Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Do heavier objects fall faster?

MettaWorldPeace
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 11:18:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I admit I'll be going off of what may be considered a technicality or irrelevant, but it occurs to me that gravity is mutually attractive. In other words the Earth pulls on the moon and the moon pulls on the Earth. Wouldn't a thousand pound weight pull harder on the Earth than a ten pound weight, even if it would be wholly insignificant for an accurate calculation? It would seem this extra pull on the Earth would cause the thousand pound weight to fall ever so slightly faster than the ten pound weight.
I awakened to another dream.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 12:11:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 11:18:32 AM, MettaWorldPeace wrote:
I admit I'll be going off of what may be considered a technicality or irrelevant, but it occurs to me that gravity is mutually attractive. In other words the Earth pulls on the moon and the moon pulls on the Earth. Wouldn't a thousand pound weight pull harder on the Earth than a ten pound weight, even if it would be wholly insignificant for an accurate calculation? It would seem this extra pull on the Earth would cause the thousand pound weight to fall ever so slightly faster than the ten pound weight.

Denser objects usually have less air resistance and also a slightly less bouyancy effect in air.

I'm not sure if the gravitational constant of the earth is affected by another body's gravitational constant.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 12:27:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 11:18:32 AM, MettaWorldPeace wrote:
I admit I'll be going off of what may be considered a technicality or irrelevant, but it occurs to me that gravity is mutually attractive. In other words the Earth pulls on the moon and the moon pulls on the Earth. Wouldn't a thousand pound weight pull harder on the Earth than a ten pound weight, even if it would be wholly insignificant for an accurate calculation? It would seem this extra pull on the Earth would cause the thousand pound weight to fall ever so slightly faster than the ten pound weight.

Not really. The Earth's gravitational field (gravity well) acts the same on both objects, they both fall along the same geodesics reaching the same terminal velocities based on the Earths mass. Adding the additional gravity well from the Moon only means an increase in the curvature of the geodesic and a slight increase in the terminal velocity, acting identically once again, on both objects.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 12:31:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 12:27:48 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/9/2014 11:18:32 AM, MettaWorldPeace wrote:
I admit I'll be going off of what may be considered a technicality or irrelevant, but it occurs to me that gravity is mutually attractive. In other words the Earth pulls on the moon and the moon pulls on the Earth. Wouldn't a thousand pound weight pull harder on the Earth than a ten pound weight, even if it would be wholly insignificant for an accurate calculation? It would seem this extra pull on the Earth would cause the thousand pound weight to fall ever so slightly faster than the ten pound weight.

Not really. The Earth's gravitational field (gravity well) acts the same on both objects, they both fall along the same geodesics reaching the same terminal velocities based on the Earths mass. Adding the additional gravity well from the Moon only means an increase in the curvature of the geodesic and a slight increase in the terminal velocity, acting identically once again, on both objects.

He is talking about the gravity well in the larger object, not the moon.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 12:48:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 12:31:34 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/9/2014 12:27:48 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/9/2014 11:18:32 AM, MettaWorldPeace wrote:
I admit I'll be going off of what may be considered a technicality or irrelevant, but it occurs to me that gravity is mutually attractive. In other words the Earth pulls on the moon and the moon pulls on the Earth. Wouldn't a thousand pound weight pull harder on the Earth than a ten pound weight, even if it would be wholly insignificant for an accurate calculation? It would seem this extra pull on the Earth would cause the thousand pound weight to fall ever so slightly faster than the ten pound weight.

Not really. The Earth's gravitational field (gravity well) acts the same on both objects, they both fall along the same geodesics reaching the same terminal velocities based on the Earths mass. Adding the additional gravity well from the Moon only means an increase in the curvature of the geodesic and a slight increase in the terminal velocity, acting identically once again, on both objects.

He is talking about the gravity well in the larger object, not the moon.

Sorry, didn't see that one.

The three body problem?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 12:53:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 12:48:52 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/9/2014 12:31:34 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/9/2014 12:27:48 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/9/2014 11:18:32 AM, MettaWorldPeace wrote:
I admit I'll be going off of what may be considered a technicality or irrelevant, but it occurs to me that gravity is mutually attractive. In other words the Earth pulls on the moon and the moon pulls on the Earth. Wouldn't a thousand pound weight pull harder on the Earth than a ten pound weight, even if it would be wholly insignificant for an accurate calculation? It would seem this extra pull on the Earth would cause the thousand pound weight to fall ever so slightly faster than the ten pound weight.

Not really. The Earth's gravitational field (gravity well) acts the same on both objects, they both fall along the same geodesics reaching the same terminal velocities based on the Earths mass. Adding the additional gravity well from the Moon only means an increase in the curvature of the geodesic and a slight increase in the terminal velocity, acting identically once again, on both objects.

He is talking about the gravity well in the larger object, not the moon.

Sorry, didn't see that one.

The three body problem?

All he is asking is if the gravitational well in a large mass affects the acceleration when it gets close to the earth and freefalls compared to a small mass (on a micro level).
MettaWorldPeace
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 1:27:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 12:53:28 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/9/2014 12:48:52 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/9/2014 12:31:34 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/9/2014 12:27:48 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/9/2014 11:18:32 AM, MettaWorldPeace wrote:
I admit I'll be going off of what may be considered a technicality or irrelevant, but it occurs to me that gravity is mutually attractive. In other words the Earth pulls on the moon and the moon pulls on the Earth. Wouldn't a thousand pound weight pull harder on the Earth than a ten pound weight, even if it would be wholly insignificant for an accurate calculation? It would seem this extra pull on the Earth would cause the thousand pound weight to fall ever so slightly faster than the ten pound weight.

Not really. The Earth's gravitational field (gravity well) acts the same on both objects, they both fall along the same geodesics reaching the same terminal velocities based on the Earths mass. Adding the additional gravity well from the Moon only means an increase in the curvature of the geodesic and a slight increase in the terminal velocity, acting identically once again, on both objects.

He is talking about the gravity well in the larger object, not the moon.

Sorry, didn't see that one.

The three body problem?

All he is asking is if the gravitational well in a large mass affects the acceleration when it gets close to the earth and freefalls compared to a small mass (on a micro level).

Right what I'm asking is if gravity is proportional to the mass of an object (Gm1m2/(2pi*r)) and another object combined that if you increase the mass of either it would increase the gravity well.

Two ways of looking at this are if the Earth's size increased the attraction would be greater, so wouldn't it make sense for the attraction to be greater if the other object was more massive the attraction would increase.

Another way is imagine there are two objects of the same mass in empty space at a distance r, would the not increasing their initial mass cause them to collide sooner.

If these two scenarios seem plausible, it would seem increasing either mass in a two body system would increase the gravity well causing heavier objects to fall to Earth faster than lighter ones.
I awakened to another dream.
Subutai
Posts: 3,187
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 5:33:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 11:18:32 AM, MettaWorldPeace wrote:
I admit I'll be going off of what may be considered a technicality or irrelevant, but it occurs to me that gravity is mutually attractive. In other words the Earth pulls on the moon and the moon pulls on the Earth. Wouldn't a thousand pound weight pull harder on the Earth than a ten pound weight, even if it would be wholly insignificant for an accurate calculation? It would seem this extra pull on the Earth would cause the thousand pound weight to fall ever so slightly faster than the ten pound weight.

The force of gravitation equals (Gm1m2)/(r^2), where m1 and m2 are the masses of the two objects considered. If we increase the mass of one object, it will experience a larger gravitational force. However, by Newton's second law, F=ma, so the gravitational force is directly proportional to the acceleration, but the mass is inversely proportional such that it cancels out completely the larger gravitational force. Assuming the two objects are in a vacuum, a heavier object will fall just as fast as a lighter object.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 7:39:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 5:33:33 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/9/2014 11:18:32 AM, MettaWorldPeace wrote:
I admit I'll be going off of what may be considered a technicality or irrelevant, but it occurs to me that gravity is mutually attractive. In other words the Earth pulls on the moon and the moon pulls on the Earth. Wouldn't a thousand pound weight pull harder on the Earth than a ten pound weight, even if it would be wholly insignificant for an accurate calculation? It would seem this extra pull on the Earth would cause the thousand pound weight to fall ever so slightly faster than the ten pound weight.

The force of gravitation equals (Gm1m2)/(r^2), where m1 and m2 are the masses of the two objects considered. If we increase the mass of one object, it will experience a larger gravitational force. However, by Newton's second law, F=ma, so the gravitational force is directly proportional to the acceleration, but the mass is inversely proportional such that it cancels out completely the larger gravitational force. Assuming the two objects are in a vacuum, a heavier object will fall just as fast as a lighter object.

Technically, the Earth experiences a stronger gravitational pull itself to the heavier object and will accelerate towards it, so the collision will happen (very imperceptibly) faster with the heavier weight, assuming the experiments are done separately and timed. If the objects are dropped simultaneously then there will be no difference, of course.
MettaWorldPeace
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 11:32:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 7:39:51 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/9/2014 5:33:33 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/9/2014 11:18:32 AM, MettaWorldPeace wrote:
I admit I'll be going off of what may be considered a technicality or irrelevant, but it occurs to me that gravity is mutually attractive. In other words the Earth pulls on the moon and the moon pulls on the Earth. Wouldn't a thousand pound weight pull harder on the Earth than a ten pound weight, even if it would be wholly insignificant for an accurate calculation? It would seem this extra pull on the Earth would cause the thousand pound weight to fall ever so slightly faster than the ten pound weight.

The force of gravitation equals (Gm1m2)/(r^2), where m1 and m2 are the masses of the two objects considered. If we increase the mass of one object, it will experience a larger gravitational force. However, by Newton's second law, F=ma, so the gravitational force is directly proportional to the acceleration, but the mass is inversely proportional such that it cancels out completely the larger gravitational force. Assuming the two objects are in a vacuum, a heavier object will fall just as fast as a lighter object.

Technically, the Earth experiences a stronger gravitational pull itself to the heavier object and will accelerate towards it, so the collision will happen (very imperceptibly) faster with the heavier weight, assuming the experiments are done separately and timed. If the objects are dropped simultaneously then there will be no difference, of course.

It sounds like you are saying the object falls just as fast to the Earth regardless of mass, but the Earth would accelerate to a heavier object faster than a lighter one, causing the overall collision time to be shorter even though the lighter mass has the same acceleration towards Earth as the heavier one.Please correct me if Ithis is not your view, but it seems like the best explanation of what happens. Makes me wonder what causes gravity in the first place. I guess it has to do with gravitrons, spacetime, and even the Higgs boson.
I awakened to another dream.
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 1:09:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 11:32:05 PM, MettaWorldPeace wrote:
At 11/9/2014 7:39:51 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/9/2014 5:33:33 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/9/2014 11:18:32 AM, MettaWorldPeace wrote:
I admit I'll be going off of what may be considered a technicality or irrelevant, but it occurs to me that gravity is mutually attractive. In other words the Earth pulls on the moon and the moon pulls on the Earth. Wouldn't a thousand pound weight pull harder on the Earth than a ten pound weight, even if it would be wholly insignificant for an accurate calculation? It would seem this extra pull on the Earth would cause the thousand pound weight to fall ever so slightly faster than the ten pound weight.

The force of gravitation equals (Gm1m2)/(r^2), where m1 and m2 are the masses of the two objects considered. If we increase the mass of one object, it will experience a larger gravitational force. However, by Newton's second law, F=ma, so the gravitational force is directly proportional to the acceleration, but the mass is inversely proportional such that it cancels out completely the larger gravitational force. Assuming the two objects are in a vacuum, a heavier object will fall just as fast as a lighter object.

Technically, the Earth experiences a stronger gravitational pull itself to the heavier object and will accelerate towards it, so the collision will happen (very imperceptibly) faster with the heavier weight, assuming the experiments are done separately and timed. If the objects are dropped simultaneously then there will be no difference, of course.

It sounds like you are saying the object falls just as fast to the Earth regardless of mass, but the Earth would accelerate to a heavier object faster than a lighter one, causing the overall collision time to be shorter even though the lighter mass has the same acceleration towards Earth as the heavier one.Please correct me if Ithis is not your view, but it seems like the best explanation of what happens.

Yes, that's my view, assuming the objects are dropped at separate times.

Makes me wonder what causes gravity in the first place. I guess it has to do with gravitrons, spacetime, and even the Higgs boson.

I am no physicist, but Einstein thought it to be mass causing a curvature in space-time. That curvature caused by the Earth is the same for both weights so they 'roll' towards the Earth at the same rate. However, the heavier weight is itself causing a slightly greater curvature than the lighter weight so the Earth rolls towards it just a fraction faster. Again assuming a non-simultaneous dropping of the weights. That's how I picture it in my mind.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 7:37:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 11:18:32 AM, MettaWorldPeace wrote:
I admit I'll be going off of what may be considered a technicality or irrelevant, but it occurs to me that gravity is mutually attractive. In other words the Earth pulls on the moon and the moon pulls on the Earth. Wouldn't a thousand pound weight pull harder on the Earth than a ten pound weight, even if it would be wholly insignificant for an accurate calculation? It would seem this extra pull on the Earth would cause the thousand pound weight to fall ever so slightly faster than the ten pound weight.

There are two types of mass that affect the speed at which "objects fall", gravitational mass and inertial mass. Gravitational mass is a source of force, inertial mass is a source of resistance to that force, and gravitational mass and inertial mass are equivalent. Inertial mass is why in space, where we and the meteor are both weightless, you still don't want to be in the way of a meteor because it will put a hole right through you rather than just bounce off.

So, the speed at which "things fall" is a function of the two types of mass, the heavier object (heavier refers to it's gravitational mass) has a greater force acting on it, but it also has a greater inertial mass which is resisting that gravitational force when it comes to "falling", so the two objects fall at the same speed. You are right that the two objects do have a slightly different gravitational force between them, but it is counterbalanced by the slightly different inertial resistance to that force, and because they are equivalent, the two forces exactly counterbalance each other, and objects fall at the same speed.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 8:32:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
An object dropped from 4.905 m will take almost exactly 1 second to hit the ground. An object of great mass will in fact cause the earth to accelerate towards it slightly reducing the time for collision. A mass of 1.2 x 10^16 kg ( about ten times Everest's mass) will hit the ground 1 nanosecond faster than say a 1 kg mass.

That is according to my calculations.......Aaaah you nerd sniped me! http://xkcd.com...
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 4:50:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 11:18:32 AM, MettaWorldPeace wrote:
I admit I'll be going off of what may be considered a technicality or irrelevant, but it occurs to me that gravity is mutually attractive. In other words the Earth pulls on the moon and the moon pulls on the Earth. Wouldn't a thousand pound weight pull harder on the Earth than a ten pound weight, even if it would be wholly insignificant for an accurate calculation? It would seem this extra pull on the Earth would cause the thousand pound weight to fall ever so slightly faster than the ten pound weight.

It's a very good question and even though physics is not my field at all, I will try to answer it. As far as I know, and unless I'm ignoring some information, I think that objects do not fall EXACTLY at the same time (on Earth). Assuming you drop two objects on Earth, say a massive object like the Moon and a small object such as a chair, both will fall with the same acceleration and with the same speed, but since all the bodies have a gravitational field, we must ask ourselves another question: at which speed "falls" the Earth towards the chair and to the Moon? It seems obvious that the acceleration with which the Earth "falls" to the Moon, will far exceed the acceleration with which it falls towards the chair, and thus Moon and Earth would collide before chair and Earth, and therefore, Moon "would touch the ground" of Earth before the chair, but only because while the chair must go from point A to point B to collide, Moon attracts the Earth, and therefore it does not traverse the distance from A to B but a shorter distance (say A to B-x).
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 5:00:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
like some other posters said...

In terms of Air Resistance, density matters...

and in terms of the mass of the object affecting the acceleration due to Earth's gravity...

BARELY.
Though not anywhere near big enough worth considering for non planetary-sized objects
Adam_Godzilla
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 5:20:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 11:18:32 AM, MettaWorldPeace wrote:
I admit I'll be going off of what may be considered a technicality or irrelevant, but it occurs to me that gravity is mutually attractive. In other words the Earth pulls on the moon and the moon pulls on the Earth. Wouldn't a thousand pound weight pull harder on the Earth than a ten pound weight, even if it would be wholly insignificant for an accurate calculation? It would seem this extra pull on the Earth would cause the thousand pound weight to fall ever so slightly faster than the ten pound weight.

Perhaps this will answer your question:

http://van.physics.illinois.edu...
New episode of OUTSIDERS: http://www.debate.org...
Episode 4 - They walk among us
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 5:28:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
BARELY.
Though not anywhere near big enough worth considering for non planetary-sized objects

Actually, I don't think it would.

F=ma --> a=(F/m)

F(gravity)= G(m-earth)(m-object) / (distance^2)

so
a(grav)= G(mearth)(mobject)/ [(distance^2) (mobject)]

so,
a(grav)= G(m-earth) / (distance^2)

so, I don't think the acceleration due to gravity depends upon the mass of the object.
Vovka
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 6:05:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
That is technically correct. But a fatter, lazier and heavier rock climber will fall off a cliff faster than a lighter fit dude.. come to think of it, I guess that would be "sooner" rather then "faster"... So I guess I got nothing. Well done.

At 11/10/2014 5:28:58 PM, mortsdor wrote:
BARELY.
Though not anywhere near big enough worth considering for non planetary-sized objects


Actually, I don't think it would.

F=ma --> a=(F/m)


F(gravity)= G(m-earth)(m-object) / (distance^2)

so
a(grav)= G(mearth)(mobject)/ [(distance^2) (mobject)]

so,
a(grav)= G(m-earth) / (distance^2)

so, I don't think the acceleration due to gravity depends upon the mass of the object.
MettaWorldPeace
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 7:56:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 8:32:41 AM, chui wrote:
An object dropped from 4.905 m will take almost exactly 1 second to hit the ground. An object of great mass will in fact cause the earth to accelerate towards it slightly reducing the time for collision. A mass of 1.2 x 10^16 kg ( about ten times Everest's mass) will hit the ground 1 nanosecond faster than say a 1 kg mass.

That is according to my calculations.......Aaaah you nerd sniped me! http://xkcd.com...

Amazing--I don't know how you caculated it, but if nerd sniping is a real phenomenon I am inclined to believe you. Now all that we have to do to test it is drop a Mt. Everest size object 4.905 m from the ground.
I awakened to another dream.