Acceleration in Gravitational Field

AI Thread Summary
In a vacuum, all objects, regardless of mass, experience the same acceleration due to gravity when falling towards a gravitational center. The discussion highlights that while the acceleration of a test mass is independent of its own mass, the gravitational interaction changes if the larger mass is not stationary. When considering two masses, the time taken for a larger mass to accelerate towards a stationary mass is indeed shorter than for a smaller mass. The gravitational force between two objects is described by the equation F = G(Mm/r²), which accounts for the gravitational field of the test mass. Ultimately, the relative acceleration between two masses must consider both their movements, especially when one mass is significantly larger than the other.
philipp2020
Messages
34
Reaction score
0
Hi

It is always said that in a vacuum two objects even if they have different mass, have the same acceleration to a gravitational point regardless of their mass.

If I understand this right, it needs the same time for 1kg mass or 1000kg to fall
from 100m to the gravitational center.

But what I don't understand is, that the 1000kg mass itself has a much stronger gravitational field so that it also accelerates the gravitational center. So all together the time is shorter for the 1000kg mass and the gravitational field to clash than it is for the 1kg mass.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
the net force on an object is given by F = ma

the force due to gravity between two objects is equal to F = G\frac{Mm}{r^{2}}

setting these two equal to each other we get

ma = G\frac{Mm}{r^{2}}

dividing through by m gets

a = G\frac{M}{r^{2}}

which shows that the acceleration on an object due to the force of gravity acting on it by another object is independent of the mass of the other object

in F = G\frac{Mm}{r^{2}} it already takes into account the gravitational field of the "test mass", but when we solve for the acceleration of that test mass, its own mass does not matterall of this assumes that the mass M is held stationary. If it is not held stationary, then you are correct: the time taken for the larger mass to accelerate towards the mass M would be less than that of the smaller mass.
 
thanks very much! I didn't know about the stationary assumption.
 
all of this assumes that the mass M is held stationary. If it is not held stationary, then you are correct: the time taken for the larger mass to accelerate towards the mass M would be less than that of the smaller mass.
Are you sure that is allways the case, won't the acceleration be proportional.
Thats why all objects on Earth fall at the same rate.
Take the Earth and remove a 1Kilo mass from it and drop it from a height.
The 1 kilo mass will accelerate towards the Earth at a far greater speed than the Earth accelerating towards the 1 Kilo mass.
Like wise if you split the Earth in two each half would accelerate towards each other at a total speed equivalent to the 1 Kilo mass and the Earth's acceleration towards the 1Kilo mass.
It don't have to be held stationary what is required to make a difference is the size of the gravitational centre.
Two 1 Kilo masses in vacue are not going to accelerate towards there gravitational centre at the same speed as a 1000 Kilo mass and a 1Kilo mass.
 
ok let's make an easy example

lets put a second earth1 beside earth. Earth accelerates Earth1 with a1 and likewise Earth1 accelerates Earth with a2.

Then let's put a spacehuttle there. Earth accelerates the spaceshuttle with a3 and likewise the spaceshuttle accelerates Earth marginally with a4.

Then in my understanding a1 = a2 = a3 > a4.

So the time until they collide in a 2 vacuum space with two obects is shorter in the first case.
 
SHISHKABOB said:
all of this assumes that the mass M is held stationary. If it is not held stationary, then you are correct: the time taken for the larger mass to accelerate towards the mass M would be less than that of the smaller mass.
I would say that it gives the acceleration of the mass with respect to an inertial frame. To find the relative acceleration between the masses, you'd have to consider the acceleration of both masses.

Of course if one mass is monstrously larger than the other, such as the Earth is compared to a 1000 kg mass, the acceleration of the larger mass can often be neglected.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top