[ 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: 13 KB, 500x411, atheism_motivational_poster_27.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3294965 No.3294965 [Reply] [Original]

Why do heavy objects fall faster than light ones on earth?

>> No.3294973

>>3294965
troll.

>> No.3294970

Leave.

>> No.3294978

Air resistance creates a larger upward force proportionally with light objects than heavy

>> No.3294986

Fuck you.

>> No.3295001
File: 62 KB, 473x745, 1306420455579.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3295001

>>3294978
Thank you

>> No.3295034

It's more a question of shape. A pen falls faster than a leave, a shoe falls faster than a parachute...
For two objects with equal shape, air resistance creates the same upward force, but the one with more mass has more inertia so it is slightly less decelerated. However the two objects mostly fall at the same speed, except if you take extreme example like a parachute of lead versus a normal parachute.

>> No.3295056

>>3294970
>>3294973
>>3294986
>assuming vacuum and same shape

>> No.3295058

Can't you geuss?

>> No.3295068

>>3295056
Even in vacuum and the same shape, a heavier object will fall faster.

>> No.3295087
File: 119 KB, 390x390, 1306572849218.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3295087

>>3295068
no

>> No.3295096

>>3295087
Yes.

>> No.3295104

>>3295096

NO

>> No.3295109

>>3295056
Vacuum is sufficient

>>3295068
Bad troll or middle-schooler

>> No.3295112

>>3295104
YES

>> No.3295116

Because F = (G.M1.M2)/r^2

</thrade>

>> No.3295118

summertime

>> No.3295120

This is true, the heavier object falls faster, due to the fact that it possesses more mass and thus more gravity, and it pulls the earth towards it more, effectively allowing it to fall faster.

>> No.3295132

>>3295116
OP i think this answers it. Force between the earth & an object increases if the mass of the object increase. Hence the obj will feel greater acceleration, hence fall faster than a lighter object

>> No.3295133

>>3295120
this

>> No.3295137

>>3295120
Thank you, finally somebody with a clue.
<span class="math">a = \frac{G}{r^2}(m_E + m)[/spoiler]

The bigger m, the bigger a gets.

>> No.3295143

>>3295087
>>3295104
>>3295109

u mad when science?

>> No.3295152

Well, the fraction of a millionth of a second by which the heavier object lands faster can be explained by air resistance.
The lighter an objects [or rather, the more spread out its surface is] the longer it will take for the object to fight against air before it reaches the ground.
In absolute vacuum, which can be easily replicated, both a lead rod and a feather will fall at the same speed, as there will be no air to resist for both of the objects.

Another thing perhaps worth mentioning is that bigger [and heavier objects] tend to have a stronger gravitational pull.
So, in theory, the earth and the heavier object should pull towards each other quicker than a lighter object and our planet.
The difference, however, will be so minuscule, it is extremely insignificant. Weight = mass x gravity... so perhaps mass has a role to play in gravity; but, as I've stated earlier, it's really insignificant.

>> No.3295151

objects of higher mass will have a gretaer force between them, therefore greater acceleration. However an object of negligible mass compared to the earth at a fairly low altitude, won't make any difference

>> No.3295161
File: 139 KB, 840x840, grav.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3295161

>>3295112

>> No.3295171

Because terminal velocity depends on both surface area, surface shape, and mass.

>> No.3295172

>>3295120
so does this mean that heavy objects fall faster in a vacuum aswell?

>> No.3295175

Because they have higher inertia due to their mass, meaning they can push air out of the way with a proportionately reduced speed reduction.

>> No.3295188

>>3295152

>air resistance
>in a vacuum

>>3295172

That's exactly what it means.

>> No.3295208

>>3295188

No it doesn't, you faggot. USE YOUR FUCKING BRAINS PEOPLE.

If the object has a greater mass and therefore perhaps a gravitational pull towards the Earth, it will also have a greater pull towards the moon and other objects around.
The heavier something is, the more it's gravity increases with ALL objects around it. In other words, there will be no change.
On Earth, air resistance is a bitch. In vacuum [which you can have on Earth as well], objects of all masses will fall at the same speed/velocity.

>> No.3295221

>>3295208
Nope. Depends on the locations of the various objects. As the gravity between the heavy object and the emoon has slightly less distance to travel than that between the light object and the moon, it will accelerate faster. As said before the difference is so tiny it wouldn't ever be visible.

>> No.3295220

>>3295208
Thank you

/thread/

>> No.3295243

>>3295221

On Earth, there are billions of other objects and they have their gravitational pulls. So >>3295208 is right. The heavier the objects is, the more it's gravitational pull will increase with those objects as well.

>> No.3295245

>>3295208
OP didn't mention anything about the moon or other objects. He mentioned the falling object and the Earth itself. Nothing else in the model.

If not, I could say well, it will actually fall upwards, because of a massive black hole that just appeared out of nowhere above Earth, which I just made up because apparently I can.

>> No.3295262

Wouldn't the falling object also attract the earth as it falls?

>> No.3295273

>>3295243
Firstly, I was talking about the moon
Secondly, this is going beyond the point I was making, which was that with two objects on the locus of any bodies on a significant mass the larger object will fall faster than the smaller object. There are ways it could be different, but with this scenario this is all that would happen.

>> No.3295274

>>3295262
It does.

>> No.3295279

>>3295245

You are rather dense, I see. Earth has objects on it... trees... seas... all of that actually has gravitational pulls as well.
Moon was merely a single example. Even YOU [crazy, right?] have a fucking gravitational pull you imbecile.
Thread is as good as over. Sayonara faggots.

>> No.3295305

>>3295279
Those despairing tears of butthurt after being proven wrong. Oh, ad hominems, how quickly you reveal that hidden anguish!

>> No.3295332

>>3295305
People here in /sci/ don't enjoy being corrected.

>> No.3295343

>>3295332
a lot of them seem pretty alright with it actually, it's strange.