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] |
-----Original Message-----
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [mailto:phys-l-
bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of Hugh Haskell
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 12:47 AM
To: Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] g...
At 11:09 -0500 11/19/06, John Denker wrote:
OK. I'm leaving out too many steps here. The reason I assert that g
I need the next level of detail here. Taken separately, several
steps in that argument make sense. Taken collectively, they don't
add up; they don't suffice to support the conclusion.
should not be considered an acceleration is because we can consider
the general case of a field acting on an object through some
mechanism, call is the "field-susceptible property." In the case of
gravity, that is gravitational mass. In the case of electricity that
is charge (for the moment, call that "electrical mass" merely to
illustrate the analogy). In the general case the force on an object
subject to that particular field is
Force = (Field susceptible property) x (Field strength)