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

[Bernard Cleyet <bernardcleyet@redshift.com>]

On 2010, Nov 06, , at 20:17, Bernard Cleyet wrote:

> However, since this (weight) has occupied us several times, I think we can define it by majority vote, and then not argue.



Appears we are still voting.

bc disappointed and votes for the equivalent:  free fall and scale reading (in the same frame).

p.s. I favour it, because it's kinesthetic.


On 2010, Nov 09, , at 15:05, Scott Orshan wrote:

> A few random questions and observations.
>
> Is there general agreement that little-g is the measured acceleration of 
> the net gravitational field on the surface of the earth, and not simply 
> a shorthand calculation of GM/r^2? (M is mass of Earth, r is average 
> radius.) Thus, g can vary over the surface of the earth. Anywhere else, 
> 'g' should have a subscript, i.e., g<moon>.
>
> If you're standing on a scale up to your neck in water, your feet feel 
> less weight, your spine is under less compression, but your liver is 
> unaffected. Parts of you weight less, and parts of you stay the same? 
> Therefore, buoyancy should not be a factor in computing weight.
>
> If you're in a rotating, orbitiing space station, like in "2001", you 
> are in free-fall, yet you feel the "centrifugal" weight, and a scale 
> would show that you had weight. You can jog around the circular rim. Do 
> you have weight in this case?

cut (much)

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