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: John Mallinckrodt <ajm@csupomona.edu>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 18:10:20 -0800

William Robertson wrote:

If you agree that we should use a consistent definition, then why not the one we all learned by reading Halliday and Resnick, Sears and Zemansky, Hudson and Nelson, or even Feynman?

I do agree that we *should* settle on a common definition of weight although I suspect it's not possible. In any event, what is *your* specific take on the definition that we all learned from the old textbooks?

John Mallinckrodt
Cal Poly Pomona

Follow-Ups:
- 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>

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>

Prev by Date: Re: [Phys-l] definitions ... purely operational, or not
Next by Date: Re: [Phys-l] definitions ... purely operational, or not
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