 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / May 2010"Siphon" definition wrong for 99 years
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2010/05/dictionary-definitio n-of-sipho.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news The really curious bit being that, sometimes, dictionaries stick in "errors" deliberately. > http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2010/05/dictionary-definitio n-of-sipho.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news The > really curious bit being that, sometimes, dictionaries stick in > "errors" deliberately. If this is an error at all (and I'd be interested to know what the physicists in this group think) it is more a textbook error than a dictionary error: i.e. dictionaries are just repeating what endless textbooks have said.  Signatureathel > > http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2010/05/dictionary-definitio n-of-sipho.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > dictionary error: i.e. dictionaries are just repeating what endless > textbooks have said. It is. And amusingly, a siphon does just the opposite: it moves liquid -against- the atmospheric pressure, Jan > If this is an error at all (and I'd be interested to know what the > physicists in this group think) it is more a textbook error than a > dictionary error: i.e. dictionaries are just repeating what endless > textbooks have said. And textbooks and encyclopedias can perpetuate errors. "Wikipedia is first reference work to correct long-standing error about the Rhine river" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-03-29/In_the_news SignatureChristian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de >> http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2010/05/dictionary-definitio n-of-sipho.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >dictionary error: i.e. dictionaries are just repeating what endless >textbooks have said. I'm no professional physicist but that just means I don't have a piece of paper or a job. (Ask the scarecrow) But the force of gravity causes atmospherics pressure, and I tend to think that can be called a force too, even though it's caused by gravity. For example, centripetal (sp?) force is caused by gravity or a rope, but it's still called cetripetal force. (Centrifugal force otoh doesn't really exist as usuall though of, so that it's called a force doesn't mean much.) SignaturePosters should say where they live, and for which area they are asking questions. I was born and then lived in Western Pa. 10 years Indianapolis 7 years Chicago 6 years Brooklyn, NY 12 years Baltimore 26 years > >> http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2010/05/dictionary-definitio n-of-sipho.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > For example, centripetal (sp?) force is caused by gravity or a rope, > but it's still called cetripetal force. [On usage] A centripetal force is just a force (any force) that points towards a centre of rotation, causing something to move in a circle. > (Centrifugal force otoh doesn't really exist as usuall though of, so > that it's called a force doesn't mean much.) Centrifugal force is just as real as the force of gravity. Both are apparent forces (aka fictitious forces) that arise when one insists on treating an accelerated frame of reference as stationary, Jan >> >> http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2010/05/dictionary-defi >nition-of-sipho.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >Centrifugal force is just as real as the force of gravity. >Both are apparent forces (aka fictitious forces) Gravity is fictitious? >that arise >when one insists on treating an accelerated frame of reference >as stationary, That's why I included "as usually thought of". I think most poeple think of it as an opposite and maybe even equal force to centripetal force, and that doesn't exist. Instead centipetal force is just inertia as it applies to revolving bodies. >Jan SignaturePosters should say where they live, and for which area they are asking questions. I was born and then lived in Western Pa. 10 years Indianapolis 7 years Chicago 6 years Brooklyn, NY 12 years Baltimore 26 years > >> >> http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2010/05/dictionary-defi > >nition-of-sipho.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Gravity is fictitious? The force, yes, as fictitious as the centrifugal force. Of course that doesn't imply that gravitation doesn't exist. It just isn't a 'real' force anymore. > >that arise > >when one insists on treating an accelerated frame of reference > >as stationary, > > That's why I included "as usually thought of". Ask an astronaut in a centrifuge what he thinks. > I think most poeple > think of it as an opposite and maybe even equal force to centripetal > force, and that doesn't exist. Indeed, the standard mistake. Most teachers opt for the easy way out, by proclaiming that 'centrifugal force doesn't exist', Jan |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.