- 4
- 0
im confused about this thing, because they said earths acceleration due to gravity is independent from the mass of the thing dropped
If Jupiter were the size of a basketball (it must remain external to all of the mass of earth) then yes. Of course someone would need to carry it up the tower: the structural engineering is suspect......im confused about this thing, because they said earths acceleration due to gravity is independent from the mass of the thing dropped
The acceleration of the Jupiter will be 9.81 m/sec^2, however the acceleration of the Earth will be 3159.15 m/sec^2 ( assuming we are talking about a small object with the a 1 Jupiter mass which is the only way its center mass mass could be Pisa Tower distance from the surface of the Earth. )im confused about this thing, because they said earths acceleration due to gravity is independent from the mass of the thing dropped
Of course, the tidal forces from a basketball sized Jupiter would be quite devastating. That's 3159 meters per second squared at the Earth's center, some 6000 kilometers away. Locally at a range of perhaps 6 meters, we are talking about an acceleration that is higher by a factor of a trillion (10^{12}).The acceleration of the Jupiter will be 9.81 m/sec^2, however the acceleration of the Earth will be 3159.15 m/sec^2 ( assuming we are talking about a small object with the a 1 Jupiter mass which is the only way its center mass mass could be Pisa Tower distance from the surface of the Earth. )
Normally, if you are talking about dropping an object, you are talking about an object that is very small compared to the Earth.im confused about this thing, because they said earths acceleration due to gravity is independent from the mass of the thing dropped
That depends on your frame of reference. In Newtonian physics the object always accelerates at 9.81ms^{-2} according to an inertial observer. How fast the Earth accelerates varies, and is completely negligible in realistic scenarios, yes.independence from the mass of the second object isn't really true... it's just negligible...
I think you may misunderstand....it is exactly true, but there are host of additional things you may also need to consider.ohh thanks for the replies.. i had an internet black out so i haven't been online for days... so.. independence from the mass of the second object isn't really true... it's just negligible... i get it now, thank you :)
If the object is large, then its centre of mass is not near the Earth's surface. Jupiter would never get close enough to accelerate at ##g##.That depends on your frame of reference. In Newtonian physics the object always accelerates at 9.81ms^{-2} according to an inertial observer. How fast the Earth accelerates varies, and is completely negligible in realistic scenarios, yes.
True. I should say that all objects will accelerate at the same rate depending on the altitude of their centre of mass (per a Newtonian inertial frame). For small objects near the surface of the Earth, thus is 9.81ms^{-2}. Large objects can't get that close, as you say.If the object is large, then its centre of mass is not near the Earth's surface. Jupiter would never get close enough to accelerate at ##g##.
To be pedantic, what matters is their center of gravity in the non-uniform gravitational field of the Earth.depending on the altitude of their centre of mass
But when each object is spherically symmetric there is no difference, yes?.To be pedantic, what matters is their center of gravity in the non-uniform gravitational field of the Earth.
This is why I wrote this:im confused about this thing, because they said earths acceleration due to gravity is independent from the mass of the thing dropped
Right you are.But when each object is spherically symmetric there is no difference, yes?.
Sir, you have taken pedantry to a new extremum.. ..........I confess ambivalence as to the direction traveled.Right you are.
To continue the pedantry, neither Earth nor Jupiter are rigid spheres. They are both "planets". Which, by definition, means they are not rigid.