Go Back   Science Forums Biology Forum Molecular Biology Forum Physics Chemistry Forum > General Science Forums > Physics Forum
Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Physics Forum Physics Forum. Discuss and ask physics questions, kinematics and other physics problems.


Heavier objects do fall faster in a vacumn

Heavier objects do fall faster in a vacumn - Physics Forum

Heavier objects do fall faster in a vacumn - Physics Forum. Discuss and ask physics questions, kinematics and other physics problems.


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-17-2004, 01:59 PM
Joe Maleki
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heavier objects do fall faster in a vacumn



On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:24:33 -0500, Old Man wrote:


Bullshit.

An object other than either a point mass (i.e. no
dimensions, i.e. an impossibility) or a uniform spherical
distribution of mass (another impossibility) exerts a force
slightly different from inverse square law. Go from here and
cut that bullshit.

****ing jackasses.

Form of the mass counts. Shape matters. Learn the very first
lessons of physics.

--

fil zendash sad tomaneh mordasham sad tomaneh.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-17-2004, 10:52 PM
Old Man
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heavier objects do fall faster in a vacumn


"Joe Maleki" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ]...

Maleki's clumsy attempt to misdirect the discussion is
transparent. Yes, shape matters, a little, but total mass
doesn't. The discussion isn't about the shape of massive
bodies, but about an isolated system of point masses in
mutual gravitational free-fall.

Crudely rude, Maleki suffers from delusions of
competence. Old Man is fully aware of what Maleki
thinks he understands.

First, for spatial coincidence of CoG and CoM points,
a uniform matter distribution works, but isn't required:
spherically symmetric, like that of the Earth, is sufficient.
Contrary to Maleki's neophyte notions, not at all
"impossible".

Second, gravitational force is irrelevant. The linear
acceleration of a massive body's CoM, a = a(R_cm),
depends upon the location of it's CoG: in a non-
uniform gravitational field, linear acceleration at the
CoM is equal to gravitational acceleration at the CoG:
a(R_cm) = g(R_cg) which doesn't depend upon the
total mass, but depends only upon the mass distribution.

Third, Maleki's problem stems from making observations
from a non-inertial reference frame. The CoG of a system
of gravitating bodies isn't necessarily inertial.

In a non-uniform gravitational field, a massive body's
CoM is in free-fall, but not necessarily its CoG. Non-
uniform gravitation induces internal stress, and rotation
may occur about the body's CoM if the body's CoG is
displaced from its CoM.

[Old Man]



Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-18-2004, 01:15 AM
Maleki
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heavier objects do fall faster in a vacumn

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 17:52:49 -0500, Old Man wrote:


Point masses! What a joke. There is no point mass. When mass
is present more than gravity is involved in the problem. In
a tiny lump of mass each spot of the mass is
electromagnetically connected to other spots in the mass
lump, and the effect of gravity on one spot unleashes a
whole set of electromagnetic interactions between the
"spots" and affects all the mass present in the lump. The
presence of _anything_ other than a single fictitious "point
mass" (or a fictitious uniform spherical distribution of
mass) unleashes all these effects. Do you want to fight
physics also? That's why I called you a jackass.

--

arus nimitunest beraghseh migoft otAgh kajeh.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-18-2004, 01:32 AM
Maleki
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heavier objects do fall faster in a vacumn

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 20:15:28 -0500, Maleki wrote:


Let me use an extreme situation to show what I have in mind
better. I am saying that a uniform spherical lump of one kg
mass falls differently from same mass flattened to a plane
of infinite size and infinitesimal thickness, because the
force that the spherical lump would exert is proportional to
the inverse square of the distance while the force from the
infinite plane is proportional to the inverse of the
distance itself, not its square. So it would fall
differently. Does it makes sense?

--

che kas dAde budat namAyandegi
ke az ghowle mellat mozakhraf begi

"Hadi Khorsandi"
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-18-2004, 03:57 AM
Old Man
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heavier objects do fall faster in a vacumn


"Maleki" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1qzjkhg1mfis8$.m3k7dkap9hfz$.[Only registered users see links. ].. .

Sure it can be different. Old Man gave the answer, but
Maleki snipped the lesson. With respect to acceleration,
a(r), and gravitational field, g(r), a(R_cm) = g(R_cg),
but for Maleki's case, the difference between a sphere and
a disk of the same mass is null because R_cm = R_cg.
Try a sphere and a half sphere of the same mass.

[Old Man]



Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-18-2004, 05:23 AM
Eric Gisse
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heavier objects do fall faster in a vacumn

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 20:15:28 -0500, Maleki <[Only registered users see links. ]>
wrote:


Still misunderstanding effects of gravitation, I see. Deliberate or
not, the result is the same.


Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-19-2004, 01:29 AM
hanson
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heavier objects do fall faster in a vacumn

"Old Man" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ]...
[Mehram]
[Mehram]
[Old Man]
[hanson]
I liked the one wherein Mehram Maleki is pontificating,
pardon me, mullahficating:...."...saying that a uniform
spherical lump of one kg mass falls differently from
same mass flattened to a plane of infinite size and
infinitesimal thickness".... ahahahahaha.....AHAHAHAHA...

..... unfortunately, Mehram didn't finish his thought and
forgot or maliciously omitted to tell us how he intends
to flatten atoms "to a plane of infinite size and
infinitesimal thickness" and much less where his thin
2D foil that reaches beyond the cosmic event horizons
will fall to(wards)..........AHAHAHAHAHA......ahahahaha..

Mehram, sometimes you give the impression that you
suffer from professional deformation due to over-intensive
religious instruction....much like and akin to the myriads of
little green idiots who were indoctrinated to or indoctrinated
themselves with/by green bible to live by and proselytize that

= "It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people
= believe is true ... -- Paul Watson, Greenpeace, and ......
= "A lot of environmental [political] messages are simply not
= accurate. We use hype." -- Jerry Franklin, Ecologist, UoW, and...
= "We make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
= mention of any doubts we may have [about] being honest."
= -- Stephen Schneider (Stanford prof. who first sought fame as
= a global cooler, but has now hit the big time as a global warmer)

ahahahaha.....ahahahanson


Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-19-2004, 04:43 AM
David
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heavier objects do fall faster in a vacumn

I think the original post simply stated "more massive bodies" . How mass is
distributed will obviously affect the gravitational force. So lets rephrase
the question. If two distributed masses falling in a gravitational field had
the same distribution of "point" particles (e.g.molecules) but the particles
had different masses, would the objects move with different velocity? That
way we avoid the red herring of infinite sheets etc.
David
"Maleki" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1qzjkhg1mfis8$.m3k7dkap9hfz$.[Only registered users see links. ].. .


Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
fall , faster , heavier , objects , vacumn


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Moving Dimensions Theory Book Due Out in Fall 05--Very Rough Draft: 4th Dimensions Expanding Relative to 3 Spatial Dimensions jollyrogership@yahoo.com Physics Forum 64 03-31-2012 10:24 AM
What is Gravity? sdr@sdrodrian.com Physics Forum 1 01-27-2008 02:53 PM
The Achilles Heel of String Theory. S D Rodrian Physics Forum 7 07-08-2006 02:40 PM
The Theory of Moving Dimensions: The Time Dimension is Moving Relative to The Three Spatial Dimensions Captain Ranger McCoy Physics Forum 14 07-03-2005 03:14 AM
The Origin of The Universe / S D Rodrian SDR Physics Forum 5 02-16-2005 07:41 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005 - 2012 Molecular Station | All Rights Reserved
Page generated in 0.20848 seconds with 16 queries