[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 9 KB, 225x225, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15208985 No.15208985 [Reply] [Original]

this might sound retarded, but why does (Newtonian) gravity behave the way it does? why don't objects with more mass have more acceleration? doesn't it intuitively make more sense for earth to exert the same force on all objects instead of the force adjusting based on an objects mass?
It's like when a person has to manually apply more force to be able to pickup something heavy, and that person is a rock

>> No.15208990

>>15208985
>why don't objects with more mass have more acceleration?
Because you'd have a contradiction if you took two smaller objects, then joined them together into one.
Would they fall as fast as they did separately, or differently because they're now one big object?

>> No.15208998

>>15208990
>Would they fall as fast as they did separately, or differently because they're now one big object?
they would fall slower
more mass = less acceleration

>> No.15209003

>>15208990
ok i kinda get it. ignore my reply >>15208998

>> No.15209007

>>15208985
>why don't objects with more mass have more acceleration?
Objects with more mass have a greater gravity _force_ acting on them, but due their inertial they _accelerate_ slower, consider this simple middle school proof:

F_grav = GMm/r^2
F_object = ma
F_object = F_grav
So

ma = GMm/r^2
a = GM /r^2

So the mass of the object m is actually irrelevant in a two body system. You need not confuse acceleration of a two body system with Newtonian gravity force in general though.

>> No.15209041

>>15209007
Are there any massless objects effected by gravity?

>> No.15209044

>>15209041
All massless objects are affected by gravity in the GR framework since their trajectory can be altered by the curvature of spacetime near massive objects.

In a pure Newtonian framework massless objects are not affected by gravity.

>> No.15209052

>>15208985
Because gravity is actually the curvature of spacetime and objects are just following straight lines the curved spacetime - since the straight lines are a property of spacetime and not the objects within the spacetime, the paths the objects follow doesn't depend on things like their composition.

>> No.15209061

>>15208985
Objects with more mass have more inertia. Objects with less mass have less inertia. If gravity is a force that acts on mass, and mass moves according to its inertia, then. as long as gravity is the only force, all objects will accelerate uniformly.

>> No.15209091

>>15208985
>doesn't it intuitively make more sense for earth to exert the same force on all objects instead of the force adjusting based on an objects mass?
You're right. It doesn't make sense. On one hand, if the planet is "exerting force" passively, merely as a consequence of being what it is, that force should depend only on the planet's properties -- but we know that's not the case. On the other hand, it also makes no sense for the planet to know the mass of every other object it attracts and adjust the force it exerts, only to align itself with some law that isn't even intrinsic to it. Conclusion: the planet isn't exerting any force. We just model it that way for convenience, to make it fit in with the rest of the Newtonian framework.

>> No.15209109

>>15209091
If you replace mass with charge then you get the same force laws.

Forces are fundamental, not just Newtonian convenience.

>> No.15209111

>>15209109
>If you replace mass with charge then you get the same force laws.
So?

>> No.15209126

>>15208985
>>15208990
>>15209007
>why don't objects with more mass have more acceleration?
i meant less acceleration btw. fucking typo

>> No.15209141

>>15208985
where is the proof of this except nasa's clearly forged video?

if you look at literally ALL OTHER VIDEOS on youtube with vacuum chambers - even videos that purport to prove this - they all have the heavier object land first/fall faster...

so where is the proof of this. show me the paper. show me the proof.

>> No.15209154

>>15209044
>In a pure Newtonian framework massless objects are not affected by gravity.
Since acceleration is independent from the mass of the accelerated object, why can't you just take a = GM/r^2 for the massless object and a = 0 for the massive object?

>> No.15209157

>>15208985
>this might sound retarded, but why does (Newtonian) gravity behave the way it does?
Because of the way that the reality was designed. When you make a VR, why does it act the way that you design it?

>> No.15209162

>>15209141
>>15209157
Finally, some good posts

>> No.15209165
File: 513 KB, 1600x1600, 1674136547350551.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15209165

Imagine you drop a baseball that weighs 100 grams. It accelerates towards the ground at X m/s. Now imagine you cut the ball into two hemispheres which weigh each 50 grams. Then you dropped them at the same time. Now they should accelerate slower than X since they have less weight. But the only difference between these two drops is that in the first one, the hemispheres were held together by atomic forces. Why would this difference alone affect the acceleration?

>> No.15209166

>>15209162
Yes, they made me laugh too. Idiots are funny.

>> No.15209175

>>15209165
Oh, I of course mean 9.80665 meters per second squared, not "X m/s." But you get the point.

>> No.15209180

>>15209165
>weighs 100 grams
Ngmi.

>> No.15209197

>>15209166
No, my post here
>>15209157
Is accurate. Of course this is why they behave that way. To just say 'it acts that way because it acts that way', or to just refer to something else within the system as being the ultimate cause is circular when you are dealing with a contingent being such as the physical world.

>> No.15209228

>>15209111
So it makes perfect sense "for the planet to know the mass of every other object it attracts".

It makes fundamental sense.

>> No.15209231

>>15209154
That's a good question. I don't know desu, I suppose you can. But photons travel at relativistic speeds so you have keep SR in mind anyway.

>> No.15209240

>>15209228
>So it makes perfect sense "for the planet to know the mass of every other object it attracts".
What's the connection? You just gave another example of something that doesn't make sense for the exact same reasons. The mathematical relationship is obviously there, but the breakdown in terms of objects exerting forces on each other still sounds like nonsense.

>> No.15209242

>>15209141
https://youtu.be/E43-CfukEgs?t=145

Does that thing look like it can handle a "near perfect vacuum"??? It has hand-operated valves..... they are making FUN of you and even a plumber will be able to tell you.

>> No.15209247

>>15209240
>What's the connection?
Mass. That's why I brought up charge which I consider conceptually easier.

The inverse square law is due to flux propogation in 3 dimensional space. So masses are connected by a force proportional to their inverse distance squared.

>> No.15209250

>>15209247
You haven't addressed my points in any way. You sound like a literal GPT.

>> No.15209261
File: 121 KB, 960x960, 19989442_10155021153962917_3875540908278462586_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15209261

>>15208985
>why does (Newtonian) gravity behave the way it does?

It actualy sounds a little bit less retarded than:

>gravity is the curvature of spacetime and objects

The fall of an object is cause by it's density not word-y fairy tale excuses.

Regardless of what people say, curvature was never been observed upon the surface of standing bodies of water:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29lzibkKeAI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqGeWrGpvIA

>> No.15209267

>>15209250
I don't understand your point then. Are you complaining that we don't have a more fundamental understanding of the gravity force, or complaining that reality is the way it is?

>> No.15209271

>>15209267
>I don't understand your point
That much is obvious. Instead of trying to "refute" posts you don't understand, maybe you should stick to talks with people on your lower level of cognition.

>> No.15209275

>>15209271
Let me talk on your level then: your post is fucking retarded and childish, go back to /b/.

>> No.15209278

>>15208985
intuitively its hard to push around a bowling ball than a feather.

>> No.15209282

>>15209275
>your post is fucking retarded
How would you know? You've already admitted to not understanding any of it. When I don't understand what someone else is talking about, I don't just assume they're talking about nothing, ignore everything they wrote and insert my own dumbfuck opinion trying to override it; instead, I ask for clarifications. Are animals like you even capable of basic metacognition?

>> No.15209300

>>15209282
I understand everything about you, your B average academic history and your egotistical denial of the holes in your education. Despite your inability to articulate that you are too dumb to understand how force vectors can be derived from renormalized field Lagangians, it is easy to see where you idiot thoughts like this spring from:

>Conclusion: the planet isn't exerting any force.
No, you are wrong. Shut the fuck up and go pick up a primary school textbook. Stop polluting the board with your dribble.

>> No.15209309

>>15209300
>No, you are wrong
How do you know? You've already admitted to not understanding my post. I guess an inbred animal like you is truly devoid of metacognition because pointing your error out to you once didn't seem to register with you at all.

>> No.15209317

>>15209309
>How do you know?
Your statement is wrong.
>You've already admitted to not understanding my post.
Because I was being polite and giving you the opportunity to rephrase your incorrect statement or elaborate. You have demonstrated that you are capable of neither.

>> No.15209318

>>15208985
>doesn't it intuitively make more sense for earth to exert the same force on all objects
No it doesn't. You would expect the *field* generated by an object to only depend on the object. Forces are interactions between objects so they can be expected to depend on properties of both objects.

>> No.15209325

>>15209317
How do you know my statement is wrong if you openly admit that you couldn't understand my post? Anyway, I've clearly gotten you stuck in a loop, which is the usual method of outing nonsentient elements, so I guess we're donew here. Autohiding all further posts from you. Your mother should have been forcibly sterilized.

>> No.15209330

>>15209325
Yeah, you are indeed stuck in a loop I'm glad you caught that yourself, retarded NPC bot.

>> No.15209332

>>15208985
Even if that was true, a bowling ball and a feather have relatively the same mass if you consider the scale of the Earth, they are both much more similar in mass to each other from that scale, lol.

>> No.15209333

>>15209325
>I've clearly gotten you stuck in a loop, which is the usual method of outing nonsentient elements
huh. i thought i was the only one who noticed this. you can usually get these bots stuck after 2-3 replies

>> No.15209334

The major difference between a feather and a bowling ball is that a bowling ball will carry more energy at the same velocity so it's not like things are exactly the same.

>> No.15209338

>>15209325
>How do you know my statement is wrong if you openly admit that you couldn't understand my post?
Not even him but you're fucking retarded lol.
>You: The moon is made of cheese!
>Others: That's clearly wrong, retard.
>You: HoW Am I WroNG iF u DidNT UnDErStanD mE?

>> No.15209350

>>15209338
What objective empirical evidence does my statement contradict?

>> No.15209353

>>15209330
>On the internet, no one knows you are samefag.

>> No.15209358

>>15209350
You've already demonstrated that you're too stupid and obnoxious to have any discussion. Don't expect me to take you or your posts seriously.

>> No.15209360

>>15208985
because inertial mass and gravitational mass have the same value, but if it was different it could fall at different speeds, it's just a parameter of our universe that could change

>> No.15209364

>>15209261
it's proper madhouse material if you just think about it properly.

they say the oceans themselves, billions upon billions of tons are dragged around a ball - BUT WE CAN'T SEE THIS FORCE - the water and waves evidently act as though only classical forces effect them BUT THERE'S A REALLY STRONG FORCE THERE HOLDING IT AGAINST THE BALL(we are told) but waves and shit can be created by a slight breeze, you can move the water around with your hand BUT IT'S BEING HELD LIKE A VICE AGAINST A PERFECTLY ROUND OBJECT(it has to be perfectly round right, or else why wouldnt this massive force make visible bumps in the sea) but simultaneously of course the bottom isnt perfectly round and everyone knows that...

it's on the same level as SJW madhouse material; that is why the TV-priests of all this nonsense also support the SJW worldview...

>> No.15209369

>>15209358
So you can't name any empirical evidence my statement contradicts? Ok, subhuman.

>> No.15209370 [DELETED] 

>>15208985
>why don't objects with more mass have more acceleration?
Newtonian mechanics says that more massive objects do accelerate faster, M1 is added to M2 instead of only taking M1 into consideration

>> No.15209373

>>15209154
in a Newtonian framework? you can't because there is no such thing as zero acceleration (third law).
in SR? you can't because if you take a photon and consider this acceleration, it's speed might pass the speed of light in vacuum. you CAN use your proposed acceleration but then you have to rewrite a bunch of rules and equations, consider rest mass/moving (or accelerating) frameworks and then you basically get SR lol

>> No.15209380

>>15209373
>you can't because there is no such thing as zero acceleration (third law).
Wow

>> No.15209405

>>15209373
>in a Newtonian framework? you can't because there is no such thing as zero acceleration (third law).
Let a, m, f be the acceleration, mass, force on the massless object, let A, M, F those of the massive object.

Say that a = GM/r^2, m = 0, so f = ma = 0a = 0

Say that A = 0, so F = MA = F = M0 = 0

The sum of forces, F + f = 0, so F = -f.

Technically there doesn't seem to be a violation to me.

>> No.15209409

>>15208985
>why doesn't the force adjust to mass
It actually does. Gravitational force is proportional to mass. However, the ACCELERATION is the same because it requires more force to move a larger object by the same acceleration, as shown by Newton's second law f = ma

>> No.15209416

>>15209282
Do you understand the following
Gairvmevenfukahwnruapbehtlqit rpuwnfuejqhrotu ikebeosjr oraltbpeiwntueos yaktjeowhrneiuwnrjwpheneiakrb iwkrbkeisneneienrbuek jahrnnsoahrnf sizjnsb
If you don't perfectly understand what I'm saying you have proven that you are my intellectual inferior who must bow down to me

>> No.15209449

Gravity is an imaginary force. Held up with indoctrination from a very young age. It is the only force that is both here and not here at the same time. It effects everything while not effecting anything. It holds the oceans(in the mind) and it does not hold the oceans(from experience and direct proof), it is schizophrenic in nature, being both strong and weak at the same time like no other force, it is purported to be conscious like no other force: large objects pull strongly but only if the object pulled is also large, or else it adapts and pulls weakly. It's adherents can only defend it with primary school arguments, eg: what is making me fall? and the professors can't agree on any theory. It's experimental proof only exists with organizations that have a proven record of fraud(eg nasa) and none of it's tenets - in none of its theories - can conveniently be proven by science on earth.

the papers that purportedly prove it - even experimentally - doesnt exist.

it is the only scientific theory that also has another scientific theory that proves it SIMULTANEOUSLY; but this scientific theory is not popularized on the idiotbox: Archimedes theory of density & bouyancy applied to the air(which is a fluid: this is agreed on).

>> No.15209477

>>15209364
Rotating objects are a bit chubby and not perfectly round.
>>15209449
What pulls the object down into the fluid? And why is that fluid staying there anyway?

>> No.15209483

>>15209449
it is completely circular in nature and thus by definition impossible to prove or disprove. meanwhile the SIMULTANEOUSLY accepted theory of density & boyancy can experimentally prove itself PERFECTLY completely in line with other scientific theories. But only one is indoctrinated from a young age.

It is like when one is taught at uni or highschool that vacuum doesnt "suck"... by the same logic one can say that pressurized gases doesnt PUSH because in the end it is the difference in pressure that creates suction and pushing... but by convention and brainwashing the students repeat the mantra: vacuum doesnt pull. no genius that is only what you have been brainwashed with... you increase the strength of the vacuum and the air pressure is the same, what do you think happens? it neither pushes or pulls or it does both... who knows, but it is the difference in pressure that does it.

>> No.15209489

>>15209483
simultaneously it is the difference in density that makes objects go up or down. no FORCE is needed. Nature always allows the easiest thing.

>> No.15209560

Why is inertial mass exactly the same as gravitational mass? There's no reason it has to be.

>> No.15209573

>>15209560
Have you heard of this man called Albert Einstein and his theory of general relativity?

>> No.15209701

>>15209573
Yeah, it doesn't explain _why_.

>> No.15209705

>>15209701
It was designed to explain why. Try reading about it some time

>> No.15209716

>>15209705
Can you explain it?

>> No.15209723

>>15209716
I already have in an earlier post >>15209052

>> No.15209735

>>15209723
That's just asserting it's true with more details.

>> No.15209742

>>15209735
No it's not. Why do you think that?

>> No.15209743

>>15209723
I think the question, and it's a fair one, is why gravitational charge appears to be exactly equal to inertial charge. The way an object resists acceleration is the same as the way spacetime curves around that object. This is interesting.

>> No.15209746
File: 668 KB, 1024x1024, 1676324617056396.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15209746

>>15208985
the bowling ball would fall faster because it exerts a more attractive force on the earth pulling it up towards itself
>>15208990
this intuition only works if the two objects are dropped simultaneously rather than one at a time
>>15209007
>So the mass of the object m is actually irrelevant in a two body system.
so if you dropped the moon (1/6 earth gravity) it would fall to the earth at the same rate as the feather?
no
>why?
because you forgot to do the equations again for the other mass (swap the M and m) and add up the two accelerations
to get the total acceleration (1.17g)

>> No.15209753

>>15208985
>that picture
Isn't actually true. More massive things are affected by gravity more than less massive things, so the two "fall" at different rates, even in a vacuum. However, the difference is so small for such small objects compared to the mass of the nearest greatest attractor - the Earth - that the difference is virtually imperceivable and is only provable through mathematics.

I don't give a shit about whatever OP is saying, I just wanted to share that bit of information about the argument in the picture.

>> No.15209760

>>15209261
>that picture
There's literally a curve on the ocean from the left to the right (the left side of the level is closer to the horizon line than the right side), but retards will explain it as the post not being level, despite the level literally showing that it is.

>> No.15209766

>>15209560
Current theory suggests that inertial mass ('drag') is mediated by particles which interact in the higgs field, while gravitational mass is a natural result of change in density/slope, like a coin funnel or sponge on the surface of the water, where the true lowest-energy equilibrium position depends on more than Cartesian geometry from the outside perspective.

As for why: unknown. It may be that density/energy in the higgs field causes spacetime to contract in the first place. Or that gravity/density makes interactions in the higgs field more difficult, as with viscosity. I don't know that either sounds right to me but ymmv.

>> No.15209774

>>15209743
>>15209766
Thank you. As I understand it the equivalence principle breaks down at a quantum level.

>> No.15209775

>>15209743
Mike McCulloch explains it well
the resistance to acceleration (inertia) and tendency to acceleration both come from the same mechanism
that mechanism is virtual vacuum waves which form in the presence of an "opaque" object and an event horizon.

if you have one non-accelerating object, the waves on all sides are symmetrical (0 net force). as soon as that object is accelerated, that symmetry breaks because the waves in front of the object become more numerous (higher number of all possible standing waves) and the waves behind the object become less numerous (lower number of all possible standing waves). this asymmetry results in a nonzero net force (inertia). look up rhindler horizon.

similarly, if you have two stationary objects, the waves between the two objects are less numerous than the waves outside the two objects, resulting in a net attractive force between them (gravity).

so contrary to what high school physics teachers say, gravity really does "suck" since it's a consequence of pressure differentials in spacetime.

>> No.15209783

>>15209705
> It was designed to explain why. Try reading about it some time
Incorrect. GR does not explain why inertial mass is exactly the same as gravitational mass, it assumes they are. The equivalence principle states they are equivalent are but it doesn't explain why.

>> No.15209796

>>15209416
Can you clarify what you meant by that? I don't think I'm understanding what you're trying to convey.

>> No.15209797

>>15208985
The acceleration is the same because acceleration is force divided by mass (of the acted-upon object)

>> No.15209816

>>15209783
It does explain it. Which part do you think is unexplained? The equivalence principle notes that they are equivalent and using that observation, it suggests a deeper principle (curved spacetime) to explain the equality.

>>15209743
It's interesting but it's also completely explained.

>> No.15209818

>>15209416
You are mentally ill.

>> No.15209822

>>15209816
*notes that they are equal

>> No.15209826 [DELETED] 

>>15209816
GR was formed upon that assumption but GR does not explain that assumption. You are trying to use circular logic (because GR seems to work the assumption must be correct).

>> No.15209838

>>15209816
GR was formed upon that assumption but GR does not explain that assumption. You are trying to use circular logic (because GR seems to work that is why the assumption is true).

>> No.15209846

>>15209838
The assumption of GR is that gravitation is the resulting of moving in straight lines in curved space. From that assumption, you can derive the equality of inertial mass and gravitational mass. It's not circular.

>> No.15209855

>>15209846
>you can derive the equality of inertial mass and gravitational mass
in this case, why does a one-body system experience inertia but no gravitation?

>> No.15209859

>>15209846
Ackshually the assumption behind GR is that no local experiment can tell the difference between standing still in a gravitational field and accelerating upwards.

>> No.15209862

>>15209859
>no local experiment can tell the difference between standing still in a gravitational field and accelerating upwards.
this does imply they are equal. In case A there is no acceleration. In case B there is no gravity. The inability to discriminate implies their equality.

>> No.15209865

>>15209846
> The assumption of GR is that gravitation is the resulting of moving in straight lines in curved space.
That is only one of the assumptions.

> 1) The laws of physics are the same for all observers, regardless of their motion.
This incorporates the early special relativity and that c is a constant.

> 2) The weak equivalence principle. In other words gravity cannot be distinguished from acceleration.
From this assumption it also means that inertial mass and gravitational mass are the same but it's not a proof.

Combining those two postulates then gives you all the curved spacetime and geodesic description.

>> No.15209866

>>15209855
>why does a one-body system experience inertia but no gravitation?
It experiences both. Consider a body in a spacetime described by the Schwarzschild metric for example

>>15209859
That's the same as the observation that inertial mass = gravitational mass as I mentioned before. It's not an assumption of GR

>> No.15209868

>>15209866
> It's not an assumption of GR

Oh rly?

> In the theory of general relativity, the equivalence principle is the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass, and Albert Einstein's observation that the gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference.

It's an axiom of the theory based upon observation.

>> No.15209875

>>15209868
Your quote states that it's a "principle", which they're probably using to mean "some heuristic which was used to develop the theory". That's not the same as an axiom. It can't possibly be an axiom since GR makes no mention of the concept of gravitational mass in its formulation

>> No.15209883

>>15209875
> An axiom, postulate, or assumption is a statement that is taken to be true

> That's not the same as an axiom
I would disagree and so would the definition of the word..

>> No.15209895

>>15209883
Like I said, it's not taken to be true in GR since GR makes no mention of gravitational mass

>> No.15209897

>>15209895
Well if you want to ignore all the evidence saying you're wrong then this conversation is over.

>> No.15209901

>>15209866
>Consider a body in a spacetime described by the Schwarzschild metric for example
can you elaborate?

>> No.15209918

>>15209901
The Schwarzschild metric is a vacuum solution of the Einstein field equations which is not flat, so any body in the Schwarzschild spacetime experiences gravity in addition to other forces. You can use the Schwarschild solution to derive Newton's law F = GmM/R^2 when the velocity of the body is much less than the speed of light

>> No.15209962

>>15209918
>any body in the Schwarzschild spacetime experiences gravity
how could an isolated body or point possibly experience gravity? In what direction? By what magnitude?

>> No.15209996
File: 69 KB, 681x499, 15380803_10154089719120924_1369722866083693009_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15209996

>>15209477

A drop of water falls throught the air for the same reason a water bubble rises through water. There is nothing pulling objects down. That's not how reality works.

>>15209760
>Water in a spirit level is level. Water in oceans is not level.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRK40NquEaA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIHcY79zh8o

>> No.15210061

>>15209962
It would depend on the body generating the curvature. It could be infinitely far away or even outside of your light cone. The same thing would happen if you placed a test charge in a magnetic field. Something has to generate the field in order for conservation of energy to apply.

The weirdest thing for me is that gravity and em have infinite range. I'm inclined to think they do not.

>> No.15210077

>>15210061
>It would depend on the body generating the curvature.
>>15209962
>an isolated body
>>15209855
>why does a one-body system experience inertia
care to read again? There is no body causing the curvature in this hypothetical. There is a heavy point or sphere in otherwise empty space. Such body would experience resistance to any force (electromagnetic, Strong, Weak, etc) which acts on it, its inertia. It would do so distinctly from an identical system and body with half the mass.

>> No.15210206

>>15210077
>such a body would experience resistance to any force...

A one body system literally cannot experience forces. Any sort of field theory necessarily implies the existence of the object that generates it.

All fields imply the existence of a particle.

>> No.15210218

>>15210206
>existence of the object that generates it.
it does not imply force carriers generate or experience gravity. Perhaps my system includes a body and photon(s) impinging on it. No amount would change its mass or cause a gravitational force.

>> No.15210221

>>15209962
>how could an isolated body or point possibly experience gravity?
Because the spacetime is not flat as I said

>> No.15211327

>>15208985
Colonel David Scott performed this experiment on the Moon, during the Apollo 15 mission.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oo8TaPVsn9Y

>> No.15211359

>>15209996
>Water in a spirit level is level. Water in oceans is not level.
>1mm is less curved than 100000000000000mm

>> No.15211717
File: 197 KB, 999x803, sim1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15211717

>>15209746
>so if you dropped the moon (1/6 earth gravity) it would fall to the earth at the same rate as the feather?
>no
YES.

>because you forgot to do the equations again for the other mass (swap the M and m) and add up the two accelerations
I did not, if you swap M and m for the force acting on Earth you have to swap it on both equation and you again get the same acceleration,

I have simulated this for you since you to make sure there is no ambuigity as to what is actually happening.

In picrel we have defined Newton's gravitational law and we will use only this law to advance acceleration, velocity and position. Note that the force is always computed using an identical function here.

>> No.15211733
File: 92 KB, 1092x669, sim2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15211733

>>15209746
>>15211717
cont.

Seeing is believing, when we plot the results of the simulation for moon and feather we see both are overlayed perfectly[math]^[1][/math]. Why? Because despite the fact that the _forces_ acting on the moon and feather are orders different, they also act linearly to acccelerate masses that are orders different. This is what inertia is. Note that in both simulations the Earth also moves towards the moon/feather system, but the acceleration caused by the feather and the moon is also THE SAME, this is much less intuitive but also true.

All of this is quite fundamental to understanding SR/GR, which is why it is so strange to me that so many Anons and even professional researchers can't grasp this. Were you not taught the two body problem in middleschool, or did you just forget? I am not trying to insulting, I am genuinely baffled as to why this simple result appears to be so controversial.


1. (NOTE: If you want to replicate these results you MUST use Decimal numbers, you would get floating point errors if you use normal floats).

>> No.15211773
File: 55 KB, 658x533, sim3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15211773

>>15211717
>>15211733
3/3
I thought it might also be useful to plot the remaining variables.

Notice here:
>The Earth's position relative to the moon/feather over time is the same in both simulations.
>The force is vastly different, despite the acceleration being the exact same, the force between the Earth-moon is about 30 orders bigger than the Earth-feather system.

Despite this dramatic difference, a feather accelerating in the same rate as the moon will have less dramatic impact consequences.

>> No.15211779

More mass is more prone to absorb cosmical radiations. If two objects are nearby, they block each other cosmical radiation thus seem to attract each other

Read De Sage's theory for gravitation
Old but Gold

>> No.15211782

>>15209753
Lol. Another one.

Please answer this quesfion in >>15211733
>Were you not taught the two body problem in middleschool, or did you just forget? I am not trying to insulting, I am genuinely baffled as to why this simple result appears to be so controversial.

Additionally, if I may ask, why would you just dismiss the picrel in OP instead of investigating it more deeply for yourself?

>> No.15212702

isn't this wrong though? like, only on the most technical of levels at this scale, but doesn't the increased mass of the bowling ball mean it has a stronger gravitational field and as such it pulls itself towards the ground slightly faster?
if you did this experiment with a 1ton weight and a 10,000 ton weight, wouldn't the 10k be measurably faster due to it's own gravitational pull?

>> No.15212733

>>15209560
it just is, ok?

>> No.15212745

>>15208985
is pic in OP really correct?

does it account for inertia?
The feather has less inertia, so from a standstill, the feather would get up to max speed faster and therefore land first.

I know this is simplified for the sake of teaching, but as far as helping people get an intuitive grasp, it's teaching them to intuitively ignore inertia.

>> No.15212753

>>15208985

>>15211733
Great explanation, this account for literally everything the 'mg' anons are doing wrong when they scale up.

>>15209855
>>15209962
These are still not answered. The schwarz solution is only relevant when space is curved, e.g. there is gravity coming from somewhere other than 1 body, e.g. isn't not a one-body system.

>>15210061
>Something has to generate the field in order for conservation of energy to apply.
this is an extremely poor explanation. Only changed in the fields must be generated. Persistent fields like those we model in QFT leak no energy.

>>15210206
>A one body system literally cannot experience forces.
You are conflating a one-body system, with a closed system at equilibrium. A one body system in isolation would still drag via the higgs field.

>>15209766
thread should have ended here. Not really /sci/ tier, but conceptually consistent, perfectly ok way to think about without math and get some rough or binary conclusions. Right now the explanation for their equivalence in GR, is indeed relative changes in higgs density or 'stiffness' over inconsistent space. It is suggested the fields do not curve identically, or perfectly in sync, causing what is essentially red/blueshift in the inertial mass.

>> No.15212957

>>15211717
>>15211733
>>15211773
>This is what inertia is
that wasn't my point.
>The Earth's position relative to the moon/feather over time is the same in both simulations.
you outed yourself (didn't even need to look at your sim pics)
If you drop the moon, the Earth will NOT remain in its original position.
This can be demonstrated by how the barycenter of the Earth-Moon system is outside the Earth. Because the Earth "falls" towards the Moon.
When you add up the Moon falling towards the Earth, and the Earth falling towards the Moon, then you get the actual observed fall rate, which is greater the 1 g.
therefore, a bowling ball really does fall faster than a feather. just like the moon falls faster than a bowling ball.

again, i expect you forgot to calculate both forces (swap the M and m, add to original) and only did one.

yous results may appear fancy, but they are trash

>> No.15213982

>>15212702
No, see:
>>15211717
>>15211733
>>15211773

>>15212745
>is pic in OP really correct?
>does it account for inertia?
>The feather has less inertia, so from a standstill, the feather would get up to max speed faster and therefore land first.
Yes, your gut feeling is correct. This idea is quite important to SR and GR too, not just the Newtonian framework.

>>15212957
>If you drop the moon, the Earth will NOT remain in its original position.
Yeah, so? My results show that it shifts, you misread my post because you cannot conceptualise that the feather pulls the Earth towards it at exactly the same rate as the moon, which it does.
>This can be demonstrated by how the barycenter of the Earth-Moon system is outside the Earth.
Transforming the coordinates to barycentric will not change the results.
>Because the Earth "falls" towards the Moon.
Again, shit is shown in the simulation, see picrel 3 towards the stary and end of the simulation (note this is semilog scale)

>When you add up the Moon falling towards the Earth, and the Earth falling towards the Moon, then you get the actual observed fall rate, which is greater the 1 g.
It literally did this. The acceleration is _not_ constant, I'm not sure why you said this as no one else did. It is distance dependent (and the same for both feather and moon at the same initial distance/velocity conditions).
>therefore, a bowling ball really does fall faster than a feather. just like the moon falls faster than a bowling ball.
It doesn't, see the results again.
>again, i expect you forgot to calculate both forces (swap the M and m, add to original) and only did one.
Nope, I computed both forces, see the time loop in pic 1 I compute both forces separately. In pic 3 I also plot both these forces.
>yous results may appear fancy, but they are tras
Before writing another wall of copetext could you please answer the background questions I asked. There is something seriously wrong with our pedagogy and we'd like to figure out what.

>> No.15214190
File: 30 KB, 645x773, imagine2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15214190

>>15208985
>doesn't it intuitively make more sense
Our intuition is based on what we have on Earth. If you lived your entire life in vacuum, aerodynamic drag would be counterintuitive for you.

>> No.15214623

>>15212745
>The feather has less inertia, so from a standstill, the feather would get up to max speed faster
This would be true except for the fact that the feather also has less gravitational charge, so it's not being accelerated as hard toward the ground. The bowling ball has more inertia but it also has more gravitational charge, so it accelerates harder. The long and short of it is things balance out exactly so the feather and the bowling ball accelerate toward the ground at the same rate.

That's the Newtonian picture. The relativistic picture is that both objects are moving inertially through curved spacetime, so they only appear to accelerate relative to an observer who's not moving (i.e., who's accelerating upward).

>> No.15214928

>>15213982
>the feather pulls the Earth towards it at exactly the same rate as the moon, which it does

stopped reading there
if you think the earth is pulled up at the same rate regardless of the other mass (eg, feather, moon and mlack hole), then I'm bored witm you

>> No.15215150

>>15214928
>if you think the earth is pulled up at the same rate regardless of the other mass (eg, feather, moon and mlack hole), then I'm bored witm you
It is, why not calculate it for yourself? Idiot. Are you really so fucking dumb that you cannot even understand a simple linear ODE like Newton's law? Why bother posting on /sci/?

>> No.15215878

Think about it this way: Every individual atom in an object is being pulled by "its own" gravity force. More atoms, more "force". So it doesn't really matter how many atoms (e.g.: how much mass) an object has, it will get pulled the same way.

This is as opposed to, for instance, a rocket. No matter how much mass it has, the propulsion force is always the same. So if it has more mass, it has less acceleration, and vice-versa.

Different atoms do have different mass, but it's not too hard to make the jump from an atom ("each atom") to it components ("every particle").

(Just want to mention here that this is very much a wrong view of how the universe actually works. The question asks about how newtonian physics understood gravity, not about relativity. We now know that gravity is not actually a force, but a curvature in space-time)

>> No.15215900

>>15211773
That was an enormous amount of words and effort to obfuscate the difference between the movement of one object in a distant system and the otherwise universally understood meaning of "fall to earth".

>> No.15216579
File: 46 KB, 720x762, 46519014_10214160897316727_2613096706052456448_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15216579

>>15211359

There was no measurable curvature during Felix Baumgartner 120000ft "edge of space" jump. Even black science man said so.

There is no way something that is no visible from that height to get in the way of a 6ft tall observer at sea level looking at a boat sailing into the horizon.

It doesn't matter how good your explanation may sound, Earth itself demonstrates reality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MX0jjAl4a3o

>> No.15217054

>>15209746
>this intuition only works if the two objects are dropped simultaneously rather than one at a time
combine that with the intuition that things should take the same length of time to fall no matter when they were dropped

>> No.15217231

>>15210061
>The weirdest thing for me is that gravity and em have infinite range.
The EM thing is because photons are massless so they can't decay. It's assumed that gravitons, if they exist, share this property: they have no mass, move at the speed of light, experience no time, and therefore can't decay.