Re: g

["Paul Camp" <pjcamp@coastal.edu>]

> > I have taken to telling my students to "watch their language" when they use
> > such phrases. Little g is more properly called the local gravitational
> > constant, and it has a value of 9.8 N/kg, not 9.8m/s^2. 
> Would it work to refer to g as gravitational field strength?  Computing
> gravitational force as mg seems exactly analogous to computing electrical
> force as qE.
> Stanley J. McCaslin			

It is and there is a great deal to be said for introducing the field 
concept early like this. But it is only 9.8 N/kg near the Earth and 
that opens up a whole new can of frustrations. Call the field  gamma 
=Gm/r^2 and let g be its value near the Earth and maybe you can avoid 
the problem. It does, of course, require you to introduce the 
connection between fields and accelerations early rather than 
following the traditional kinematics-then-dynamics approach but there 
is a lot to be said for that too. It is somewhat more intuitive than 
accelerations handed down from God. Also, you've sort of gotten at 
the Equivalence principle by this approach and, being a relativity 
theorist, this is near and dear to my heart.

Paul J. Camp                   "The Beauty of the Universe
Assistant Professor of Physics  consists not only of unity
Coastal Carolina University     in variety but also of 
Conway, SC   29526              variety in unity.
pjcamp@csd1.coastal.edu             --Umberto Eco
(803)349-2227                         The Name of the Rose
fax: (803)349-2926