Re: [Phys-l] Weightless (running around in circles)

["Jeffrey Schnick" <JSchnick@Anselm.Edu>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [mailto:phys-l-
> bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of John Mallinckrodt
> Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 10:40 AM
> To: Forum for Physics Educators
> ...  As I understand it from reading the first part
> of <http://www.av8n.com/physics/weight.htm>, JD would define both
> "weight" as mg where g is the local acceleration of a freely falling
> object.   That corresponds exactly with my preferred definition of
> "gravitational force."  On the other hand, I see no need to waste the
> perfectly good word "weight" by making it mean the same thing.  I
> would prefer to let weight be the MAGNITUDE of the gravitational
> force IN THE REST FRAME OF THE OBJECT.  It seems to me that this
> agrees far better with the use of the word in common parlance.  With
> these definitions, "gravitational force" is manifestly a frame-
> dependent vector, while "weight" is, even more manifestly, a frame-
> independent scalar.

So if I strapped an ideal accelerometer to an object, the weight of the
object would be the product of its mass and the magnitude its
accelerometer reading?