# G acceleration

by scientifico
Tags: acceleration
 P: 181 Hello, comparing the formula of gravitational attraction with F = m*a you get that the smaller mass disappear. I don't think this is physically correct, do you ? thank you
Mentor
P: 41,429
 Quote by scientifico Hello, comparing the formula of gravitational attraction with F = m*a you get that the smaller mass disappear. I don't think this is physically correct, do you ?
Why do you think it's not correct?

 P: 718 G acceleration To briefly summarize ZapperZ's FAQ entry (since it mostly just derives what you seem to have already realized): what you have noticed is the fact that, ignoring air resistance, all objects fall at the same rate if dropped from the same height. Galileo noticed this a long time ago. It's not only physically correct—it's the defining feature of gravity.
Emeritus
PF Gold
P: 29,238
 Quote by LastOneStanding To briefly summarize ZapperZ's FAQ entry (since it mostly just derives what you seem to have already realized): what you have noticed is the fact that, ignoring air resistance, all objects fall at the same rate if dropped from the same height. Galileo noticed this a long time ago. It's not only physically correct—it's the defining feature of gravity.
I think you missed the point of the "mostly just derives" part. The derivation shows one very important assumption, making it valid for a particular situation, i.e the case for two bodies in which one mass is significantly smaller than the other, i.e. m << M. I wouldn't call this "the defining feature of gravity" since the situation applies only to a specific case.

For m comparable to M, this doesn't work.

Zz.
P: 4,005
 Quote by ZapperZ For m comparable to M, this doesn't work.
What doesn't work for m comparable to M? Sure, you have to consider the acceleration of the other body, if you want to integrate over time. But that is not what the OP asks about.

The instantaneous acceleration of an body in a gravitational field is independent of its mass, regardless what the mass ratios are. That's what the OP derived, but doubts. Whether the gravitational field changes over time, because the other object moves too, is a different issue.
Emeritus
PF Gold
P: 29,238
 Quote by A.T. What doesn't work for m comparable to M? Sure, you have to consider the acceleration of the other body, if you want to integrate over time. But that is not what the OP asks about.
I wasn't addressing the OP in that last post. I was addressing the statement that all things falling at the same rate is the defining feature of gravity. This is false in the most general case.

For what the OP is asking, the reason is shown in the derivation in the FAQ.

Zz.
P: 718
 Quote by ZapperZ I wasn't addressing the OP in that last post. I was addressing the statement that all things falling at the same rate is the defining feature of gravity. This is false in the most general case. For what the OP is asking, the reason is shown in the derivation in the FAQ. Zz.
This is absurdly pedantic. Do you disagree that the equivalence principle is what distinguishes gravity from other forces? Given the manner in which the geometrization of gravity follows from it, I can't imagine how any one would disagree with that characterization. The weak equivalence principle, at least, and the notion that all bodies fall at the same rate are the same thing. The fact that matter also generates gravity doesn't change the fact that way it responds to it is unique compared to every other force. I think A.T. addressed this point well.

More to the point: the OP said, "I've done this calculation, and it leads to conclusion X which I can't believe is true." Your response was to link to a question that is, "Why is X true?" that shows it's true (at least under the right circumstances) by repeating the same sort of calculation the OP did. That is not very helpful. The OP wouldn't ask, "Why is the conclusion true?" because he doesn't think it's true! All you've done is start from the belief that it's true and repeated what he already knew. Whatever further caveats and restrictions you want to add don't change that fundamental fact. The correct response to OP's question is just: yes, actually, it is essentially true. If they then want to delve into why it's true—why gravitational and inertial mass seem to be equivalent—then that can be delved into as a follow up, as can the caveats that show it's actually just a limiting behaviour.
P: 4,005
 Quote by ZapperZ I was addressing the statement that all things falling at the same rate is the defining feature of gravity. This is false in the most general case.
"Falling at the same rate" is indeed fuzzy. I prefer saying "accelerating the same".
Emeritus
PF Gold
P: 29,238
 Quote by LastOneStanding This is absurdly pedantic. Do you disagree that the equivalence principle is what distinguishes gravity from other forces? Given the manner in which the geometrization of gravity follows from it, I can't imagine how any one would disagree with that characterization. The weak equivalence principle, at least, and the notion that all bodies fall at the same rate are the same thing. The fact that matter also generates gravity doesn't change the fact that way it responds to it is unique compared to every other force. I think A.T. addressed this point well. More to the point: the OP said, "I've done this calculation, and it leads to conclusion X which I can't believe is true." Your response was to link to a question that is, "Why is X true?" that shows it's true (at least under the right circumstances) by repeating the same sort of calculation the OP did. That is not very helpful. The OP wouldn't ask, "Why is the conclusion true?" because he doesn't think it's true! All you've done is start from the belief that it's true and repeated what he already knew. Whatever further caveats and restrictions you want to add don't change that fundamental fact. The correct response to OP's question is just: yes, actually, it is essentially true. If they then want to delve into why it's true—why gravitational and inertial mass seem to be equivalent—then that can be delved into as a follow up, as can the caveats that show it's actually just a limiting behaviour.
I don't understand what this is about.

Why don't you try to work this out yourself. You are on a planet of mass M. Planet A has mass M as well while planet B has mass M/2. Do you really think that from your point of view on your planet, both planets will "fall" at the IDENTICAL rate?

Try it. And don't forget that your planet is also falling towards the center of mass of the 2-planet system.

Zz.
 P: 181 If I have two bodies on the earth m1 and m2 both with m << M, is their gravitational acceleration EXACTLY the same or the heavier body has a very slightly higher acceleration ?
P: 4,005
 Quote by scientifico If I have two bodies on the earth m1 and m2 both with m << M, is their gravitational acceleration EXACTLY the same or the heavier body has a very slightly higher acceleration ?
I assume you mean two scenarios with two bodies each: M & m1 and M & m2 ?

m << M doesn't matter for the instantaneous acceleration, which is the same for m1 and m2 at the same distance from M, no matter how great M is.

But the total time until collision will be shorter for the heavier m, if M is not much greater than the m's.
HW Helper
P: 2,280
 Quote by scientifico If I have two bodies on the earth m1 and m2 both with m << M, is their gravitational acceleration EXACTLY the same or the heavier body has a very slightly higher acceleration ?
What frame of reference are you using?

To an external viewer, both small objects accelerate at the same rate. The only difference is that the acceleration of the large mass is just slightly greater with the heavier small mass.

If your frame of reference is the large mass, then the acceleration of the small objects and the large object have to be added together. A viewer on the large mass will see the heavier small object accelerate at a slightly greater rate than the smaller small object.
Mentor
P: 17,200
 Quote by ZapperZ I wasn't addressing the OP in that last post. I was addressing the statement that all things falling at the same rate is the defining feature of gravity. This is false in the most general case.
I think it is the defining feature in Newtonian gravity. Given a point mass M at rest at the origin then the acceleration of a second point mass m at some distance r depends only on M and r, and not on m. It doesn't matter at all if m<<M or if m≈M or even if M<<m.

The only way it is not true is if you use a (Newtonian) non inertial frame to measure the rate of falling. I think that must be what you are doing, but I don't know why.
 PF Gold P: 244 I have learned that a hammer and a feather (in vacuum) will not have the same acceleration. Appearently it has because these objects are so small compared to the earth, that the earth mass will dominate almost totally. The hammer will hit the ground a split second before the feather. Maybe this was off topic, but might help I hope. Vidar
Mentor
P: 41,429
 Quote by Low-Q I have learned that a hammer and a feather (in vacuum) will not have the same acceleration.
I wouldn't put it that way. Their accelerations (measured from an inertial frame) will be the same, but the earth's acceleration will be different.
 Appearently it has because these objects are so small compared to the earth, that the earth mass will dominate almost totally. The hammer will hit the ground a split second before the feather.
If you calculate the acceleration of the earth due to the hammer or a feather you'll find it to be a ludicrously small correction. Way way way lost in the noise and beyond the scope of this simple gravity model for the earth. See: http://www.physicsforums.com/showpos...2&postcount=16
P: 181
so heavier body hit the earth before the lighter one because its stronger gravitational field gets the earth a bit closer to it ?

 The instantaneous acceleration of an body in a gravitational field is independent of its mass, regardless what the mass ratios are.
isn't acceleration directly proportional to force a = F/m, and gravitational formula says force increase dependently on both bodies masses.... F = (G*M*m)/d^2
said that I dont understand physically why acceleration is independent from m
HW Helper
P: 3,446
 Quote by scientifico so heavier body hit the earth before the lighter one because its stronger gravitational field gets the earth a bit closer to it ?
yup.

 Quote by scientifico ...said that I dont understand physically why acceleration is independent from m
"The instantaneous acceleration is independent from its mass." Is a statement that, (as others have said), could be taken as fundamental to the physics of gravity. So really, we can simply say it is a postulate. (which means it is an assumption that a theory is based on, and so as long as our theory keeps producing good results, we don't reject our postulate).

But I am guessing you are looking for a good analogy, or intuitive explanation, which will help to drive it home? hmm... by analogy, it is similar to coulomb's law, replacing charge with mass, so then it just so happens that mass gets cancelled out of the equation. By intuition... the gravitational force gets stronger with stronger mass, but then the inertia increases as well, so gravity has more to pull on, so the two effects cancel out, so that increasing the mass doesn't increase the acceleration (or decrease it). I can't think of any other ways to explain it.

 Related Discussions General Physics 1 Engineering Systems & Design 1 Introductory Physics Homework 1 Advanced Physics Homework 1