Lack of air resistance VS lack of gravity

In summary: I don't know what you mean by "resistance from the electrons" but yes, if you jumped off a really tall building on the moon, you'd end up going a fair bit faster. Because there wouldn't be any forces opposing your falling motion, you would simply carry on accelerating (until splat-down) rather than achieving a terminal velocity as on earth.
  • #1
hexhunter
100
0
a small question, on the moon, the small amount of gravity prevents sudden falling like on earth, however would the lack of gases allow somebody jumping on the moon a much faster falling speed than on earth, because they do not have resistance from the electrons in usual earthly gases.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I don't know what you mean by "resistance from the electrons" but yes, if you jumped off a really tall building on the moon, you'd end up going a fair bit faster. Because there wouldn't be any forces opposing your falling motion, you would simply carry on accelerating (until splat-down) rather than achieving a terminal velocity as on earth.
 
  • #3
brewnog said:
I don't know what you mean by "resistance from the electrons" but yes, if you jumped off a really tall building on the moon, you'd end up going a fair bit faster. Because there wouldn't be any forces opposing your falling motion, you would simply carry on accelerating (until splat-down) rather than achieving a terminal velocity as on earth.

the negetive EM charge of an electron means that when it meets another electron they repel each other, just like magnets.

so you mean that in long distances, yes, but you would still have the slow-mo effect when jumping short distances.
 
  • #4
Sorry, I was talking on the macroscopic scale (people jumping etc).
 
  • #5
It depends on how high you jump. Without air resistance there is no terminal velocity on the moon. However on earth, a person typically has a terminal velocity of about 150mph on earth.
 
  • #6
An interesting question for someone to figure out. (I may in a bit)!

How far must you fall on the moon to reach and exceed the terminal velocity of a fall on earth? (Assume terminal velocity of 50 m/s (nice round number which is close)

I'll give some else a chance at it. Then, in a bit, when I get some time I will post a solution.
 
  • #7
You want the height of fallin for an impact velocity of 50m/s

v = a t

50 = (3.4)(t)

t = 14.705s

Constant acceleration of 3.4m/s^2 for 14.705s without air resistance gives:

[tex] \Delta X = \frac{at^2}{2} = \frac{(3.4)(14.7)^2}{2} = 367.35m [/tex] high. Anything above this will breach 50m/s
 
  • #8
I tried this using energy conservation:

2GM/R = V^2

[tex] R = 2GM/V^2 = (2*6.67*7.36*10^(22-11))/2500 = (98.18x10^11)/2500 = 3.927 x 10^9 [/tex] from the moon's center (1737400m radius)

Thats MUCH bigger, but I think I am just on the wrong track over all. any help?
 
  • #9
According to my CRC Handbook of Chem and physics [itex] g_m = 1.62 \frac m s [/itex]

As you did I started with

v= at

or [tex] t = \frac v a [/tex]

also

[tex] x = \frac 1 2 a t^2 [/tex]

so
[tex] x = \frac 1 2 a ( \frac v a )^2 [/tex]

[tex] x = \frac {v^2} {2 a} [/tex]

let v = 50 [itex] \frac m s [/itex] and a = 1.62 [itex] \frac m {s^2} [/itex]

x ~ 770m

From energy considerations we have

[tex] mgh = \frac 1 2 m v^2 [/tex]

or

[tex] h = \frac {v^2} {2 g} [/tex]

This is the same as my final expression above.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Stupid me, I was doing my problem for Mars for some reason.

Is it wrong to use energy conservation in this way:

[tex] KE = -GPE [/tex]

[tex] \frac{mv^2}{2} = -\frac{GMm}{R} [/tex]

The kinetic energy gained will equal the loss in gravitational potential energy.
 
  • #11
whozum said:
Stupid me, I was doing my problem for Mars for some reason.

Is it wrong to use energy conservation in this way:

[tex] KE = -GPE [/tex]

[tex] \frac{mv^2}{2} = -\frac{GMm}{R} [/tex]

The kinetic energy gained will equal the loss in gravitational potential energy.
The potential energy is the CHANGE in height. so you would need to have a term like

[tex] R_1 - R_2 [/tex]

Where [itex]R_1[/itex] is the starting point and [itex] R_2 [/itex] the ending. But if you just let [itex] h = R_1 - R_2 [/tex] it is the same.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
Im trying to accommodate this but I can't get it. Does GMm/R simplify to mgh?
 
  • #13
My apologies I should have caught this right off the bat.

[tex] G \frac {mM} {r^2} [/tex]

is not energy that is gravitational FORCE. No, that expression will not get you what you want.
 
  • #14
whozum said:
Im trying to accommodate this but I can't get it. Does GMm/R simplify to mgh?

Okay,

in order to get what you want you need to do this.

The potential energy at the moon's surface would be

[tex]P_em =-\frac{GMm}{R_m}[/tex]

At height h above the surface:

[tex]P_eh =-\frac{GMm}{R_m+h}[/tex]
[/tex]

We want the difference so we get:

[tex]\Delta P_e = \frac{GMm}{R_m}-\frac{GMm}{R_m+h}[/tex]

This is what will equal the kinetic energy of the falling mass. thus:

[tex]\frac{GMm}{R_m}-\frac{GMm}{R_m+h}= \frac{mv^2}{2}[/tex]

[tex]GMm \left( \frac{1}{R_m}-\frac{1}{R_m+h} \right) = \frac{mv^2}{2}[/tex]

[tex]\frac{1}{R_m}-\frac{1}{R_m+h}= \frac{mv^2}{2GMm}[/tex]

[tex]\frac{1}{R_m}-\frac{1}{R_m+h}= \frac{v^2}{2GM}[/tex]

[tex]\frac{1}{R_m}-\frac{v^2}{2GM}= \frac{1}{R_m+h}[/tex]

[tex]\frac{1}{\frac{1}{R_m}-\frac{v^2}{2GM}}= R_m+h[/tex]

[tex]\frac{1}{\frac{1}{R_m}-\frac{v^2}{2GM}}-R_m= h[/tex]

If R is very large as compared to h, then this answer comes out very close to that you would get using mgh.
 

1. What is the difference between lack of air resistance and lack of gravity?

Lack of air resistance refers to a scenario where there is no air or gas present to oppose the motion of an object. Lack of gravity, on the other hand, refers to a situation where there is no gravitational force acting on an object.

2. How do lack of air resistance and lack of gravity affect objects differently?

Lack of air resistance can cause objects to move with greater speed and acceleration, as there is no force to slow them down. Lack of gravity, on the other hand, can cause objects to float or remain stationary as there is no force pulling them towards the ground.

3. Can an object experience both lack of air resistance and lack of gravity at the same time?

Yes, in situations such as outer space, where there is no atmosphere, an object can experience both lack of air resistance and lack of gravity simultaneously.

4. How do lack of air resistance and lack of gravity affect the motion of falling objects?

Lack of air resistance can cause objects to fall with greater speed and acceleration, as there is no force slowing them down. Lack of gravity, however, can cause objects to float or remain stationary, which would prevent them from falling.

5. How does the absence of air resistance and gravity impact the behavior of objects in a vacuum?

In a vacuum, where there is no air or gravity present, objects will continue to move in a straight line with a constant speed, unless acted upon by an external force. This is because there is no air resistance to slow the object down, and no gravity to pull it in a certain direction.

Similar threads

  • Classical Physics
Replies
10
Views
240
Replies
7
Views
6K
Replies
4
Views
913
  • Mechanical Engineering
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
33
Views
2K
  • Electromagnetism
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Classical Physics
3
Replies
102
Views
3K
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Back
Top