Now that we have a little better understanding of gravity, isn’t the more appropriate term “center of mass.”
[[Now that we have a little better understanding of gravity, isn’t the more appropriate term “center of mass.”]]
Well, yeah of course, but I was quoting the guy at the zoo and I don’t mess with quotes from curators.
Clearly a mislabeled thread. 
But I’m not so sure Mjollnir has a point. Why is center of mass a more appropriate term?
I’ve worked with curators for ten years. I just got a nasty letter from one today. Believe me, they are NOT the source of all wisdom and knowledge in the universe.
[[I’ve worked with curators for ten years. I just got a nasty letter from one today. Believe me, they are NOT the source of all wisdom and knowledge in the universe.]]
::fingers in ears, singing, “Flintstones, meet the Flintstones”::
I think I agree with Jill (well, the curator, really) that “center of gravity” is a more apt term. Note, Mjollnir, that both “center of mass” and “center of gravity” have specific definitions as phrases (as opposed to just the component words being defined).
center of gravity The point in or near a body at which the gravitational potential energy of the body is equal to that of a single particle of the same mass located at that point and through which the resultant of the gravitational forces on the component particles of the body acts.
center of mass The point about which the sum of all the linear moments of mass of the particles in a body is zero.
For all practical purposes, these two points are the same; I imagine that they would be different only as a result of the small change in the gravitational field from top to bottom of the gorilla (errr…I think). Nevertheless, since the curator was referring to the effect of gravity on a gorilla, and “center of gravity” is a defined term, I’d lean toward that term as being more correct. Although it’s just semantics anyway, I suppose.