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]

Re: [Phys-l] g...



I have become convinced that defining, in any reference frame, weight,
a.k.a. local gravitational force, a.k.a. gravitational force on some
particle, as the mass of the particle times the acceleration it
experiences when no forces aside from GMm/r^2 forces are acting on it,
is reasonable, correct, self-consistent, and conventional. It seems
that many of you on this list subscribe to that definition. That being
the case, why didn't you answer John Denker's question from last month
(about pseudo forces) by stating that a pseudo force is a gravitational
force?

I just went through last months discussion of pseudo forces. The
following names were used for the kind of force under consideration
there:

pseudo force
non-inertial force
fictitious force
centrifugal force
Coriolis Force
Virtual force
rot-force (rotational frame force)
inertial force
frame force
d'Alambert force

John Denker came the closest to saying that a pseudo force is a
gravitational force when he wrote:

* Question: What about gravitation? Is it a pseudo force? Feynman
tip-toes around this one also. He says we must "consider the
possibility" that gravity is a pseudo force ... but never quite
answers his own question.

FWIW I would answer "yes" to the previous question. but if
there are counterarguments I'd be delighted to see them.