/sci/ - Science & Math

wut

Faster, actually.

Yep... the acceleration due to gravity is higher for more massive bodies.
But negligibly so.

>>2952620
>>2952626
What-a is you saying? My lead-a balls fall same speed!

Don't tell-a the Church-a. They'll cut off-a my little Tortellinis.

>>2952626

You are trolling, right? Please tell me you're trolling.

>>2952636
>>2952644

Not him but F = G m1 * m2 / r^2

So yes, the more massive either object is, the greater the force. However when m1 is a planet and m2 is a ball, you don't really notice the change

>>2952651

Niggah, you just went full retard.

F = GMm/r^2 and F=ma so a = GM/r^2

the acceleration of all bodies near a planet of mass M is the same given a certain distance from the center.

Two spheres of the same material but different mass will fall at the same time

The ratio mass-surface decides the limit speed

>>2952660

You're telling me a ball at 1 KM from planet earth will fall to the planet at the exact same rate planet Venus would at 1 KM?

Gravity pulls both ways, dude.

>>2952651
>>2952626
no.jpg

<span class="math">m_e[/spoiler] is the mass of Earth.
<span class="math">m_b[/spoiler] is the mass of a ball.
<span class="math">F=\frac{Gm_{e}m_{b}}{r^2}[/spoiler]
We can write acceleration due to gravity as:
<span class="math">a=\frac{Gm_{e}}{r^2}[/spoiler]

Not dependent on mass of ball.

>>2952675

Assuming no atmosphere, for simplicity.

To equal to ma and then cancel you must first prove that inertial mass is the same as gravitational mass

trollface.jar

the rate at which gravity pulls is two objects together is determined by the mass of the bigger of the two objects.

soure: community college student intuition

>>2952689 physicist detected

You can't just erase a variable in your equation for no reason.

>>2952901

It cancels out broski.

>>2952689
Assuming you're not stupid, why are you trolling?
/sci/ complains all the time about people not having enough commonsense knowledge of science, yet the answer you give to curious kids reading this thread is bullshit.

>>2953033

Explain terminal velocity...

did I win?

>>2952689

Yeah, that's the acceleration of the ball, but don't forget the acceleration of the Earth towards the ball which depends on the mass of the ball

>>2953084
PHYSICS OWNED

>>2953033
>Assuming you're stupid, why are you stupid?
FTFY

>>2953084

The center of mass of the system is located at the centre of the earth because its mass is immensely greater than the one of the ball so his post was perfectly fine

>>2953158
Not technically correct but good enough for high school...

>>2953186

For highschool and for the guys at NASA

do you think an acceleration of order 10^-24 is relevant?

>>2953213
Important practically? not at all.

Important for understanding of gravity? certainly

>>2953213
>>2953158

I'm back. Of course it's not really relevant, but that was not OP's question, you tedious fool.

ITT: Nobody notices OP's samefagging and trolling

>>2952616

No.

Gravity as understood today is caused by energy-momentum distribution.

I can use any reference system i want to for describing the situation, so the discussion about using the center of gravity or whatever is basically useless.

The acceleration for any object falling towards earth (neglecting friction etc.) is the same for all objects according to experiment (which gives rise to the equivalence principle).

What depends on the mass of the object is the _force_ acting on the bodies.

>>2953743
>hates thread
>doesn't sage

­

>>2952683
>Gravity pulls both ways, dude.
Which is why this will happen.