Is the force of gravity affected by an object's mass?

[DaveC426913]

Haven't there been a few moon landings?

Let's just keep things real here.

JasonRox and everyone else is just joking around about faked Moon landings. You won't find any serious Moon hoaxers in these parts. At least, not for long.

 

[Kaimyn]

As with anything, there's a good XKCD comic for it: http://xkcd.com/202/

 

[akrem]

SHOW THAT lo^3 is the volume of the cube,then lo^3*(1-v^2/c^2)^.5 is the volume viewed from a reference frame moving with uniform velocity V parallel to an edge of the cube.

 

[ideasrule]

What does this have to do with the Moon landings?

Just use the length contraction formula to figure out the dimensions of the cube in the moving reference frame. Also, homework questions should be posted in the "Homework and Coursework" forum, not in General Discussion.

 

[Eigenslam]

Reminds me of this video



Conversion factor fail

 

[leroyjenkens]

Reminds me of this video



Conversion factor fail

I think if you get them to acknowledge that .5 dollars is half a dollar and .5 cents is half a cent, they would be left with no option but to acknowledge .002 dollars and .002 cents aren't the same.

 

[Senjai]

im not even going to take the time to read through the statements and questions, Yes, their is gravity on the moon, and that TA is the stupidest person ever. That may be politically incorrect, however its the dramatic effect intended :P

 

[ideasrule]

Reminds me of this video



Conversion factor fail

Wow. For anybody reading this, you MUST watch this video. The full-length video (27 minutes long) is here:

http://verizonmath.blogspot.com/2007/08/original-recording-of-verizon-customer.html

 

[Galteeth]

Ok, an ignorant question: I understand that Newton's laws tell us that in a vacuum, two objects will fall at the same rate, regardless of mass.

But relativity says that gravity is the warping of space by mass. It would seem intuitive that something with more mass would cause more curving of space, hence greater gravitational "attraction."

Why is this not the case?

 

[ideasrule]

Um, it is the case. If Earth were more massive, it would pull on objects with more force.

 

[Galteeth]

Um, it is the case. If Earth were more massive, it would pull on objects with more force.

I meant the smaller objects. It would seem intuitively like since they have mass, that would produce some gravity which should slightly affect their attraction to the larger object. I know Newton's laws say this isn't the case. I was wondering why.

 

[BobG]

I meant the smaller objects. It would seem intuitively like since they have mass, that would produce some gravity which should slightly affect their attraction to the larger object. I know Newton's laws say this isn't the case. I was wondering why.

No, Newton's laws don't say this isn't the case. The force of gravity is directly proportional to an object's mass. An object's inertia, it's ability to resist that force, is also directly proportional to its mass.

You're mixing "attraction", which implies the strength of the force, and "acceleration" which is what's left over once you account for an object's ability to resist the force of gravity.