Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: Nitpicking: gravity is not a force???



Jorge Trench wrote:

Hi Friends, let me join with some statements that may clarify or complicate
more your issues:
I will adopt a Newtonian point of view, actually was Newton who first
described mech. forces of nature in a close way: F=ma
....
Force excerted between massive bodies ( Interaction forces between bodies
that have mass: full of matter).
Yo need to have a mass to feel these forces, then you end up having a
weight at the place were there is such a force interchange.

We can mudify this issue by asking about more modern considerations such
as what about light (massless) having its path bent by gravity (as a
force?).

*************************

Here's my $0.02 worth - or $0.013 US:

The term "force of gravity" falls into much the same category as "my
weight is 80 kg". It is a form of verbal shorthand which might lead to
conceptual problems for some students if you use it in a class, however
don't expect many people to even care much less to fall at your feet in
gratitude if you should correct them on the point.

I would rather hear some alternatives brought out as to correct
terminology - which is terminology that won't lead anybody astray.
Here's a suggestion - one which also goes for the "lets see who can bury
a rhetorical question within a rhetorical question" award:

What if I was to ask a class "what are the forces acting on this
block?"? Well, there is the force due to tension in the cable, the
force due to friction between the block and the table, the force due to
gravity ...

Is this acceptable as an alternative to saying "the force of gravity"?
Is there a way of saying "normal force" other than to completely rename
it as "the force due to contact with the table"? Or is "normal force"
ok - like "frictional force" or "gravitational force"?

If we say that "there are four fundamental forces" is incorrect - what
do we propose to say instead? How about "there are four fundamental
sources of force"?

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

Doug Craigen "Technology with purpose"
http://www.dctech.com