Equal Energy Exchange in Gravitationally Attracted Objects?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Drakkith
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy Gravity
AI Thread Summary
Gravitationally attracted objects do not exchange equal energy due to their differing masses. When a ball is dropped from a height, it accelerates towards the Earth, gaining kinetic energy, while the Earth experiences an imperceptible change in velocity. The energy transferred to the ball is significantly greater than that transferred to the Earth, resulting in the ball having most of the system's kinetic energy. The Earth’s minuscule acceleration leads to an almost negligible velocity change. Overall, the potential energy lost by the system primarily converts into the ball's kinetic energy.
Drakkith
Mentor
Messages
23,179
Reaction score
7,656
Hey all. I was reading a post and a question popped into my head.

Do objects that are gravitationally attracted to each other give each other the same energy, but in opposite directions, no matter the difference in masses? Like if I drop a ball from 100 ft, does the ball give the Earth the same amount of energy that the Earth gives the ball, but just in the opposite direction? I'm assuming this cancels out any net gain or loss in energy overall. Is that correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Drakkith said:
same energy, but in opposite directions

Erm. Energy is a scalar quantity, it has no direction associated with it...
 
Nabeshin said:
Erm. Energy is a scalar quantity, it has no direction associated with it...

Ok. Energy resulting in velocity, but in opposite directions. Or however the correct way of saying it is.
 
Drakkith said:
Hey all. I was reading a post and a question popped into my head.

Do objects that are gravitationally attracted to each other give each other the same energy, but in opposite directions, no matter the difference in masses? Like if I drop a ball from 100 ft, does the ball give the Earth the same amount of energy that the Earth gives the ball, but just in the opposite direction? I'm assuming this cancels out any net gain or loss in energy overall. Is that correct?

I really don't think that they end up with the same energy. I get a result that it takes about 2.49 s for a ball dropped from that height to reach the ground, at which point it has a speed of about 24.45 m/s. If I use the miniscule acceleration experienced by the Earth (assuming a 1 kg ball) to figure out what Earth's velocity would be after 2.49 s, I get something like 4x10-24 m/s.

The net result seems to be that essentially ALL of the potential energy lost by the Earth-ball system ends up as kinetic energy of the ball.
 
So I know that electrons are fundamental, there's no 'material' that makes them up, it's like talking about a colour itself rather than a car or a flower. Now protons and neutrons and quarks and whatever other stuff is there fundamentally, I want someone to kind of teach me these, I have a lot of questions that books might not give the answer in the way I understand. Thanks
I am attempting to use a Raman TruScan with a 785 nm laser to read a material for identification purposes. The material causes too much fluorescence and doesn’t not produce a good signal. However another lab is able to produce a good signal consistently using the same Raman model and sample material. What would be the reason for the different results between instruments?

Similar threads

Back
Top