Re: summary of weight

[Bob Sciamanda <trebor@VELOCITY.NET>]

----- Original Message -----
From: John Denker <jsd@MONMOUTH.COM>
To: <PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 1999 8:38 PM
Subject: Re: summary of weight


> At 07:26 PM 10/16/99 -0400, Bob Sciamanda wrote:
> > > . . .
> > > Arguably an even better way to do it would be to imagine super-tall
> > > scaffolding on rails, moving westward relative to the earth's surface
so
> > > as to nullify the earth's rotation.
> >
> > It would seem that this would subtract coriolis and centrifugal
inertial
> > effects from your g value.  Are not these effects part of the chosen
> > frame?
>
> It depends on what you mean by "the" chosen frame.  One of the main
themes
> here is the existence of a multiplicity of inequivalent frames that
might
> reasonably be chosen.
> . . .
> copyright (C) 1999 John S. Denker             jsd@monmouth.com

I understand.  I was confused with your statement because I thought that
the frame had already been chosen to be an "earth surface frame", so that
these options had been thereby specified.

Bob

Bob Sciamanda (W3NLV)
Physics, Edinboro Univ of PA (em)
trebor@velocity.net
http://www.velocity.net/~trebor