Re: [Phys-l] definitions ... purely operational, or not

[John Mallinckrodt <ajm@csupomona.edu>]

On Nov 8, 2010, at 8:40 AM, Scott Orshan wrote:

>  I'm fine with that definition. Now can we get the astronauts to stop 
> telling everybody that they are weightless, and in Zero G?

But, with that definition they *should* be saying that they are weightless.

> > "... the weight of a mass M in a specified frame of
> > reference is M times the free-fall acceleration in that specified
> > frame of reference."

John Mallinckrodt
Cal Poly Pomona