Questions about Galileo statement?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter zarmewa
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Galileo
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around Galileo's statement regarding the uniform acceleration of objects in free fall in the absence of air, particularly in the context of an experiment conducted on the lunar surface during Apollo 15. Participants explore the implications of gravitational fields, the interaction between falling objects, and the conditions under which Galileo's assertion holds true.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that Galileo's statement is theoretically correct, as demonstrated by the Apollo 15 experiment with a hammer and a feather.
  • Others argue that while the gravitational force on the hammer is greater than that on the feather, the acceleration experienced by both objects is the same due to the mass of the moon being the dominant factor in the equation of motion.
  • One participant questions the assumption that the gravitational field is unmovable, suggesting that both the hammer and the moon would move towards each other, complicating the scenario.
  • Another participant proposes a thought experiment involving dropping the hammer and feather from opposite sides of the moon, raising questions about whether they would touch the moon simultaneously.
  • One participant mentions the practical challenges of measuring any time difference in their fall, citing the need for highly accurate timing devices to detect such differences.
  • Another viewpoint emphasizes the complexity of gravitational interactions among multiple masses, suggesting that simplifications may overlook important dynamics in such scenarios.
  • A participant introduces a hypothetical scenario involving two identical objects falling from antipodal points on Earth, questioning the outcome in a simplified gravitational context.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of agreement and disagreement regarding the implications of Galileo's statement. While some support the idea that all objects fall at the same rate in a vacuum, others introduce complexities that challenge this view, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight various assumptions, such as the nature of gravitational fields, the independence of falling objects, and the effects of other gravitational influences, which may affect the conclusions drawn from the discussion.

zarmewa
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
Galileo was first to demonstrate that in the absence of air, all things would truly fall with the same acceleration and 300 years later demonstrated this by the crew of Apollo-15 on the lunar surface (which has gravity & also lacks air) by dropping a hammer and a feather.

As moon was seen from two different gravitational fields ["gf" of feather & "gh" of hammer] therefore cognizance shows that hammer and moon should strike each other first as gh > gf

So, is Galileo's statement correct, theoretically?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The gravitational field of the hammer would attract the moon, so the moon would move closer to the hammer, which would also make it move closer to the feather!

So Galileo's statement still holds.
 
It is true that the force on the hammer is greater than the force on the feather (the hammer has greater weight than the feather even on the moon). However, because F= ma, to find a= F/m, that greater force is divided by the greater mass.

Specifically, taking M as the mass of the moon as m as the mass of either hammer or feather,
ma= \frac{GmM}{r^2}
because m appears on both sides, it cancels. The acceleration of hammer or hammer depends only on the mass of the moon, not on the mass of the object itself.
 
I wonder if the "gravitational" field was assumed to be un-movable, and so only the objects fell.

If not...

Independent of the force, though, having a system of two masses attracting each other, the center of mass is not suppose to move and so, as the hammer falls towards the moon, the moon falls towards the hammer, because the mass of the hammer is larger than that of the feather the moon should move closer to the hammer...

James assumed that the hammer and the feather were dropped simultaneously and on the same side of the moon...

...but what if we drop the hammer and the feather simultaneously but on diametrically opposite sides of the moon? Would the hammer and the feather touch the moon at the exact same time? or would the feather need to do some catch up?

A true measure whether it takes longer for one to fall and touch the moon would be two independent events, of course.
 
Or to save yourself a trip around the Moon you could drop the two at different times from the same place. Of course you would need an impossibly accurate clock to measure the difference in time. I did the calculation once for dropping items on the Earth and to notice a difference you would need a clock that was accurate to more than 20 places. I believe with the two objects I picked it took at least 23 places behind the decimal point to see any difference.

Your error in placement would be greater than that degree of error, not to mention the lack of a clock anywhere near that accuracy. So as far as any experiment that you can run goes, Galileo was right.
 
All masses affect all other masses. Take three objects of equal order of mass, in a triangular formation, out there in deep space. They will all be attracted to a point at some point in their 'joint centre' but you would need to calculate, in detail, what would happen. It would be over-simplifying to say that they would all head off, initially, towards their joint centre of mass. If it were as simple as that, the hammer, dropped on the Moon, would have gone haring off towards the CM of the Earth and Moon - or the CM of the Earth Moon and Sun -- or even to the CM of the Galaxy etc etc. You also need to consider the orbital Motions involved but, in the absence of motion and, with the objects in a straight line, initially, they would end up at the CM.

Once you're dealing with one Massive object and two tiny ones, you can neglect any effect other than the g field of the big one.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
7K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
14K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
10K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 128 ·
5
Replies
128
Views
35K