Basic question from well check the handle

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Dumbass5000
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the physics of bouncing objects, specifically comparing a 1-pound rock and a 1000-pound rock thrown at 100 mph onto a hard, frictionless surface. Under the assumption of a vacuum and perfect spherical rocks, both objects would theoretically bounce the same distance due to the conservation of momentum and energy. However, the larger rock's greater mass would lead to more energy being expended in displacing the Earth upon impact, potentially affecting its bounce. The conversation highlights the complexities of real-world physics versus idealized scenarios.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Newton's laws of motion
  • Basic principles of energy conservation
  • Concept of gravitational potential energy
  • Knowledge of elastic collisions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the principles of elastic and inelastic collisions
  • Explore the concept of gravitational potential energy in different mass scenarios
  • Learn about the effects of friction on bouncing objects
  • Investigate the physics of momentum conservation in collisions
USEFUL FOR

Physics students, educators, and anyone interested in the mechanics of motion and energy transfer in collisions.

Dumbass5000
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I'm involved in a little debate, and I'm looking for an answer to this ignant question:

If I've got two objects of equal density but differing mass, let's say a 1 pound rock and a 1000 pound rock, and I throw them at 100mph over a surface such as dirt/grass, achieving equal height and contact angle upon impact with each object, will they bounce the same distance? (for the sake of argument we'll assume this is in a vacuum)

I understand that the larger rock will achieve proportionately greater gravitational potential energy, and therefore proportionately greater kinetic energy, but it seems to me that the larger rock would also expend a greater amount of that energy displacing the Earth upon contact than would the smaller, and would therefore generate less reactive energy (I'm sure that's a totally ignorant way to phrase it) to once again propel it skyward.

Thanks for helping out a Dumbass5000.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Dumbass5000 said:
I'm involved in a little debate, and I'm looking for an answer to this ignant question:

If I've got two objects of equal density but differing mass, let's say a 1 pound rock and a 1000 pound rock, and I throw them at 100mph over a surface such as dirt/grass, achieving equal height and contact angle upon impact with each object, will they bounce the same distance? (for the sake of argument we'll assume this is in a vacuum)

I understand that the larger rock will achieve proportionately greater gravitational potential energy, and therefore proportionately greater kinetic energy, but it seems to me that the larger rock would also expend a greater amount of that energy displacing the Earth upon contact than would the smaller, and would therefore generate less reactive energy (I'm sure that's a totally ignorant way to phrase it) to once again propel it skyward.

Thanks for helping out a Dumbass5000.

heh, grass and dust, are too complicated to be explained by a theory easly.
lets say you have a surface which has no friciton your rocks.(though i think that friction would roughly give the same answer)
also let's say that the surface is hard, and cannot be deformated.
and let's say that the rocks are perfect spheres.

in such conditions, the rocks whould act like a mirror, the angle you drop the rock on the surface, is the same as the angle it will move after the collusion, and the velocity before and after would be conserved.

but i made lots of assumptions... maybe too much of them, but i don't think a simple theory could explain unsimmetric systems...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
4K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
6K
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K