8y agoWeird, your own explanation didn't stop you from discussing something that is not even tangentially relevant to the point. My comment was meant to help and if it helped one person that's good enough for me. If you think calling me a grammar nazi (against your stated principles, might I add) helped anyone then by all means, trawl the web for opportunities to do it some more.