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



But the comment

"... 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."

is the same as saying weight is what a scale reads.

In the frame of the space shuttle the free-fall acceleration is zero and a scale reads zero.

Bob at PC

-----Original Message-----
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [mailto:phys-l-
bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of John Mallinckrodt
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 11:50 AM
To: Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] definitions ... purely operational, or not

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
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l