Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
... implicit acceleration measurement is the crux of the
matter IMO regarding whether or not a fish-scale measurement is
fundamentally an independent method or not.
I gather, since you haven't objected yet,
that you agree that there is an
implicit (usually quite explicit) velocity measurement in the use of the
fish-scale. Of course, a velocity measurement isn't an acceleration
measurement.
If we are using the fish-scale to measure an F that we are going to plug
into the F=ma equation then it strikes me as implicit that I had better be
doing the measurement utilizing an inertial reference frame, i.e. the tick
marks on the scale had better constitute such a frame; (or else I'm not
measuring the usual F's that appear in the usual statement of Newton's 2nd
law; i.e. "in an inertial reference frame the sum of the F's equal ma".)
The only way I know to know if some frame of reference is inertial is to
measure its acceleration relative to an agreed upon fiducial inertial frame
(here is the implicit acceleration measurement).