I Weak principle of equivalence (Galileo, Newton)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the weak principle of equivalence and whether gravitational force equals inertial force during free fall. It highlights that gravitational mass and inertial mass are equivalent, leading to the conclusion that in free fall, gravitational acceleration equals inertial acceleration. The concept of inertia is clarified as not being a force but a property of mass that describes resistance to acceleration. The conversation emphasizes that Newton's second law (F=ma) applies strictly within inertial frames, while inertial forces arise only in non-inertial frames. Ultimately, the complexities of these concepts point to the need for a deeper understanding of gravity as explained by General Relativity.
qnt200
Messages
28
Reaction score
2
TL;DR Summary
Does the force of inertia act on the body during free fall, according to the weak principle of equivalence (Galileo, Newton)?
Many tutorials that explain the weak principle of equivalence (Galileo, Newton) do not clearly state whether the body is affected by the force of inertia during free fall as a result of the gravitational acceleration of the body. In other words, the question is whether, during the free fall of a body in a gravitational field, gravitational force equals inertial force (Fg=Fi).
Is this incompatible with the concept of two masses (gravity and inertial mass)? What is GR's opinion on it?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There is mass, gravitational and inertial. Inertia is another name for inertial mass.

Inertia is not a force.
 
  • Like
Likes malawi_glenn and qnt200
Thank you for explaining. It raises a few more questions for me about the logic of bodies in free-fall:
It is known that gravitational mass = inertial mass (established with enormous precision). That is why we can talk about only one mass. Therefore m = mg = mi. In free fall, mg = ma, i.e., g = a. The product of ma acts as inertia on the body, slowing it down during free fall so that it does not instantly reach the speed of light.
I think it is irrelevant whether the product of mass and acceleration is called a force.
I don't know how correct this attitude is?
 
qnt200 said:
Many tutorials that explain the weak principle of equivalence (Galileo, Newton) do not clearly state whether the body is affected by the force of inertia during free fall as a result of the gravitational acceleration of the body
This doesn’t make sense. Inertial forces are not a result of acceleration. Inertial forces are a result of using a non-inertial reference frame. Sometimes non-inertial frames are called accelerating frames, but an accelerating frame is a different concept than acceleration.

If you want to ask about inertial forces then you must specify the non-inertial reference frame you are using.
 
  • Like
Likes protonsarecool and qnt200
qnt200 said:
The product of ma acts as inertia on the body, slowing it down during free fall so that it does not instantly reach the speed of light.
It is difficult to follow what you are saying here. It seems to indicate that you are understanding things incorrectly (or at least not in the standard way).

Apparently you have this idea that if we exert a force on an object then, were it not for the object's inertia, that object would fly away at the speed of light. That is a somewhat reasonable intuition.

To be picky, if we stay within the Newtonian framework, there is nothing special about the speed of light. A massless object subject to a finite force would be pushed away with an undefined speed. We might think of that speed as infinite, but from a mathematician's point of view, "undefined" is more correct. A mathematically inclined physicist would likely say that you cannot exert a finite force on a massless object.

But never mind that. Set the speed of light to one side.

You want to rescue us from having the object move off at an undefined velocity by conjuring up a counter-force called the "force of inertia". So we have this original real force f=ma pushing the object away and this magical counter-force pushing back. But hold on a minute... if we have equal and opposite forces then the object should not move at all. Eppur si muove.

We see real objects subject to real forces move all the time. So this way of thinking about the "force of inertia" cannot be entirely correct.

The standard way of thinking about this is to stick to inertial frames. You have an interaction force ##f## and an object of mass ##m## moves off with an acceleration ##a## when acted upon by that force. End of story.

We do not wave our hands and conjure up a force to explain the resulting motion. We already have the original force ##f## that explains the motion and a law of motion (##f=ma##) that quantifies the result. There is no need for anything more. The property that we call "inertia" is already encapsulated in Newton's second law.One can rescue the idea of an "inertial force" associated with an object's mass by adopting a non-inertial frame. But others such as @Dale are happily explaining that part.
 
  • Like
Likes qnt200, Dale and PeroK
Dale, jbriggs444
Thank you for your interesting answers and guidelines indicating to me the scope of classical physics, i.e., the inertial frame of reference. F=ma is only valid in inertial frames of reference. It is actually clear to me that the full answers, especially regarding gravity, are found within GR.In addition to other things, you pointed out a very interesting question that I have been thinking about for a long time:
jbriggs444 said:
So we have this original real force f=ma pushing the object away and this magical counter-force pushing back. But hold on a minute... if we have equal and opposite forces then the object should not move at all.
 
Last edited:
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Hello! I am generating electrons from a 3D gaussian source. The electrons all have the same energy, but the direction is isotropic. The electron source is in between 2 plates that act as a capacitor, and one of them acts as a time of flight (tof) detector. I know the voltage on the plates very well, and I want to extract the center of the gaussian distribution (in one direction only), by measuring the tof of many electrons. So the uncertainty on the position is given by the tof uncertainty...
Back
Top