>> If you are out in space and being attracted by the >> gravity of a planet >> nearby, accelerating at 1 m/s^2, the accelerometer would >> read the same >> thing as it would if the planet were not there. > I disagree. What you say is essentially correct, but you are disagreeing with something that he didn't say or mean to imply. > If the planet provided an acceleration of 1 m/s^2 due to > it's gravity, and the accelerometer was actually > accelerating at the > same rate toward the planet, Necessary condition as, if it were not accelerating at this rate then some other forces would be involved > then it's output would be zero (1-1=0). Yes. But > If the accelerometer was subject to the same acceleration > without the > influence of the planets gravity (by e.g. a rocket motor), > or was > subject to the planets gravity but prevented from > physically moving then > it would most certainly be producing an output. Yes, but that is not what he said. First let's deal with what he said and then with why the cases are different. He said: 1. Hang in "empty space". No masses within sensitivity of detection of g meter. No meter reading. 2. Hang in "empty space". Magically add planet close enough to apply a 1m/s/s acceleration field. No meter reading. The above reflect what you would see. ______________________ Now: 1. Hang in "empty space". No masses within sensitivity of detection of g meter. No meter reading. 2. Start rocket motor so ship accelerates at 1m/s/s. Meter reads 1m/s/s. In the latter case the rocket motor reacts against the ships structure and the g meter reacts against the ship. The forces are not applied to the whole structure. If you could find a way of applying the forces that the acceleration "field" applied to all objects within the ship simultaneously then a g meter will not see the acceleration relative to itself. Russell McMahon -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist