Falling objects: remedial education desperately needed

  • Thread starter Thread starter usererror
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Education Falling
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the physics of falling objects, specifically the misconception that two objects of different masses released simultaneously would not fall side by side. The initial confusion stemmed from an incorrect application of Newton's second law, where the force of gravity is proportional to mass, leading to equal acceleration for both masses. Participants clarified that while mass affects gravitational force, it does not affect the rate of acceleration, which remains constant at 9.81 m/s² for both objects. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding the underlying principles of physics rather than just applying formulas. Ultimately, the discussion emphasizes the need for a deeper comprehension of fundamental concepts in physics.
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?)
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
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