{
  "annotation_id": "264bb6b8-1251-4164-8826-a91021b7b3b0",
  "date_created": "2026-03-02T18:00:59.993000Z",
  "date_modified": "2026-03-02T18:00:59.993000Z",
  "file_hash": "d454dfe3a0e3976ecd279c68dc4ac03631b7b743e34f6073ef5d62eadf963926",
  "private": false,
  "record": {
    "abstract": "In 1901 the third Conference Generale des Poids et Mesures (CGPM) defined the\nweight of a body as ``the product of its mass and the acceleration due to\ngravity\". In practical terms the weight force corresponds to the gravitational\nforce. However, this gravitational definition of the weight lacks logic from\nthe perspective of present knowledge and can be misleading. In a space\ntraveling time, weight associated concepts such as \"true weight\", \"apparent\nweight\", \"weightlessness\", \"zero gravity\", \"microgravity\", are ambiguous and\nstrong deceptive. The superfluousness or ambiguousness of these concept would\nbe removed if an operational definition of the weight of a body as the force\nthe body exerts on its support or suspender is adopted. In this definition the\nweight force does not act on the body and it is not necessary to describe the\nbody\u0027s sate of motion. This avoids the imprecision of the concepts such as\n\"true weight\" and \"apparent weight\" of a body, for example. This paper\ndiscusses the need of the weight force of a body concept in Physics, and asks\nfor a re-exame of the CGPM definition to improve the physics teaching and\nlearning.",
    "arxiv_id": "physics/0506100",
    "authors": [
      "J. M. L. Figueiredo"
    ],
    "categories": [
      "physics.ed-ph"
    ],
    "title": "Do we really need the weight force?",
    "url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0506100"
  },
  "schema_id": "dorsal/arxiv",
  "source": {
    "execution_id": "0fda2561-113c-478c-a1ee-cd67ac86534c",
    "id": "arXiv Dataset IDs",
    "type": "Model",
    "variant": "snapshot-2026-03-01",
    "version": "0.1.0"
  },
  "user_id": 1000002
}