Why Does Gravitational Acceleration Seem Constant Regardless of Mass?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter shrumeo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gravity
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the concept of gravitational acceleration and why it appears constant at approximately 9.8 m/s² regardless of the mass of the falling object. Participants explore the implications of the equations of motion and gravitational force, questioning the assumptions behind these principles and their applicability in different contexts, such as on the Moon.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that the equation d=1/2a*t² implies a constant acceleration of 9.8 m/s², but question why this does not hold true when considering the gravitational interaction between two masses, as described by F=G(m1*m2)/R².
  • One participant points out that while 9.8 m/s² is a rough approximation for gravitational acceleration at the Earth's surface, it is not constant and varies with distance from the Earth's center.
  • Another participant explains that the mass of the falling object cancels out in the gravitational force equation, leading to a constant acceleration due to gravity, but emphasizes that this acceleration depends on the distance from the center of the Earth.
  • Concerns are raised about the interpretation of gravitational acceleration, particularly regarding the acceleration of the Earth towards the Moon and the relative sizes of the accelerations involved.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about the implications of these concepts and whether the simplifications taught in school adequately represent the complexities of gravitational interactions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that 9.8 m/s² is an approximation valid near the Earth's surface, but there is no consensus on the implications of this approximation or the extent to which it can be applied in different scenarios, such as on the Moon.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in understanding gravitational acceleration, including the dependence on distance from the Earth's center and the effects of mass on gravitational interactions, which are not fully addressed in basic educational contexts.

shrumeo
Messages
242
Reaction score
0
howdy,

so, we are told in school that because of d=1/2a*t^2

and a=F/m

that a will be constant, 9.8, g, no matter what the mass of the "falling" object

so that the moon and Earth would fall toward each other at 9.8 m/s/s just as a bowling ball toward the earth

Why is there only one mass in the above acceleration equation but 2 in
F=G(m1*m2)/R^2 ?

Based on the above assumption the Earth falls toward the moon at 9.8 m/s/s
but when you go to the moon, the value of a is not 9.8 m/s/s. If the above were totally true I could interchange either mass.

Is d=1/2g*t^2 a huge approximation that neglects the gravity of small objects? Just wondering because i was reading the sample chapter of
"The final theory" here: http://www.thefinaltheory.com/images/Final_Theory_--_Chapter_1.PDF

and the claim on page 56 is that this constant acceleration of gravity is a big mystery of science. I wanted to tell him he is wrong, but then I started to doubt myself. Could someone please clear this up for me?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
shrumeo said:
howdy,

so, we are told in school that because of d=1/2a*t^2

and a=F/m

that a will be constant, 9.8, g, no matter what the mass of the "falling" object

so that the moon and Earth would fall toward each other at 9.8 m/s/s just as a bowling ball toward the earth

Why is there only one mass in the above acceleration equation but 2 in
F=G(m1*m2)/R^2 ?

Based on the above assumption the Earth falls toward the moon at 9.8 m/s/s
but when you go to the moon, the value of a is not 9.8 m/s/s. If the above were totally true I could interchange either mass.

Is d=1/2g*t^2 a huge approximation that neglects the gravity of small objects? Just wondering because i was reading the sample chapter of
"The final theory" here: http://www.thefinaltheory.com/images/Final_Theory_--_Chapter_1.PDF

and the claim on page 56 is that this constant acceleration of gravity is a big mystery of science. I wanted to tell him he is wrong, but then I started to doubt myself. Could someone please clear this up for me?

9.8 ms-2 is only rough value for the accelartion due to garvity at the Earth's surface. It is not constant.

If you wanted to find the accelration due to (the Earth's) gravity for some object of mass m you'd use the second formula:

[tex]F = \frac{GM_{Earth}m}{r^2}[/tex]

substitute in a = F/m

[tex]a = \frac{GM_{Earth}}{r^2}[/tex]

So we go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth and get the values for mass and mean radius of the Earth, we get an answer of a = 9.8199 ms-2, which is in pretty good agreement of our value of 9.8.

If we now input r as the mean radius of the orbit of the moon (again from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon) we get a = 0.0027 ms-2 which considerably less than 9.8.

The reason why there is only one mass in the first equation is that the first equation describes the force of a single body, whereas the second describes a force between two bodies.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
acceleration due to gravity

There are a few things to sort out here...

shrumeo said:
so, we are told in school that because of d=1/2a*t^2

and a=F/m

that a will be constant, 9.8, g, no matter what the mass of the "falling" object
Well, it's true that the acceleration due to gravity near the surface of the Earth is about 9.8 m/s^2 and is independent of the mass of the object (as long as the object is reasonably small compared to the earth--so that you can ignore the earth's acceleration). But not for the reason you gave.

That first equation is just a kinematic relationship for uniform acceleration, and the second is Newton's 2nd law.

To find the acceleration due to gravity, we must combine the force of gravity:
[tex]F = G\frac{M_{earth}m}{R^2}[/tex]
with Newton's 2nd law:
[tex]a = F/m[/tex]
This gives an acceleration due to gravity of:
[tex]a_{gravity} = G\frac{M_{earth}}{R^2}[/tex]
Note that m (the mass of the object) cancels out: If you double the mass, you double the force, so the acceleration is constant. Also note that the acceleration depends on R, which is the distance from the center of the earth.

If you plug in the numbers (mass of earth, radius of earth, G) you will get a value of around 9.8 m/s^2 (that's what we call g).

so that the moon and Earth would fall toward each other at 9.8 m/s/s just as a bowling ball toward the earth
Careful. Firstly, the distance to the moon is about 60 Earth radii, thus the acceleration due to Earth's gravity at the moon's position is about 1/3600 times smaller than g at the Earth's surface!

Second, if the Earth pulls on the moon (or any object) then the moon (or object) pulls back on the Earth with exactly the same force. But the resulting acceleration is not equal! The Earth is pretty big, so its acceleration due to the force of gravity is usually quite small. For example, as huge as it is, the moon is still only 1/81 times the mass of the earth, so the acceleration of the Earth due to the moon is 1/81 times smaller that the acceleration of the moon due to the earth. That's pretty small. Can you imagine how much smaller is the acceleration of the Earth due to the attraction of a bowling ball? Undetectable!

I hope this helps a little.

Note: I see that jcsd has already answered the question. Oh well, now you'll hear it twice.
 
Ok, I really appreciate the detail that you two gave in your explanations. Thanks!

So, I guess that the idea of every object falling to Earth with the exact same rate of acceleration is an approximation of the actual case? I was just trying to make sure of this so that I could be sure that this "Final Theory" guy is smoking crack. (Oh, I'm looking at my question above and I should have said that g = 9.8 m/s/s is the approximation. It's relation to distance and time wouldn't be, or would it? O well.)

When you said "careful", Doc Al, I wasn't expressing my beliefs or understanding, I was expressing the way one would understand the subject based solely on what we are taught in junior high. O well, no biggie.

Thanks again!
 
9.8 is only an approximation valid at or near the Earth's surface.

It's interesting that we can do a simlair thing for any object no matter it's mass. For example we could find how much I accelarte the Earth in free fall. If we approximate me to a point mass (which isn't a major approximation if you consider the difference between the Earth's radius and my maximum radius) and take my mass of ~90kg. We find that the accelartion due to my gravity of the Earth ( take r as REarth) is about 1.5e-22 ms-2.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K