TBF it took awhile to work out vacuum chamber technology, and some people did throw some spherical stuff off the tower of pisa at one point.
These days, everything seems to be made out shit & piss.
I am most certainly not a science whiz but it’s so goddamn funny to see this whole comment section full of people just… explaning and correcting each other poorly with varying degrees of correctness. Just like 50 half-true and misremembered tidbits from everyone’s intro to high school physics class, blindly seeking targets in space. I promise you guys, there’s a very straight answer to this like two or three clicks away, written more clearly and succinctly than anyone here is managing to do.
Don’t tell them that. You’re contaminating my petri dish. ;)
I have noticed there is a bit of a more “anti intellectual” bent on Lemmy compared to Reddit. Like there is a lot of stupidity on reddit but usually someone comes in with actual knowledge. On Lemmy I just see people arguing in circles with each other with nobody ever actually looking anything up.
IMO, it’s okay to have casual conversations without being an expert or researching every post. Redditors’ habit of fact-checking everything is honestly tiring. Conversation has other purposes besides education. I think many people are looking more for human interaction than for correct facts.
Right but conversations about science where all parties are wrong and nobody is willing to actually look shit up are completely pointless. It’s the exact same problem that caused the situation in the OP in the first place.
Like there is a lot of stupidity on reddit but usually someone comes in with actual knowledge
Be careful with that, actually. Reddit mastered repeating an explanation or analogy they read on another thread or saw on YouTube, but being quite eloquent at explaining it. Problem is, if they misunderstood it to begin with, they’ll just as confidently repeat a broken version.
I didn’t notice it at first… then I started seeing explanations for things on my field and cringed at how wrong they were, and then I started noticing the pattern and the very repeated analogies on other areas too.
actually your wrong
You’re*
wrongrightFTFY
stop bullying me 😭
Lemmy (or most social media) in a nutshell.
Aristotle said so much dumb shit, like he said that women have less teeth and never bothered to check
To be fair to Archimedes, heavy objects do usually fall faster than light ones*, and to be fair to Newton, stuff coming towards you usually has a higher relative velocity than things going away from you.+
*You need your objects to be weigh a lot relative to their air resistance to notice otherwise.
+You need some pretty ambitious equipment to detect that electromagnetic radiation such as light does not follow this pattern.
If you like novels I highly recommend Galileo’s Dream by Kim Stanley Robinson. It has a moment where Galileo realizes you could “weigh” time, in his experiments with objects rolling down an inclined plane.
Everything is made all of those in combinations and varied quantities at the molecular level
What if a planet that is Earth-sized falls down on Earth from let’s say 5-10 meters though?
Straight to jail.
Do not pass go. Do not collect
M200
A thing that size would have initial velocity to begin with,
But acceleration does not depend on mass, (which is kinda weird from an earthling’s perspective), which Einstein formalized in an amazingly powerful theory called General Relativity
When accounting for air resistance, heavy objects do fall faster than light ones. They couldn’t test in a vacuum back then, they only knew how things work here in Earth’s atmosphere.
A similar size chunk of iron and coal would have done the experiment just fine. Any two objects of the same shape and size but significantly different densities.
They could just drop an empty bs filled wine bottle.
Maybe fill it with mercury (but don’t drink it)
If two objects have the same size and shape, the force applied by air resistance will be the same. However, if two objects have different mass, that same force will result in different acceleration.
While that is true, two properly selected objects (such as the ones mentioned above) can reduce the effect of air resistance to levels negligible to human perception, demonstrating that heavier objects do not intrinsically fall faster.
The difference is the different buoyancy of the balls in air. That’s negligible.
Not at all. Our air is made up of physical objects (molecules of oxygen and nitrogen, mostly). Things with more mass, more quickly knock those out of the way.
For a demonstration you can see and more easily wrap your head around, take something just barely heavier than water, and a similarly sized heavy rock and drop them in a pool. You’ll see how much quicker the rock gets to the bottom, because it displaces the water so much faster. Our atmosphere is the exact same.
It seems maybe you’re actually misunderstanding. As I mentioned above, both you and the other commenter are certainly correct that the surrounding atmosphere (water in your case) exerts force on the objects as they fall, with varying effects depending on object density. However, if you take two objects that have vastly more density than the water (let’s say a big tungsten rod and another tungsten rod that has a hollow core), they will drop at approximately the same rate in the water even if their density vs each other varies. The greater the difference of their density versus the density of the medium, the less the effect of the medium. Is there still technically an effect? Sure, but that effect is negligible from a human perceptual perspective.
I understand what you’re saying (call it like a 10" 100 pound tungsten ball vs a 5" 50 pound tungsten ball) but your reasoning and logic of being essentially the same are just silly and the math that would dictate when each would land in atmosphere would still line up perfectly (which would be that the heaviest one will hit first). even if it were a 10,000 pound ball and a 5,000 pound ball.
So change the shape, a long copper rod and clump of coal.
If you do that then they definitely won’t fall the same.
The acceleration will be 1G minus drag. The Earth is sufficiently larger than anything one would drop off a tower so the weight of the dropped thing doesn’t matter at all
How does your model of the universe explain the hammer and feather dropped on the moon by Apollo 15’s David Scott landed at the same time?
Ed. There is an effect of buoyancy that will make denser things fall faster. It becomes noticeable in distances where the dropped items reach terminal velocity or on more dense media where buoyancy is more significant.
In air over short distances buoyancy is negligible, in vacuum there is none
minus drag
On Earth, this is the part that makes it so that objects do not fall at the same speed.
on the moon
This is the type of experiment they could not do 2000 years ago.
minus drag
On Earth, this is the part that makes it so that objects do not fall at the same speed.
That is incorrect. Drag affects both equally. The difference is caused by buoyancy, less dense objects feel more buoyancy
If F is the same but m is different, what happens to a?
Nope, denser objects fall faster than less dense ones (through the air). Remember: A kilogram of feathers is just as heavy as a kilogram of lead.
I’ll still choose to be hit by the feathers.
You’ll get hit by what you’re told to get hit by and you’ll like it.
Rosencrantz: [holds up a feather and a wooden ball] Look at this. You would think this would fall faster than this.
[drops them. ball hits the ground first]
…and you would be absolutely right.~ Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead
Did you know that two identical triangles are identical to each other
But what about three identical digons?
The thing that always gets me about the Renaissance is Galileo:
He did those experiments with things falling down? Measuring speed?
Yeah. Without a clock.
The theory for how to build those came later, based on what Galileo did.
Clocks existed then though. The oldest clocktower in Europe that still exists was built over 100 years before Galileo was born, and time measurement existed longer than that. You can measure time fairly accurately with water clocks which had been known for thousands of years before Galileo. Not having “modern” pendulum clocks yet doesn’t mean that they didn’t have any way to measure time. Even without water clocks you can get decently reliable measurements of time with rhythmic chants (think how today we might say "one Mississippi, two Mississippi, etc.). Early alchemical recipes often include time measurements in chanting a specific prayer or passage a certain number of times during a specific step. Sure you’re not going to get milisecond level accuracy this way but you don’t really need that for a lot of things. Hero of Alexandria built mechanical automata 1500 years before Galileo using pulleys and weights as timers. Time measurement not only existed before pendulum clocks, it was pretty decent.
Man, being a cop must have sucked before they invented time.
Officer: do you know how fast you were going?
Lord: No, do you?
Officer grumbles: you’re free to go.
Carriage pulls away
Officer ClocknTime: For now, for now.
Alright, I’m stealing this one for a Pathfinder session
Try dropping your phone from a hot air balloon and see which one hits the ground first.
Let’s argue “what in heavy” before we go there
A hot air balloon masses a lot but weighs nothing
https://www.usgs.gov/water-science-school/science/how-much-does-a-cloud-weigh
Doing the math: 1,000,000,000 x 0.5 = 500,000,000 grams of water droplets in our cloud. That is about 500,000 kilograms or 1.1 million pounds (about 551 tons). But, that “heavy” cloud is floating over your head because the air below it is even heavier— the lesser density of the cloud allows it to float on the dryer and more-dense air.
Planes, helicopters- lots heavy stuff not falling faster than lighter ones
Depends on whether or not you count in air resistance. I was just making a shitpost
Interesting way to admit you were wrong
You can find exceptions, but on average, heavier objects will fall very slightly faster than light ones, because they excert their own gravity field onto Earth and therefore pull it towards themselves.
This requires a somewhat unintuitive definition of “falling”, in that both the object and Earth itself moves, but given that any object with mass excerts a gravitational field, there is not actually any other definition.
Wut? This does not turn off gravitational pull for objects other than Earth.
Or I’m misunderstanding what you’re trying to say, but yeah, no clue.
You didn’t read it, it is literally telling you you are wrong.
By experimenting with the acceleration of different materials, Galileo Galilei determined that gravitation is independent of the amount of mass being accelerated
“… in a uniform gravitational field all objects, regardless of their composition, fall with precisely the same acceleration.”
What is now called the “Einstein equivalence principle” states that the weak equivalence principle [above] holds
Tests of the weak equivalence principle are those that verify the equivalence of gravitational mass and inertial mass. An obvious test is dropping different objects and verifying that they land at the same time. Historically this was the first approach – though probably not by Galileo’s Leaning Tower of Pisa experiment[19]: 19–21 but instead earlier by Simon Stevin,[20] who dropped lead balls of different masses off the Delft churchtower and listened for the sound of them hitting a wooden plank.
Between 1589 and 1592,[1] the Italian scientist Galileo Galilei (then professor of mathematics at the University of Pisa) is said to have dropped “unequal weights of the same material” from the Leaning Tower of Pisa to demonstrate that their time of descent was independent of their mass
Newton measured the period of pendulums made with different materials as an alternative test giving the first precision measurements.[3] Loránd Eötvös’s approach in 1908 used a very sensitive torsion balance to give precision approaching 1 in a billion. Modern experiments have improved this by another factor of a million.
Experiments are still being performed at the University of Washington which have placed limits on the differential acceleration of objects towards the Earth, the Sun and towards dark matter in the Galactic Center.[45] Future satellite experiments[46] – Satellite Test of the Equivalence Principle[47] and Galileo Galilei – will test the weak equivalence principle in space, to much higher accuracy.[48]
With the first successful production of antimatter, in particular anti-hydrogen, a new approach to test the weak equivalence principle has been proposed. Experiments to compare the gravitational behavior of matter and antimatter are currently being developed.
Ah, I’m not saying there’s a different force being applied to feather vs. hammer. The meme above doesn’t mean that they “fall faster” in the sense that the hammer falls at a higher velocity. It’s rather colloquial usage of “faster” to mean “finishes sooner”. Because what does happen, is that the hammer collides sooner with Earth, since the hammer pulls the Earth towards itself ever-so-slightly stronger than the feather does.
I guess, for this to work, you cannot drop hammer and feather at the same time in the same place, since they would both pull Earth towards themselves with a combined force. You need to drop them one after another for the stronger pull of the hammer to have an effect.
So, this is also going off of this formula:
F = G * mass_1 * mass_2 / distance²But setting
mass_1as Earth’s mass andmass_2as either the feather’s or hammer’s mass. A highermass_2ultimately leads to a higher force of attractionF.So in that equation, let’s say mass 1 is earth. G and distance will be equal in both instances of dropping.
Rewrite equation:
Distance^2/ G*mass 1 = mass 2 /force
And
Distance^2/ G*mass 1 = mass 3 /force
Therefore,
Mass 2 /force = mass 3 /force
F = m*a
Mass 2 / mass 2*a = mass 3 / mass 3 * a
This cancels out to show that a = a, their acceleration is the same.
With same gravity constance everything fall down at the same speed, but only in a vacuum. In an atmosphere there count the air resistance of an object, even if they are made of the same material and weight, an iron sphere of 1 kg fall faster than a iron sheet of 1 kg.
Except if you could measure exactly the speed of objects falling in a vacuum, the heavier object would appear to fall faster due to the gravitational pull on the Earth. You’re forgetting the Earth falls toward the object too.
No, mass or weight of an object is irrelevant, in one of the jurney to the Moon, astronauts demostrate it with an hammer and a feather on the moon that both fellt at the same speed. It exist one gravity aceleration, on earth is 9,82 ms², which is the force of acceleration which experiment any object on Earth, the only difference which can slow it down is the resistant of air, this can be different in each object, but without atmosphere there is nothing which slow down the acceleration of the object, it’s irrelevant the material, weight, mass or form. Basic physic
The difference is far too small to measure at these scales, the Earth would be falling toward the more massive object faster than the less massive object. Therefore the more massive object hits first.
Therefore the more massive object hits first.
Only technically. The effect you’re describing is so minute that it’s insignificant.
It’s like pointing out that the Great Pyramids of Giza are so massive that time moves 1 billionth slower for the surrounding objects. It’s neat that the effect is potentially measurable, but noone is going to be adjusting their clocks to account for it
Science is built on technicalities. In an exam, if a student considered the centre of m_1 as the centre of gravity instead of the weighed centre of m_1 and m_2 they would fail. This is no different
Your analogy doesn’t hold up, because factors get ignored in physics discussion all the time. Whem was the last time you’ve see a question in a dynamics class that didn’t ignore air resistance for the sake of simplicity?
The effect you’re describing is orders of magnitude smaller than that. I doubt the change would even register in a double floating-point variable if you did the calculations in Matlab
Only for tiny masses…
It has nothing to do
I mean, yes and no.~~https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_velocity#Physics ~~Heavier objects have a higher “max speed” that they can fall at, compared to lighter objects. The acceleration to that relative speed is constant though. More or less.IE : While a bowling ball and a ping pong ball might start falling at the same initial rate, eventually the bowling ball will fall faster.EDIT : Ignore me for now, I need to do more digging.
In a medium, which is an important distinction
Yeah, it’s not like they just blindly accepted what he said. They held up a feather or a leaf or a sheet of paper and a lead weight and dropped them both at the same time and the lead weight hit the ground while the leaf was still fluttering in the wind.
