The definition of weight

So O.K: The difference between inertial motion of the first law of
physics, and the concept of inertia itself, is too much for most
scientists to swallow:

Here is an easier one: Weight is the force exerted between an object;
body, or mass of matter and the surface of a planet - like Earth or
the moon - that it is bearing upon.

Without something to bear upon: Object's; bodies and mass's of matter
are weightless; all forces require something to bear against!

The magnitude of an object's; body's, or mass's weight-force [w] is
proportional to the deceleration [g] at which the planet's surface is
restraining them from further gravitation:

That is, for any given object; body, or mass of matter, at anytime,
the ratio of its weight to the acceleration at which it will free
fall, is a constant [w/g].

The definition of weight is simple. Weight is the force that a mass m
experiences due to gravity of another mass, w = mg where g is the
acceleration due to gravity.

Weight
[Only registered users see links. ]

"Donald G. Shead" wrote:
Hey Dumb Donny shitHead,

1) Your ignorance, incompetence, and psychosis are not of interest
to the world at large. Quite the contrary. You are not even an
interesting laughingstock.

2) [Only registered users see links. ]

3) Why are you always psychotically trolling your crap through
sci.math, Dumb Donny shitHead? Assuredly it would be better
appreciated in alt.test

--
Uncle Al
[Only registered users see links. ]
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

Learn about apostrophe's and they're uses's, you coprophageous twat.

"Donald G. Shead" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ] m...

This post is off-topic in sci.math. Please confine your cross-posting to
appropriate newsgroups.

[snip]

--
There are two things you must never attempt to prove: the unprovable --
and the obvious.
--
Democracy: The triumph of popularity over principle.
--
[Only registered users see links. ]

"Donald G. Shead" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ] m...

you totally suck at formulating ANYTHING, i bet you cant even describe how
to push a button in less than 500 sentences.
why don't you try some calculating with your "brilliant" ideas, i'd like to
see you determine F without a standard for mass.

plus, try to make a point next time allright?

Sam Wormley <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message news:<[Only registered users see links. ]>...

That's dogma Sammy: a point of view put forth as authoritative
without adequate justifiable grounds. There's no logic. My definition
is more logical; because it's true: Weight [w] does not, and cannot be
w = mg, because m = w/g :: Therefore w = [w/g]g, and/or w = [f/a]g...

"C. Bond" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message news:<[Only registered users see links. ]>...
Math is not off topic in physics; nor is physics off topic in math:
They go together like a horse and carriage; or what's that other
thing?

Donald G. Shead wrote:


Your previously posted position was that *nothing* was off-topic in math -- a position which
is refuted by a reductio ad absurdum. Namely, that *anything* should be posted to sci.math,
which is ridiculous.

But even your narrower position above is wrong. If it were correct, why have two newsgroups
when one would do? What's the point of crossposting every math discussion to physics and every
physics discussion to math -- unless you are, (could it be?) a TROLL!

--
There are two things you must never attempt to prove: the unprovable -- and the obvious.
--
Democracy: The triumph of popularity over principle.
--
[Only registered users see links. ]

"Donald G. Shead" wrote:

No Shead--It's the DEFINITION of weight... and accepted around
the world!