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: [Phys-L] two very different "gravity" concepts

I'm reading between the lines here, but it seems that John's dissatisfaction with the adjective "local" was that it didn't directly affirm frame dependency. I'm just the opposite. I think of "local" as a term which demands that I know the frame of reference. I'm comfortable with local. Not saying John is wrong, just saying that I have a different opinion about the strength of that word (local) for [1]. I would probably use "Newtonian" for [2], realizing that it is only one possible contribution to the g of [1], especially if you consider multiple large bodies (Sun and Earth acting on SOHO).

As far as the term to use for "g", I have consistently been using "gravitational field strength" for the past couple of years, and paralleling it with F_E = qE where E is the electric field strength. (I don't get into SR and GR effects on F_E in my introductory course.) This seems to reduce the number of students who automatically write "a = 9.8 m/s^2".

Whether we're dealing with gravitational effects or calculating kinetic energy we ALWAYS have to be aware of the reference frame and the many contributions to the calculations. We should be teaching our students to firmly define those as they go into a problem. That's why "local" doesn't bother me.

OTOH, despite my admonitions and prolific red marks I still have students who refuse to define their coordinates/reference frames (and consistently receive poor marks). Sometimes students are much more stubborn than physicists!

-----Original Message-----
From: Phys-l [mailto:phys-l-bounces@phys-l.org] On Behalf Of Philip Keller
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 8:47 AM
To: 'Phys-L@Phys-L.org'
Subject: Re: [Phys-L] two very different "gravity" concepts

When you first posted the question, you rejected the name "local". I know it's longer, but what about calling it the "locally observed free fall acceleration"?

And as long as we are naming things, I suggest calling the left side of F = mg the "inferred force of gravity". To me, "inferred" somehow seems more descriptive and less judgmental than "apparent". "Apparent" is often contrasted with "true".

When we teach this to students (months before we discuss universal gravitation), "gravity" is just a name we give to a force whose presence we infer from the observed behavior of objects in free-fall. We BELIEVE Newton's second law and we OBSERVE objects accelerating in freefall...so we infer that there must be a downward force acting on those objects. In fact, we use the direction of that observed freefall (and the associated inferred force) to define what we mean by "downward".

Somewhat related question: later in the course, I may want to teach that there is a small difference between the "downward" we defined with a plumb line and "downward" toward the center of the earth because of the Earth's rotation. Is there a way to measure this experimentally? [I don't always get to this, but still...]


-----Original Message-----
From: Phys-l [mailto:phys-l-bounces@phys-l.org] On Behalf Of John Denker
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 12:06 AM
To: Phys-L@Phys-L.org
Subject: Re: [Phys-L] two very different "gravity" concepts

On 01/02/2013 05:33 PM, Bob Sciamanda wrote:
The intended implication is not that the frame is "freely falling" but
that, in the observer's frame, the observed mass m is free to "fall".

Well, even then, that doesn't answer the question that I meant to ask. IMHO
we need a word that describes g, the g that appears in the equation F = m g.
This g depends on what the *frame* is doing, not on what this-or-that mass is
doing.

To illustrate this point, consider two masses and two frames, making four
cases altogether:

falling mass, falling mass,
elevator frame lab frame
g = 0 g = 9.8 m/s/s

mass on lab shelf, mass on lab shelf,
elevator frame lab frame
g = 0 g = 9.8 m/s/s

Note that the elevator is in free fall, and that the shelf is fixed in the lab
frame.

In all cases, g depends on what the frame is doing, not on what this-or-that
mass is doing.

This is the attraction to calling g the framative acceleration of gravity,
because it is frame-relative.

The framative g is distinct from G M / r^2, which is not a frame-relative
quantity.

_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l