Re: can we say "g"?

["John S. Denker" <jsd@MONMOUTH.COM>]

At 03:03 PM 1/25/01 -0500, Herbert H Gottlieb wrote:
> If "current" is accepted to mean electron flow,  then wouldn't
> "current flow" be electron flow flow?

I agree that "current flow" is an ugly pleonasm.

> I am willing to omit "acceleration due to gravity" ONLY
> IF you are willing to omit the term "current flow".

This attempts to draw a parallel between "current" and "gravity", but it's
lost on me.

Consider the following:

1) The gravitational potential
2) The clock-rate shift due to gravity
3) The longitudinal momentum of a gravity wave
4) The acceleration due to gravity.

I think in statement 4, the word "acceleration" is nontrivial and
nonredundant.  It distinguishes the "acceleration" property from the other
properties that gravity has.

BTW I consider the word "gravity" essentially synonymous with
"gravitation".  This agrees with what my dictionaries say, and with what I
hear around the physics lab.