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] definitions ... purely operational, or not

From: Bernard Cleyet <bernardcleyet@redshift.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 19:30:15 -0800

This statement (below) has been written several times and bothers me.

My "mind's eye" sees the spaceship (station) as having a gravity shield.

Will someone please help?

bc thinks gravity different from other forces, as not shield-able.

On 2010, Nov 09, , at 12:28, William Robertson wrote:

To
understand why astronauts say they are weightless, we have to
understand that they are viewing things from a different frame of
reference in which there is no gravity.

References:
- [Phys-l] Finishing up with that Dead Horse.
  - From: Chuck Britton <cvbritton@embarqmail.com>
- Re: [Phys-l] Finishing up with that Dead Horse.
  - From: William Robertson <wrobert9@ix.netcom.com>
- Re: [Phys-l] Finishing up with that Dead Horse.
  - From: "LaMontagne, Bob" <RLAMONT@providence.edu>
- Re: [Phys-l] Finishing up with that Dead Horse.
  - From: Bernard Cleyet <bernardcleyet@redshift.com>
- Re: [Phys-l] Finishing up with that Dead Horse.
  - From: Chuck Britton <cvbritton@embarqmail.com>
- Re: [Phys-l] definitions ... purely operational, or not
  - From: John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>
- Re: [Phys-l] definitions ... purely operational, or not
  - From: William Robertson <wrobert9@ix.netcom.com>
- Re: [Phys-l] definitions ... purely operational, or not
  - From: "Rauber, Joel" <Joel.Rauber@SDSTATE.EDU>
- Re: [Phys-l] definitions ... purely operational, or not
  - From: "LaMontagne, Bob" <RLAMONT@providence.edu>
- Re: [Phys-l] definitions ... purely operational, or not
  - From: William Robertson <wrobert9@ix.netcom.com>
- Re: [Phys-l] definitions ... purely operational, or not
  - From: "LaMontagne, Bob" <RLAMONT@providence.edu>
- Re: [Phys-l] definitions ... purely operational, or not
  - From: William Robertson <wrobert9@ix.netcom.com>
- Re: [Phys-l] definitions ... purely operational, or not
  - From: "LaMontagne, Bob" <RLAMONT@providence.edu>
- Re: [Phys-l] definitions ... purely operational, or not
  - From: William Robertson <wrobert9@ix.netcom.com>
- Re: [Phys-l] definitions ... purely operational, or not
  - From: John Mallinckrodt <ajm@csupomona.edu>
- Re: [Phys-l] definitions ... purely operational, or not
  - From: William Robertson <wrobert9@ix.netcom.com>
- Re: [Phys-l] definitions ... purely operational, or not
  - From: "LaMontagne, Bob" <RLAMONT@providence.edu>
- Re: [Phys-l] definitions ... purely operational, or not
  - From: William Robertson <wrobert9@ix.netcom.com>

Prev by Date: Re: [Phys-l] definitions ... purely operational, or not
Next by Date: Re: [Phys-l] Solving American ______________
Previous by thread: Re: [Phys-l] definitions ... purely operational, or not
Next by thread: Re: [Phys-l] definitions ... purely operational, or not
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread