Re: A weighty subject

[Joel Rauber <Joel_Rauber@SDSTATE.EDU>]

> The moral of the story:
>
> 1.  If you think weight is not well defined, then just check with the
> International Bureau of Weights and Measures.  Or just check
> your physics
> book.

I have never ever said that any of the "weight" viewpoints, in particular
the "weight = Mg" view, was not well defined.  My guess is that the
International Bureau of Weights and Measures define mass quite well and
their definition matches up well with weight = Mg.

> There are conversions between lbs and Newtons and lbs
> and equivalent
> mass weight.  It's not to difficult to see that the
> acceleration is g, not
> 1.5g or 0.5g.

This point hasn't been at issue.

> 2.  If you think you can legally define weight to be the
> measurement of
> your
> scale, then you are again wrong.  Tell that to the inspector and the
> inspector will say its not what your scale reads, its what my
> scale reads.

I have not tried to propose a legal definition of weight; nor has anyone
else on this thread.  We have been debating a "scientific" definition; one
to be used for the term weight as presented in the system of analysis known
as Newtonian mechanics; a few have generalized the discussion into other
systems, such as, GR.

I think you are setting up straw men to knock over.

Joel