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



The use of "would" implies something else may affect the body or N2 invalid. The force applied WILL or Shall.

bc


On 2010, Nov 11, , at 08:46, Rauber, Joel wrote:


In the context of the thread and with the use of quotes around the word 'Bartlett' and in view of the recent TPT article I stand by referring to it as the "Bartlett" definition within this conversational thread. Since you mention the ISO standard, I assume that we agree that what I refer to as the "Bartlett" definition is equivalent to the ISO definition? Though I prefer Bartlett's wording (less use of the subjunctive.)

The weight of a body in a specified reference system is that force
which, when applied to the body, would give it an acceleration equal
to the local acceleration of free fall in that reference system.

Bartlett's paper in TPT should have cited ISO standard ISO 31-3 (1992).