Can You Explain the Mystery of 9.8m/s^2 Acceleration on Earth?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Theonefrom1994
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the acceleration due to gravity on Earth, specifically the commonly cited value of 9.8 m/s². Participants explore how this value was determined historically, considering the effects of air resistance and the methods used to measure gravitational acceleration.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that all falling objects accelerate at 9.8 m/s² in a vacuum, questioning how this applies given the presence of air resistance on Earth.
  • One participant mentions that air resistance can create small errors in measurements, particularly when dropping dense objects like an iron ball.
  • Another participant references Galileo's early propositions about acceleration and the invention of the vacuum pump, suggesting historical context is important for understanding the measurement of gravity.
  • A method involving pendulum experiments is proposed, where varying the density of the pendulum bob could demonstrate the negligible effect of air resistance on oscillation time.
  • Participants discuss conducting experiments to measure the period of a pendulum and how this can lead to an estimate of gravitational acceleration, even in the presence of air.
  • One participant expresses a desire to understand the evidence behind the value of 9.8 m/s² and how it can be demonstrated without a vacuum.
  • Another participant emphasizes the importance of continued inquiry and critical thinking in science education.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the historical significance of Galileo's work and the relevance of air resistance in measurements, but there are multiple competing views on how to accurately measure gravitational acceleration and the extent to which air resistance affects these measurements. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best methods to demonstrate the value of 9.8 m/s² in practical experiments.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that the effects of air resistance can be minimal in certain conditions, but the discussion does not reach a consensus on the best experimental approaches or the implications of air resistance on the measurement of gravitational acceleration.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to students and educators in physics, particularly those exploring concepts of gravity, measurement techniques, and the historical context of scientific discoveries.

Theonefrom1994
Messages
15
Reaction score
5
TL;DR
How did people find 9.8m/s^2 If there’s air resistance on earth ?
My understanding is that all falling objects on Earth will fall at the same acceleration of 9.8m/s^2 in the absence of air resistance . But isn’t air resistance everywhere on the planet since we have an atmosphere ? . So how did these scientists from back in the day figure out the 9.8 number ?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Lnewqban
Physics news on Phys.org
Theonefrom1994 said:
Summary:: How did people find 9.8m/s^2 If there’s air resistance on Earth ?

My understanding is that all falling objects on Earth will fall at the same acceleration of 9.8m/s^2 in the absence of air resistance . But isn’t air resistance everywhere on the planet since we have an atmosphere ? . So how did these scientists from back in the day figure out the 9.8 number ?

Someone has written a book about it:

https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319749587
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: davenn, Theonefrom1994, Vanadium 50 and 1 other person
It's a good question. However, there are many circumstances where air resistance only creates small errors. For example, dropping small dense objects, like an iron ball.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Theonefrom1994
I like PeroK's answer. However, the question assumes, as Perry Mason would say "facts not in evidence". Galileo's suggestion that bodies accelerate at the same rate was proposed in 1638 and the vacuum pump was invented in 1650.

Furthermore, one can do this measurement today without a vacuum. Take a pendulum with bobs of fixed size and shape, but of different materials. Plot g vs 1/m and extrapolate to zero.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Drakkith, Theonefrom1994 and PeroK
Vanadium 50 said:
I like PeroK's answer. However, the question assumes, as Perry Mason would say "facts not in evidence". Galileo's suggestion that bodies accelerate at the same rate was proposed in 1638 and the vacuum pump was invented in 1650.

Furthermore, one can do this measurement today without a vacuum. Take a pendulum with bobs of fixed size and shape, but of different materials. Plot g vs 1/m and extrapolate to zero.
I was trying to know how people figured it out because it was never presented to me . I’ was sure there evidence for it I was just unaware Of what that evidence is And how it can be demonstrated if you don’t have a vacuum .
 
Theonefrom1994 said:
I was trying to know how people figured it out because it was never presented to me . I’ was sure there evidence for it I was just unaware Of what that evidence is And how it can be demonstrated if you don’t have a vacuum .
Suppose we have a pendulum and we count the time for a large number of oscillations. If air resistance is significant then by doubling the density of the bob (with the same size and shape) we should get a significant change in the time for the heavier bob - significantly less. If, however, we get almost the same time for both bobs, then air resistance must be almost negligible. Hence the time must be close to what we would get in a vacuum, and we can get an accurate estimate for ##g##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Lnewqban, Theonefrom1994, phinds and 2 others
Theonefrom1994 said:
because it was never presented to me
Your question shows that you were actually thinking about the problem. Much of the Science we are taught at elementary level is not suitable for too much follow-up thinking. :smile:
Keep reading and asking.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Lnewqban, scottdave, vanhees71 and 3 others
Theonefrom1994 said:
I was trying to know how people figured it out because it was never presented to me . I’ was sure there evidence for it I was just unaware Of what that evidence is And how it can be demonstrated if you don’t have a vacuum .

Do this in air then. For small oscillation, the affect of air is negligible, y'know, the effect is so small it is in the high decimal digits.

We do this in many General Physics lab. Measure the period T of a pendulum at a particular length L. Then vary L, measure T again... You will have a series of values of T for each L.

Now plot T versus √L. You will find that it resembles a straight line. Do a linear fit through the data points. The slope of your graph is equal to 2π/(√g). This means that knowing the slope of your fitted line, you now can experimentally find g!

I've just done my students' next week's lab!

Zz.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Lnewqban, whoohm, vanhees71 and 2 others
Thanks for the responses ! This was helpful ! I’ll try to do my own set up with a pendulum and try this out !
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: berkeman, vanhees71 and PeroK
  • #10
Physical constants are often defined in one way, but best measured in a different way.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
6K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K