yes i thought of that also. truly though i don't think the most sophisticated plumb bob science could come up with would measure such "force vectors" if they did indeed exist.

it is true that in the case of plumb bob knowledge of outside conditions is not necessary.
i'm fairly certain though that a plumb bob would no matter where you locate it in the elevator point directly perpendicular to the floor.

regards tim

• It’s a magic plumb bob. - duordi - April 17, 2003 - 17:00 UTC
  • Universal gravity - jetty - April 17, 2003 - 22:28 UTC
    • So gravity is not quantumized like other waves? - duordi - April 21, 2003 - 03:47 UTC
      • Eternity - jetty - April 21, 2003 - 22:27 UTC
        • Smaller is not simpler. - duordi - April 23, 2003 - 01:22 UTC
          • Infinite and eternal - jetty - April 23, 2003 - 12:18 UTC
            • Interesting... - duordi - April 23, 2003 - 22:28 UTC
              • Doubt - jetty - April 24, 2003 - 06:19 UTC
                • Good approach - duordi - April 24, 2003 - 17:10 UTC
                  • Einstein - jetty - April 26, 2003 - 05:41 UTC
                    • Having a theory which matches known data is not a sin. - duordi - April 26, 2003 - 19:30 UTC
        • eternity still possible with black holes - sagefr0g - April 26, 2003 - 14:49 UTC
          • The unwritten assumption. - duordi - April 26, 2003 - 20:59 UTC
      • Quantized but not discrete - jetty - April 21, 2003 - 22:38 UTC
        • Does mass have an undividable particle? - duordi - April 23, 2003 - 01:31 UTC
          • considering the particle "zoo" - sagefr0g - April 23, 2003 - 09:51 UTC
            • How about a mind bender. - duordi - April 23, 2003 - 23:12 UTC
              • thats not only a mind bender - sagefr0g - April 24, 2003 - 22:16 UTC
          • Electron and positron - jetty - April 23, 2003 - 12:23 UTC
            • Are you saying gravity has no indivisible unit while mass does? - duordi - April 23, 2003 - 23:38 UTC
              • Coexistent - jetty - April 24, 2003 - 06:24 UTC
                • Do your ideas include any massless particles? - duordi - April 24, 2003 - 22:57 UTC
                  • No massless matter - jetty - April 26, 2003 - 05:45 UTC
• Sophisticated machinery - jetty - April 17, 2003 - 22:25 UTC
  • sophisticated machinery is fine - sagefr0g - April 21, 2003 - 01:34 UTC
    • You have a point - jetty - April 21, 2003 - 03:00 UTC
      • and you have a point also - sagefr0g - April 22, 2003 - 02:15 UTC
        • Other points - jetty - April 23, 2003 - 12:26 UTC
          • alternative views.... hmm - sagefr0g - April 24, 2003 - 02:31 UTC
            • Heaver objects do fall faster. - duordi - April 24, 2003 - 03:45 UTC
              • perhaps in a universe with only two objects - sagefr0g - April 24, 2003 - 15:40 UTC
                • Other objects pull both ways. - duordi - April 24, 2003 - 17:30 UTC
                  • those other massive objects "out there" - sagefr0g - April 24, 2003 - 19:44 UTC
                    • Inertia is the attraction of a mass to its own gravity field. - duordi - April 24, 2003 - 22:49 UTC
                      • basketballs do not fall consistently - sagefr0g - April 25, 2003 - 03:52 UTC
                  • my bad - sagefr0g - April 25, 2003 - 02:32 UTC
                  • still digging at your equation... - sagefr0g - April 25, 2003 - 18:31 UTC
                    • I think I have a solution you will like. - duordi - April 25, 2003 - 20:49 UTC
                      • another wrinkle is that - sagefr0g - April 27, 2003 - 14:20 UTC
                        • You lost me on that one. - duordi - April 27, 2003 - 20:19 UTC
                          • drop a basketball from height X - sagefr0g - April 28, 2003 - 01:18 UTC
                            • So your saying.... - duordi - April 29, 2003 - 01:53 UTC
                              • uhmm - sagefr0g - April 30, 2003 - 22:15 UTC