Re: [Phys-l] definitions ... purely operational, or not

["LaMontagne, Bob" <RLAMONT@providence.edu>]

Simply stated, the net gravitational field at the location in question.

Rotational effects, buoyancy, etc., would obviously not be part of gravitiational attraction. "Weight" does not necessarily make that distinction (regardless of either the bathroom scale or free-fall acceleration definition), leading to true weight and apparent weight. 

Bob at PC

________________________________________
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of Bernard Cleyet [bernardcleyet@redshift.com]
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 11:08 PM
To: Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] definitions ... purely operational, or not

Which gravities?

bc


On 2010, Nov 08, , at 16:44, LaMontagne, Bob wrote:

> If your goal is KISS, then why use the term "weight at all? Why not just use "gravitational attraction"? It's a short term and it's unambiguous - That force which is due to gravity alone.

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