Register to reply

Why does an object start to fall under gravity

by Adeste
Tags: fall, gravity, object, start
Share this thread:
DrewD
#37
Jan21-13, 10:24 AM
P: 445
Quote Quote by Adeste View Post
My model does absolutely describe the motion of a general moving particle.

I apologise if Lagrangian mechanics shows this. I leave you to judge.

However I conclude that gravitaional force is not equal to mg but ma where a is the actual acceleration of the actual particle not a theoretical value.

To be precise f=mg does not work for a stationary particle but does at all other times.
Your "model" claims that particle with zero internal energy will never accelerate from rest. Depending on how you define internal energy, this is either not true, or it is impossible to have a particle with no energy (if you want to consider rest energy of a particle in SR). If you have a theory of physics that predicts things that are never observed, your theory is wrong.

If the force due to gravity is the mass times the actual acceleration of the particle, then a particle at rest would have no weight. Again, this is pure silliness. If there were some observation of this, then maybe it would be interesting, but there hasn't been and this isn't.

[itex]f=mg[/itex] does work for a stationary particle. The force do to gravity of a particle at rest is [itex]mg[/itex] which opposed by some normal force that is equal and opposite and therefore the sum of all forces is 0.

Your "model" is not a model because it does not describe anything real. You are trying to find a way to solve a problem that arises because of a false assumption. The resolution should be obvious. I'm pretty much done with this thread since you appear to be sticking to your guns and uninterested in actual study. Your "model" predicts things that don't happen. Give it up.
Adeste
#38
Jan21-13, 11:06 AM
P: 21
Quote Quote by DrewD View Post
Your "model" claims that particle with zero internal energy will never accelerate from rest. Depending on how you define internal energy, this is either not true, or it is impossible to have a particle with no energy (if you want to consider rest energy of a particle in SR). If you have a theory of physics that predicts things that are never observed, your theory is wrong.

If the force due to gravity is the mass times the actual acceleration of the particle, then a particle at rest would have no weight. Again, this is pure silliness. If there were some observation of this, then maybe it would be interesting, but there hasn't been and this isn't.

[itex]f=mg[/itex] does work for a stationary particle. The force do to gravity of a particle at rest is [itex]mg[/itex] which opposed by some normal force that is equal and opposite and therefore the sum of all forces is 0.

Your "model" is not a model because it does not describe anything real. You are trying to find a way to solve a problem that arises because of a false assumption. The resolution should be obvious. I'm pretty much done with this thread since you appear to be sticking to your guns and uninterested in actual study. Your "model" predicts things that don't happen. Give it up.
Can I say how much I have enjoyed this tread and all the input from contributors.

If as you say I predict things that at this moment in time can not be observed makes my theory wrong so be it. I am not, as I am sure you guess, a professional physicist . I am not trying to create a new model for the scientific community. I am only excising my enquiring mind

You are right I am sure that it is pure silliness to suggest a particle not an object at rest has no weight. I was hoping for a more informative and reasoning other than silliness. Particularly as you can produce no experimental evidence to show me wrong

You keep stating f=mg for a particle is correct you are right it is for an object stationary or moving, and a moving particle, but not a stationary particle as I have shown. So there are no challenges to mechanics there never was I always said the effect was probably not observable.

I am still not sure if the effect can be observed and measured that is for better physicists than me to work out. Also my conclusion is only F=MA which seems highly satisfactory.

Please before you go could you explain my false assumption. I have only used conservation of energy, Heisenberg's Energy-Time uncertainty principle and 2nd law of thermodynamics. oh and causality.

Even if you cannot do this as you perceive me as a waste of space and do not wish to waste your time I really do thank you and the others for your efforts and time indulging my enquiring mind. I have learned a great deal

If that sounds sarcastic it really is not. It is entirely genuine and I wish you all well.
DaleSpam
#39
Jan21-13, 12:10 PM
Mentor
P: 16,981
Quote Quote by Adeste View Post
My model does absolutely describe the motion of a general moving particle.
No, it doesn't. Your model is incomplete meaning that it is underdetermined. While the correct solution is compatible with your model there are also incorrect solutions which are compatible with your model. For example:
[tex]x(t)=y(t)=\frac{E}{gm} \left( 1- e^{-\sqrt{2}gt} \right)[/tex]
This is not a correct solution, but it satisfies your model by maintaining a constant total energy with KE decreasing as the object moves to an area of higher PE.

Your model is WRONG, even for moving particles. It does not have enough information to select the correct trajectory which is compatible with energy considerations. For that, you need the principle of least action.

Quote Quote by Adeste View Post
However I conclude that gravitaional force is not equal to mg but ma where a is the actual acceleration of the actual particle not a theoretical value.

To be precise f=mg does not work for a stationary particle but does at all other times.
This conclusion is also WRONG. Please work on learning actual mainstream physics rather than trying to invent new models. The current models have been well tested for centuries, and they work. There is good reason to learn them very well before attempting to make any improvements. Your proposed model is NOT an improvement, it is a mistake.
sophiecentaur
#40
Jan21-13, 12:12 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
sophiecentaur's Avatar
P: 11,923
I don't think he's switched to 'receive' on this one.
Adeste
#41
Jan21-13, 12:50 PM
P: 21
Quote Quote by DaleSpam View Post
No, it doesn't. Your model is incomplete meaning that it is underdetermined. While the correct solution is compatible with your model there are also incorrect solutions which are compatible with your model. For example:
[tex]x(t)=y(t)=\frac{E}{gm} \left( 1- e^{-\sqrt{2}gt} \right)[/tex]
This is not a correct solution, but it satisfies your model by maintaining a constant total energy with KE decreasing as the object moves to an area of higher PE.

Your model is WRONG, even for moving particles. It does not have enough information to select the correct trajectory which is compatible with energy considerations. For that, you need the principle of least action.

This conclusion is also WRONG. Please work on learning actual mainstream physics rather than trying to invent new models. The current models have been well tested for centuries, and they work. There is good reason to learn them very well before attempting to make any improvements. Your proposed model is NOT an improvement, it is a mistake.
Hi my model is not wrong it needs no information on moving or stationary objects as it makes no difference to the accepted model except when a particle is not moving. It makes no new prediction for moving particles it does not interfere in any way with excepted observable models.

It only says that when a particle not an object is stationary it will not experience a force. As I am lead to believe this is never observable therefore this cannot I believe be shown to be wrong. Clearly you could say it was irrelevant and you may be correct time will tell.

You are correct the present models have been rigorously tested and work I have said this before. Theories on the present testable/observable world are not changed in my model in any way stationary or moving.

I am not trying to improve the models science use it is a personal model of the world to aid my understanding. I thank you for help in refining my model and sorting out in my mind the problem of action at a distance which always seemed nonsense.

I really thank you for your time and patience while I indulged my enquiring mind.

I wish you well
DaleSpam
#42
Jan21-13, 12:54 PM
Mentor
P: 16,981
Quote Quote by Adeste View Post
Hi my model is not wrong it needs no information on moving or stationary objects as it makes no difference to the accepted model except when a particle is not moving. It makes no new prediction for moving particles it does not interfere in any way with excepted observable models.
Yes, your model as you have presented here is wrong for moving objects. I mathematically proved it by showing a trajectory which satisfies your model but is not correct. Your model differs significantly and does make new predictions compared to correct models, as shown above.

If you disagree and believe that your model is correct, then you need to demonstrate in which way my posted trajectory violates your model. If my posted trajectory does not violate your model then your model is wrong, as I have claimed.
Adeste
#43
Jan21-13, 12:55 PM
P: 21
Quote Quote by sophiecentaur View Post
I don't think he's switched to 'receive' on this one.
As I am sure you have noticed I have finished my enquires my model is complete. Can I thank you also for your thoughts and time.

I wish you well I really enjoyed it

ps great signature
Adeste
#44
Jan21-13, 12:59 PM
P: 21
Quote Quote by DaleSpam View Post
Yes, your model as you have presented here is wrong for moving objects. I mathematically proved it by showing a trajectory which satisfies your model but is not correct.
My model does not predict any trajectory sorry if I presented it in a way such that you think it did I apologise. I specifically said it does not apply to moving particles.

Again thanks
DaleSpam
#45
Jan21-13, 01:12 PM
Mentor
P: 16,981
Quote Quote by Adeste View Post
I specifically said it does not apply to moving particles.
I am calling "BS" on this:
Quote Quote by Adeste View Post
as a body moves to an area of lower gravitational it loses gravitational potential energy which is converted into KE and hence it moves faster hence accelerates
Care to revise your statement?

The whole point of this thread is that you believe that the above model correctly describes the physics of a moving body. You were then concerned by the fact that this model admits a non-physical solution for a stationary body, namely the solution where it doesn't move at all.

I demonstrated that it also admits a non-physical solution for a moving body. Therefore, since it admits non-physical solutions for moving bodies it should come as no surprise that it admits non-physical solutions for stationary bodies also.

There is no difference wrt moving and stationary bodies, the model fails for both.
DrewD
#46
Jan21-13, 03:26 PM
P: 445
Quote Quote by Adeste View Post
My model does not predict any trajectory sorry if I presented it in a way such that you think it did I apologise. I specifically said it does not apply to moving particles.

Again thanks
Haha wait! what? you have a model that doesn't predict things? A stationary particle has a trajectory. It is one with momentum equal to zero.

I know I said I wouldn't come back, but this is starting become funny.
Adeste's "model" predicts things that are counter to current theory, BUT since his/her model only applies to particles that are defined by the fact that they follow this model, there is no problem with the fact that current theory predicts different things. So we have a theory that ONLY applies to stationary particles that are not effected by Newton's laws and the theory's conclusion is that these particles are not effected by Newton's laws! Inevitably, they will also not be effected by QM because those are different particles for which this theory doesn't apply.

I think this might actually turn out to be a good example to use in HS physics to show why energy conservation is not sufficient to describe reality and what the difference between science and pseudoscience is.
IsometricPion
#47
Jan21-13, 07:04 PM
P: 177
Quote Quote by Adeste View Post
If Δx= 0 then Δpe =0 ∴Δke =0 ∴Δv=0 ∴acceleration = 0
I think this is the key line of reasoning in your model. Δx = 0 → Δpe = 0 holds due to the assumption that potential energy is only a function of x (which holds in the case of a uniform gravitational field). Δpe = 0 → Δke = 0 holds by definition of the total energy and the assumption of its conservation (this statement also holds true in the above discussion). Δke = 0 → Δv = 0 holds due to the assumption that kinetic energy is only a function of velocity (which is true in the above discussion also). Δv = 0 → acceleration = 0 holds if acceleration is a function only of velocity (or change in velocity over a time period of constant length). This last implication does not hold in a uniform gravitational field.

The instantaneous acceleration of an object does not depend on the instantaneous velocity of the object (for uniform gravitational fields). Therefore it is not possible to obtain from the velocity of an object (at one point in time) any information about its acceleration (for uniform gravitational fields).


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Object in free fall Introductory Physics Homework 5
Time it takes object in space to fall to Earth's surfac net F on object = Fg of Earth Introductory Physics Homework 11
Free fall object Introductory Physics Homework 10
What speed will an object fall? Classical Physics 5
Fall of Object Introductory Physics Homework 4