- #26

- 307

- 19

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter parshyaa
- Start date

- #26

- 307

- 19

- #27

A.T.

Science Advisor

- 11,333

- 2,717

I will tell my buddies then.if any budy proved this then he will get a nobel prize

- #28

Vanadium 50

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Education Advisor

- 27,578

- 11,776

he said that time of free fall does depends on mass

He said no such thing.

Yah he didn't said that

There is no point in discussing anything whatever with someone who will write things he knows not to be true.

- #29

- 895

- 98

Here's the Wikipedia page for that equation:That is a unique rendering of Kepler's Law for free fall I've not seen. However, if I'm not mistaken Kepler eqn. for period of circularorbitalmotion should be equivalent to theoscillationperiod of m through a frictionless hole in the center of large Mass, M, if it has uniform mass density. In that case the free fall period would place m at center of mass, M in 1/4th the period, making the numerical constant merely pi/2 in your above eqn. Where does the extra factor of sq.rt. 2 come from?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-fall_time

- #30

- 27

- 1

Thank you TurtleM for the derivation....Here's the Wikipedia page for that equation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-fall_time

The usual (standard) Kepler eqn. that I was trying to reconstruct by squaring your equation is;

I think this clears it up here:(from your article)......

"Note that T (orbit) in the above equation, is the time for the mass to fall in a highly eccentric orbit, make a "hairpin" turn at the central mass at nearly zero radius distance, and then returns to

Since the first equation (Point masses) is somewhat useless, I included the free fall oscillating in a hole of a Large Mass and concluded it would be equivalent to Kepler's Orbital eqn. for uniform mass density....

They derived a similar result (there is an equivalent equation as the pt. mass eqn.) for extended mass of uniform mass distribution.... if M >> m.

Quite interesting...thanks for the link.

Pet Scan

Last edited:

- #31

- 27

- 1

Sorry for this thread ,but he said that time of free fall does depends on mass , if any budy proved this then he will get a nobel prize and scientists are buisy to crack this. Suppose they have proved that yes it does depends on mass , then what will happen to the formula for time t, what is wrong in arguing that inertial mass and gravitational mass can be different[then this argument will raise a question how can a object have two mass] , oh god I am confused and making others too

@parshyaa (and Sophiecentaur) and whoever else....Maybe I can clarify a bit...Hopefully. It seems that the confusion is arising because there seems to be some confusion about

Kepler's Law states (as mentioned by sophiecentaur) that an orbital planet sweeps out equal areas in equal times. What this means is that the orbital

This Kepler orbital equation of motion can be manipulated to arrive at free-fall motion, (to which Turtlemeister alluded)...but this is not typical.... This no doubt caused some confusion...

The amazing genius of Kepler's equation is that it is applicable for

Pres. Eisenhower in 1957, being greatly troubled, for example, when Russia sent the first orbiting satellite (Sputnik) over America, asked US scientists," How can we determine how big (how massive) this Russian satellite is?" The response was , "We can't .... even if we know its orbital period and orbital radius".

Why ? Because the mass of the orbiting satellite does not enter into the equation of motion...only that of the central mass, (earth) ...providing that the satellite isn't a big bugger like that on the movie "Independence Day" !! (LOL).

NOW, having said all that, the above stuff really says almost nothing about "gravitational" verses "inertial" mass. To really enter into that discussion you must start with NEWTON's equations...which deal with INERTIAL mass via

I think I've said enough for now. Clear as mud, right?

Pet Scan

Last edited:

- #32

- 307

- 19

When object falls down, its velocity increases , therefore according to this formula[ m = m'/√ {1-(v^2/c^2)}] , as velocity increases mass of a object also increases (by a tiny amount) , therefore m in LHS is different from m' of RHS therefore a = GMm'/mr^2 , ∴ accelaration depends on mass and it tells that time also depends on mass(for a very very very very small fraction but it does depends on mass) , this is just my thinking , so somebudy please tell me what is wrong in this .

- #33

sophiecentaur

Science Advisor

Gold Member

2020 Award

- 26,542

- 5,573

I know that the resulting period is the same but, without some further detailed proof about the equivalence of the two processes (neither of which were discussed by Kepler, of course) it doesn't get us very far.

GR: In any case, the thread continues to hover between Classical and GR and Lewin's presentation is based on Classical and his Dimensional Analysis assumes things about the relationship that don't follow into GR. For a start, his time and distance variables will be changing in a GR way that he is not including in his lecture. This is all proving nothing.

- #34

- 895

- 98

I just now had a chance to take a look at the section of Walter Lewin's lecture that the op is questioning. I think that the "very fancy experiments by very prestigious physicist" that he refers to are actually tests of the equivalence principle. And to be more precise, I think he is referring to tests of the equivalence principle as it relates to inertial and gravitational mass. Even though many of these tests have been performed by simply dropping objects from a height, this can only work when M>>m, such as M=Earth and m=any ordinary object. If you had an instrument sensitive enough (doesn't exist with current technology), or your test mass was massive enough, you could indeed detect a change in free fall time when the mass of the falling object is changed. You can see that in the equation that I posted.

Here's what the equivalence principle says:

Einstein's statement of the equality of inertial and gravitational mass:

Notice that it says the**acceleration** imparted to a body by a gravitational field is independent of the nature of the body. So, if we were to change the mass of free falling body m, then it should have no effect on the acceleration of free falling body m. And that is true. However, changing the mass of free falling body m would have an effect on the acceleration of body M. And that would cause a change in the free fall time.

Keep in mind that the accelerations mentioned above are relative to the center of mass of the two bodies, NOT the relative acceleration. This is sometimes a source of misunderstandings in this type of discussion.

Here's what the equivalence principle says:

Einstein's statement of the equality of inertial and gravitational mass:

A little reflection will show that the law of the equality of the inertial and gravitational mass is equivalent to the assertion that the acceleration imparted to a body by a gravitational field is independent of the nature of the body.

Notice that it says the

Keep in mind that the accelerations mentioned above are relative to the center of mass of the two bodies, NOT the relative acceleration. This is sometimes a source of misunderstandings in this type of discussion.

Last edited:

- #35

sophiecentaur

Science Advisor

Gold Member

2020 Award

- 26,542

- 5,573

Share: