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] |
-----Original Message-----
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [mailto:phys-l-
bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of LaMontagne, Bob
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 4:48 PM
To: Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: 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-----stop
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
_______________________________________________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
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l