Re: [Phys-l] PER folks and units of g

["Ken Fox" <physicsfox23@gmail.com>]

I agree with Jeffrey's as the best solution. In my mind there is a huge
conceptual difference between a(g) and g. It is a wonderful point of nature
that they are numerically equal and even the units are equivalent (pun
intended). I tweak the brain by indicating that one day they will appreciate
this coincidence.

ma(g) = mg   two concepts of mass are at work here as well.

One hard thing about this is conflicting with the text book or web
resources.

Ken Fox

On 9/17/07, Jeffrey Schnick <JSchnick@anselm.edu> wrote:
> I use a_g = 9.8 m/s^2 for the acceleration of an object in freefall near
> the surface of the earth and g = 9.8 N/kg for the magnitude of the
> earth's near-surface gravitational field.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> > [mailto:phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf
> > Of Rauber, Joel
> > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 9:34 AM
> > To: phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> > Subject: [Phys-l] PER folks and units of g
> >
> > This is mostly addressed to the PER gurus, but others should
> > need no invitation to chime in, as their experience is
> > appreciated and valuable.
> >
> > There was a post a while back that suggested that the PER
> > research was indicating that it is best to quote g as follows:
> >
> > g = 9.8 N/kg rather than g = 9.8 m/s^2
> >
> >
> > the question I have is following a traditional sequence of
> > kinematics first, while introducing free-fall what do you
> > suggest for g?
> ...
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l