Acceleration Comparison: Basketball vs. Tennis Ball

  • Thread starter Thread starter rumaithya
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Acceleration
AI Thread Summary
The acceleration of a basketball and a tennis ball when dropped is primarily influenced by air resistance rather than their weights. While both objects fall at approximately the same rate due to gravity (9.8 m/s²), air resistance affects their terminal velocities differently, causing variations in their fall speeds. In a vacuum, where air resistance is absent, both would hit the ground simultaneously regardless of their mass. The discussion highlights that for practical scenarios, such as dropping the balls from a building, the differences in their fall speeds are minimal. Overall, air resistance plays a significant role in the observed differences in acceleration between the two balls.
rumaithya
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
Different in acceleration?

Hello, I'd like to know what's the different between an acceleration of a basketball and the acceleration of a small ball(tennis ball) when we drop the balls...

I think they will not be the same, but why? is it because of the weight?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No. Unless you are talking about gravity between object of masses relatively close to each other, weight has nothing to do with it. (The mass of a tennis or basketball is nothing compared to the mass of earth).

What is different is air resistance. If one has more air resistence, it will fall slower. Otherwise, for most physics purposes we neglect air resistence and assume everything falls at 9.8 "meters per second" ...per second
 
Yes Air resistance is what causes one to fall faster than the other, however if you dropped let's say a lead musket ball and a cannonball they would fall at the exact same rate for the most part. So in response to your question... they would fall very similar in speed because the terminal velocity(maximum freefall speed of an object through a fluid) of both is very similar... and it also depends on the distance they both fell, if it was from the exosphere one would fall faster eventually because I am sure they don't have the same terminal velocity. But if you are talking about dropping them off a building or something of a similar nature it would not be very noticeable.
And there is a reason that air resistance is neglected especially early on in physics, as some on this thread were so kind as to show me... :wink:
 
Just to be clear, if there was no air, a feather and a bowling ball would fall with the same acceleration and hit the ground at the same time.
 
BigStelly said:
Yes Air resistance is what causes one to fall faster than the other, however if you dropped let's say a lead musket ball and a cannonball they would fall at the exact same rate for the most part. So in response to your question... they would fall very similar in speed because the terminal velocity(maximum freefall speed of an object through a fluid) of both is very similar... and it also depends on the distance they both fell, if it was from the exosphere one would fall faster eventually because I am sure they don't have the same terminal velocity. But if you are talking about dropping them off a building or something of a similar nature it would not be very noticeable.
And there is a reason that air resistance is neglected especially early on in physics, as some on this thread were so kind as to show me... :wink:
What thread? I want to know why air resistance is neglected early on :)
 
This is neglecting the fact that the Earth falls towards the object slightly also, but it is negligible on this scale, but on the case of comparing the moon being dropped to the Earth and a basketball being dropped on the earth, the moon will collide faster, due to this attraction of Earth to the moon.
 
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top