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] |
From: Larry Smith <larry.smith@SNOW.EDU>Weight is *the force on a body due to Earth's gravitational interaction with that body*. Period. Yes, I'm aware of other definitions that include *apparent weight* but this is more trouble than it's worth IMHO. I completely ban the use of the term *weightless* in my classes because it's not logically consistent with the above definition. What most authors call *weightless* is really more accurately *contact-forceless* (i.e. the absence of a contact force whose magnitude may or may not be equal to GMm/d^2).
This debate seems to resurface every year (or is it every semester?), but
it would be nice if we could all agree on the definition of weight.
Sadly, I don't think there is any closure to be had here. I'm probably in the minority though. Chabay and Sherwood use the same definition that I use.
Cheers,
Joe
Due to my excessive teaching load, I cannot reply to email during the business day.
CVAC Home Page <http://users.vnet.net/heafnerj/cvac.html>
My Book <http://www.willbell.com/new/fundephcomp.htm>
My Home Page <http://users.vnet.net/heafnerj/>
Please -- no Microsoft attachments. They're a security risk.