Potential Energy Problem -- GPE of a person at 5334m above sea level

[Leah12]

1. With an elevation of 5334 m above sea level, the village of Aucanquilca, Chile, is the highest inhabited town in the world.

What would be the gravitational potential energy associated with a 64.0 kg person in Aucanquilca? Assume that the free-fall acceleration at Aucanquilca is equal to that at sea level.

I know the formula is m x g x h so it would be 64.0 x 9.8 x 5334 I think

When you put those numbers into a calculator you get 3345484.8

Is this correct or am I doing something wrong?

 

[PeroK]

1. With an elevation of 5334 m above sea level, the village of Aucanquilca, Chile, is the highest inhabited town in the world.

What would be the gravitational potential energy associated with a 64.0 kg person in Aucanquilca? Assume that the free-fall acceleration at Aucanquilca is equal to that at sea level.

I know the formula is m x g x h so it would be 64.0 x 9.8 x 5334 I think

When you put those numbers into a calculator you get 3345484.8

Is this correct or am I doing something wrong?

That would be 3345484.8 bananas, then?

 

[Leah12]

That would be 3345484.8 bananas, then?

Joules

 

[PeroK]

Joules

Did you think this was a silly question?

1. With an elevation of 5334 m above sea level, the village of Aucanquilca, Chile, is the highest inhabited town in the world.

What would be the gravitational potential energy associated with a 64.0 kg person in Aucanquilca? Assume that the free-fall acceleration at Aucanquilca is equal to that at sea level.

 

[Leah12]

Did you think this was a silly question?

1. With an elevation of 5334 m above sea level, the village of Aucanquilca, Chile, is the highest inhabited town in the world.

What would be the gravitational potential energy associated with a 64.0 kg person in Aucanquilca? Assume that the free-fall acceleration at Aucanquilca is equal to that at sea level.

I wasn't trying to be silly I just wanted to check my work because it was a big number so I'm not sure if it is correct or not.

 

[PeroK]

I wasn't trying to be silly I just wanted to check my work because it was a big number so I'm not sure if it is correct or not.

I meant that I don't like those sort of questions. Note that PE is always relative to some specified point, which isn't specified in this case.

 

[haruspex]

I meant that I don't like those sort of questions. Note that PE is always relative to some specified point, which isn't specified in this case.

The exception is that in a more cosmological context it is common to take zero potential energy as the "at infinity" case. In that view the GPE at the village would be a huge negative number of Joules!