How long does it take for gravitational effects to work?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the duration a ball remains at its peak velocity of 0 m/s when tossed into the air, specifically seeking a factual answer rather than opinions. It highlights that a continually accelerating object has a velocity for an infinitesimal amount of time, suggesting that the concept of infinitesimals is relevant in this context. The conversation then shifts to a hypothetical scenario involving an "anti-gravity" machine that could interfere with gravitational forces, raising questions about the timing of gravitational effects. However, the moderator notes that the discussion veers into imaginary scenarios that violate established laws of physics, leading to the thread's closure. The focus remains on the complexities of gravitational effects and their timing in both real and imagined contexts.
IEP617
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Imagine a ball being tossed into 'the air'. At its peak, the ball has a velocity of 0(m/s), but how long does it actually have this velocity for? --> Neglecting the effects of air-resistance.

Obviously the ball undergoes constant 'g' the whole time, but the answer to my question doesn't relate to that. I'm seeking to understand / learn how long the ball actually hangs in mid-air; e.g. 0.01s ? 0.001s ? etc.

I sincerely appreciate everybody that contributes here, but I am seeking a 'what you know for a fact' reply, not 'what you think is correct'; this is why I have classified the question as 'Advanced'.

If anybody can point me to some experimental results, I would be greatly appreciative.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
IEP617 said:
Imagine a ball being tossed into 'the air'. At its peak, the ball has a velocity of 0(m/s), but how long does it actually have this velocity for?

A continually accelerating object has a single velocity for an infinitesimal amount of time. I'd call it 'zero', but I feel the mathematical concept of infinitesimals works better when talking about a continuous process since calculus, the mathematics of continuous change, is exactly what we need to analyze this kind of problem.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
Thanks for that, I appreciate your reply ... Let me give you a bit more meat around the problem I'm investigating. Let's imagine that we have some apparatus that can eliminate 99.9% of 'g'; let's call it an anti-gravity machine ... But, let's first imagine that the gravitational acceleration field of the Earth can be modeled as 'some kind' of ElectroMagnetic phenomenon. So, 'The Earth' is beaming its gravity into space like an RF generator; remember, this is all imaginary, I'm not referring to the hard-science documentaries like 'The Avengers' etc.

Now let's imagine that we have an "anti-gravity" apparatus that broadcasts an EM Wave that can destructively interfere with the Earth's EM Wave (its 'gravity' wave). Imagine that I can only eliminate 99.9% of the Earths gravitational acceleration wave (every 0.13 seconds for example). With the remaining '<1%', can I 'somehow' keep Thanos' spaceship floating because it takes a certain amount of time for the uncancelled '<1%' gravitational acceleration wave to act? ... Get me ?

For example: if the period between pulses is 0.13(s), but it takes 0.001(s) for real-world gravity to act; do I have a problem ?
 
Once you invoke new laws of physics, you can get any answer you like.
 
Moderator's note: Thread level changed to "I".
 
IEP617 said:
this is all imaginary

Which makes it out of scope for discussion here. We can't answer questions about what the laws of physics predict in an imaginary scenario that violates the laws of physics.

Thread closed.
 
  • Like
Likes davenn
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