Falling objects: remedial education desperately needed

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter usererror
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Education Falling
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the behavior of two falling objects of different masses, specifically addressing whether they fall side by side when released simultaneously. The scope includes conceptual understanding of gravitational acceleration and the application of classical mechanics principles.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant recounts a personal experience of trying to explain why two falling objects of different masses would fall at the same rate, referencing Galileo's thought experiments and classical laws of motion.
  • Another participant challenges the assumption that the force acting on the objects is constant, noting that gravitational force is proportional to mass, which leads to equal acceleration for both masses.
  • A participant expresses a realization that using the correct formula does not equate to a full understanding of the underlying concepts.
  • There is a humorous acknowledgment of potential misunderstandings in the discussion, as one participant questions their own clarity in communication.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the understanding of gravitational acceleration and the implications of mass on falling objects. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best way to conceptualize and explain the phenomenon.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the assumptions made about forces and the nature of gravitational acceleration, which are not fully explored or resolved in the discussion.

usererror
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I apologize many times in advance for asking what I suspect to be that which is the most repeated question on this site. Last night over dinner with friends, somebody whose judgment was impaired dared me to prove that two falling objects released simultaneously (the usual suspects like friction etc. ignored) of mass m and mass 2m would move side by side. My friend played a two year old asking ”why, why why?” no matter what I said. Not a problem: I was a philosophy student, so I was – am - one of those kids. Anyway, I knew from Middle School the classical laws of motion and the law of gravity, so I dived in. First, I used Galileo’s (I think he said this) thought experiment of two falling masses chained together. But, that seemed to beg the question and so I had to buy another round. Then, I resorted to deriving (via algebra) from f = ma that the acceleration for 2m is 1/2 that for 1m, thus showing that the acceleration of m is twice of 2m. But so what? I needed to prove, but I failed to prove, that, at each instant, m and 2m are side by side. In fact, my showing of the differences in acceleration seemed to falsify my point. I had managed to confuse myself. I had to buy another round. There was laughter. I don’t speak Calculus. Is there an algebraic manipulation of Galileo’s laws that gives the answer? Better yet, is there a thought experiment that does this without begging the question? thank you, physics folk.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
usererror said:
First, I used Galileo’s (I think he said this) thought experiment of two falling masses chained together. But, that seemed to beg the question and so I had to buy another round.
Galileo's clever argument should have been all you needed.

Then, I resorted to deriving (via algebra) from f = ma that the acceleration for 2m is 1/2 that for 1m, thus showing that the acceleration of m is twice of 2m.
The problem here is that you assumed that the force is constant, but it's not. The force of gravity is proportional to the mass. Twice the mass then twice the gravitational force. Just right to keep the acceleration constant.
 
Thanks to both responders. Now I get it. I am proud to have demonstrated that using the correct formula is not the same thing as understanding that formula. Thanks for the help.
 
"both" should be "all". (Is there anything else that I can screw up?)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
1K