What stops the heavier object from falling down?

[david_19]

I've heard that In vacuum space, both lighter and heavier objects fall to the ground at the same but what stops the heavier object from falling down more faster than lighter object?

 

[JaredJames]

It cannot fall faster as the gravitational acceleration acting on both objects is the same.

If a car and a truck both accelerate at the same rate, they will reach the destination at the same time. If a brick and feather accelerate at the same rate, they will hit the ground at the same time.

 

[russ_watters]

I've heard that In vacuum space, both lighter and heavier objects fall to the ground at the same but what stops the heavier object from falling down more faster than lighter object?

Its mass.

f=ma

 

[pallidin]

During mass acceleration(upwards or down or otherwise) there is a phenomenon known as "inertia"
This is not well understood, and remains a significant physics mystery.

 

[Rap]

If you push with the same force on something heavy and on something light, the light object will move faster (accelerate more). If gravity pulled on a light object and a heavy object with the same force, the light object would accelerate more. But gravity pulls down on a heavy object more than it pulls down on a light object, you can feel that if you hold them in your hand. It pulls down so much harder that it makes the accelerations the same.

 

[david_19]

If gravity pulls stronger on a heavier object then how does it maintain the same acceleration? I get the formula F/M = a. but what would make one believe it?

 

[uart]

Why not ask the contrary question David. Since heavier objects require more force to accelerate them then why doesn't the lighter object fall faster?

 

[Lsos]

but what would make one believe it?

It's been checked many times for many centuries.

 

[david_19]

A lighter object shouldn't fall faster because of their less mass but they are highly accelerated due to gravity.

Here, Gravity plays its important role to get the object fall to the earth.

A heavier object should fall faster because of their greater mass but they less accelerated due to gravity.

Here, Mass plays its important role to get the object fall to the earth.

Did i get pretty much of this?

 

[JaredJames]

A heavier object should fall faster because of their greater mass but they less accelerated due to gravity.

They are not "less accelerated", they experience the same acceleration.

 

[HallsofIvy]

A lighter object shouldn't fall faster because of their less mass but they are highly accelerated due to gravity.

Here, Gravity plays its important role to get the object fall to the earth.

A heavier object should fall faster because of their greater mass but they less accelerated due to gravity.

If I am interpreting this correctly, you have it exactly backward! A heavier object feels more force due to gravity than a light one but because, as you said before, a= F/m, the greater mass means the acceleration for a given force is less. In fact, the two different influences of mass exactly cancel:

F= GmM/r^2 and a= F/m so a= (GmM/r^2)/m= GM/r^2. Here, G is the "universal gravitational constant", M is the mass of the earth, and r is the distance from the falling object to the center of the earth. The "m", the mass of the object, in the numerator in F= GmM/r^2 cancels the m in the denominator of a= F/m.

Here, Mass plays its important role to get the object fall to the earth.

Did i get pretty much of this?

 

[sophiecentaur]

Simplistic approach:

Massive Object - Big Attraction Force but hard to get moving.
Small Object - Tiny Attraction Force but easy to get going.

Result is same acceleration in both cases.

 

[david_19]

Yes, I meant to say

A lighter object will experience greater acceleration due to gravity.
A heavier object will experience lesser acceleration due to gravity.

But in both cases, the acceleration due to gravity is constant.

 

[Rap]

Yes, I meant to say

A lighter object will experience greater force of acceleration due to gravity.
A heavier object will experience lesser force of acceleration due to gravity.

But in both cases, the acceleration due to gravity is constant.

"Force of acceleration" is a bad way to say it. Read what Sophiecentaur said closely. You have to be sure you know the difference between force (how heavy an object is) and acceleration (how quickly it is drawn to the earth).

If you push lightly on a bicycle, it will not move as fast as if you push very hard on it. In other words, if you apply a large force to an object, it will accelerate more than if you apply a small force to it.

If you push on a bicycle as hard as you can, it will move very quickly, but if you push on an automobile as hard as you can, it will move very slowly. In other words, if you apply the same force to a light and a heavy object, the light object will accelerate more than the heavy object.

For a light object, gravity doesn't pull very hard, but its easy to get moving.

For a heavy object, gravity pulls very hard, but its hard to get moving.

The end result is that they have the same acceleration.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I have a feeling that the people who don't 'get this' either ignore the Maths and Physics of it, or are not capable of understanding what the Maths says.
If you don't get something as basic as this then you need to ask yourself. "Could I possibly just be wrong or am I the first person ever to have understood this correctly?"
The humble conclusion would probably be the best way forward. Just come to terms with it and find reasons for it to be true - if possible, by using the Maths.

 

[Rap]

I have a feeling that the people who don't 'get this' either ignore the Maths and Physics of it, or are not capable of understanding what the Maths says.
If you don't get something as basic as this then you need to ask yourself. "Could I possibly just be wrong or am I the first person ever to have understood this correctly?"
The humble conclusion would probably be the best way forward. Just come to terms with it and find reasons for it to be true - if possible, by using the Maths.

I agree, the language of mathematics says it best. It seems like the original post was not mathematically inclined, tho.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I agree, the language of mathematics says it best. It seems like the original post was not mathematically inclined, tho.

In which case, it is beyond anything but arm waving explanations and plain acceptance as a 'fact'. " (cos I say so, soldier, and don't you forget it. hup two three hup two three")

 

[shoestring]

I've heard that In vacuum space, both lighter and heavier objects fall to the ground at the same but what stops the heavier object from falling down more faster than lighter object?

Imagine ten small objects falling in vacuum. Next, put those ten small object into a thin bag of negligible weight. Now you've created a heavy object from the ten light objects. Why should it fall any faster than the separate objects?

Or you could do the same with playdough. Let ten small lumps fall in vacuum, then make a big lump from them. Why should the playdough fall any faster as a big lump than as ten small lumps? That's the question to ask yourself. :-)

(The effect would be almost the same in air as in vacuum, but then air resistance would have some effect on the outcome.)

 

[sophiecentaur]

And that is one of the best arm waving explanations that could be used. It makes perfect sense and no one (?) could disagree with it.

 

[LostConjugate]

The force on the heavier object is greater, but it also takes more force to accelerate a heavier object at the same rate as a lighter object.

a = F/m

 

[Rap]

Imagine ten small objects falling in vacuum. Next, put those ten small object into a thin bag of negligible weight. Now you've created a heavy object from the ten light objects. Why should it fall any faster than the separate objects?

Or you could do the same with playdough. Let ten small lumps fall in vacuum, then make a big lump from them. Why should the playdough fall any faster as a big lump than as ten small lumps? That's the question to ask yourself. :-)

(The effect would be almost the same in air as in vacuum, but then air resistance would have some effect on the outcome.)

Hey! I like that explanation.