fossilesqueyeah everything is probably made of like, idk, earth water, fire and air or something idrk
SkullgridI mean, yes and no.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_velocity#Physics
Heavier objects have a higher “max speed” that they can fall at, compared to lighter objects. The acceleration to that relative speed is constant though. More or less.
IE : While a bowling ball and a ping pong ball might start falling at the same initial rate, eventually the bowling ball will fall faster.
rockerface🇺🇦In a medium, which is an important distinction
bizarrolandYeah, it’s not like they just blindly accepted what he said. They held up a feather or a leaf or a sheet of paper and a lead weight and dropped them both at the same time and the lead weight hit the ground while the leaf was still fluttering in the wind.
EmpricornThat’s not because of weight though. That’s just one thing being affected more by air resistance. In a vacuum, there would be no difference. In fact, they did just that during the Apollo 15 mission on the moon using a feather and a hammer:
Hey buddy! I came to post that video!
I know what is happening. I know why it is happening. My brain is still screaming at the feather to slow down.
Of the Air (cele/celes)…wikimedia.org/…/File:Apollo_15_feather_and_hamme…
Without the m as the browser will decide for itself if it needs the mobile version.
The acceleration to that relative speed is constant though. More or less.
It's not. Air resistance will affect lighter objects more due to Newton's second law and the square-cube law, resulting in heavier objects accelerating faster than light ones. Only at the initial instant, where there is no air resistance due to the speed being 0, will two objects of different weight be subject to the same downward acceleration.
Cryptagionismisogynist
I can’t tell if this is you chastising me or giving me a shovel to help me dig.
Lol I think it’s the research you were missing and I already had the link copied. Wasn’t being a jerk for once, just was giving you info
all good then, thank you :)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle
Without the m as the browser will decide for itself if it needs the mobile version.
Dasus
IheartcheeseIt’s how Arthur fell faster then Fenchurch. He was heavier.
Arthur Dent
The Sandwich Maker!
thanksforallthefishThe trick was to throw yourself at the ground and miss
OpenStarsI always do this.
Except of course when I don’t.
Due to air resistance, heavy objects do tend to fall slightly faster in atmosphere.
Take a balloon, fill it with air and drop it from a plane next to say a brick. The balloon may not hit the ground for awhile, especially if it gets caught on some air streams
missingnoWhen accounting for air resistance, heavy objects do fall faster than light ones. They couldn't test in a vacuum back then, they only knew how things work here in Earth's atmosphere.
A similar size chunk of iron and coal would have done the experiment just fine. Any two objects of the same shape and size but significantly different densities.
If two objects have the same size and shape, the force applied by air resistance will be the same. However, if two objects have different mass, that same force will result in different acceleration.
While that is true, two properly selected objects (such as the ones mentioned above) can reduce the effect of air resistance to levels negligible to human perception, demonstrating that heavier objects do not intrinsically fall faster.
The difference is the different buoyancy of the balls in air. That’s negligible.
Not at all. Our air is made up of physical objects (molecules of oxygen and nitrogen, mostly). Things with more mass, more quickly knock those out of the way.
For a demonstration you can see and more easily wrap your head around, take something just barely heavier than water, and a similarly sized heavy rock and drop them in a pool. You’ll see how much quicker the rock gets to the bottom, because it displaces the water so much faster. Our atmosphere is the exact same.
It seems maybe you’re actually misunderstanding. As I mentioned above, both you and the other commenter are certainly correct that the surrounding atmosphere (water in your case) exerts force on the objects as they fall, with varying effects depending on object density. However, if you take two objects that have vastly more density than the water (let’s say a big tungsten rod and another tungsten rod that has a hollow core), they will drop at approximately the same rate in the water even if their density vs each other varies. The greater the difference of their density versus the density of the medium, the less the effect of the medium. Is there still technically an effect? Sure, but that effect is negligible from a human perceptual perspective.
I understand what you’re saying (call it like a 10" 100 pound tungsten ball vs a 5" 50 pound tungsten ball) but your reasoning and logic of being essentially the same are just silly and the math that would dictate when each would land in atmosphere would still line up perfectly (which would be that the heaviest one will hit first). even if it were a 10,000 pound ball and a 5,000 pound ball.
The acceleration will be 1G minus drag. The Earth is sufficiently larger than anything one would drop off a tower so the weight of the dropped thing doesn’t matter at all
How does your model of the universe explain the hammer and feather dropped on the moon by Apollo 15’s David Scott landed at the same time?
Ed. There is an effect of buoyancy that will make denser things fall faster. It becomes noticeable in distances where the dropped items reach terminal velocity or on more dense media where buoyancy is more significant.
In air over short distances buoyancy is negligible, in vacuum there is none
The Earth is sufficiently larger than anything one would drop off a tower that the weight of the dropped thing doesn’t matter at all
F=ma.
Two items of the same shape will have the same amount of air resistance. If they have significantly different masses, the two object experience commensurately different accelerations (or reduction in acceleration), even if the force is the same.
If you take a balloon full of tetrahexofluroride (a gas 6x the density of air) and a chuck of iron the exact same size and shape and throw them off a building, I guarantee the iron chunk will hit first.
How does your model of the universe explain the hammer and feather dropped on the moon by Apollo 15’s David Scott landed at the same time?
It’s called a vacuum, which is famous for not having air resistance. Y’know, the thing we’re talking about?
You are wrong. Falling in a medium is slowed by buoyancy and drag
F=ma has nothing to do with it
buoyancy and drag
F=ma has nothing to do with it
Motherfucker, do you seriously not understand that buoyancy and drag are fucking forces?!?!
Sit your Dunning-Kruger ass down
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
Without the m as the browser will decide for itself if it needs the mobile version.
Valid crashout. 🤣
minus drag
On Earth, this is the part that makes it so that objects do not fall at the same speed.
on the moon
This is the type of experiment they could not do 2000 years ago.
minus drag
On Earth, this is the part that makes it so that objects do not fall at the same speed.
That is incorrect. Drag affects both equally. The difference is caused by buoyancy, less dense objects feel more buoyancy
If F is the same but m is different, what happens to a?
RivalarrivalBuoyancy is functionally irrelevant here. Buoyancy in air effectively subtracts 1.3kg per cubic meter of each substance: The mass of the volume of air displaced by the object.
The part you are not understanding: Drag applies the same force to both objects. Gravity applies the same acceleration to each object.
Thanks that does make sense
Drag doesn’t exist in a vacuum.
Read their claim again: they are specifically describing the effect of air resistance. Their claim is perfectly consistent with the lunar feather/hammer experiment.
Their problem was that they weren’t able to say why, and no one replying to me was able to do more than say they’re right, I’m wrong. See my edit. I added a correction after looking up drag equations for myself and finding that buoyancy was a factor
Also, thank you for replying civilly
They did. You didn’t understand what they said.
Two items of the same shape will have the same amount of air resistance. If they have significantly different masses, the two object experience commensurately different accelerations (or reduction in acceleration), even if the force is the same.
The “same force” they are talking about is drag. The two objects are the same size and shape. At the same velocity, drag affects them both equally, applying an equal, upward force against both objects.
Gravity (in a vacuum) accelerates both objects equally. But they have differing masses. F=MA. F/M = A. A is equal for both objects. Because acceleration is equal, the “force” on each object is not: the force must be proportional to its mass: The high mass object must be experiencing high force; the low-mass object must be experiencing low force.
Subtract the “same force” of drag from the downward force on both objects, and the net force on each object is no longer proportional to the mass of each object. Consequently, the high-mass object accelerates in atmosphere faster than the low-mass object. The high-mass object has a higher terminal velocity; the low-mass object has a lower terminal velocity.
For the purposes of this experiment, buoyancy is functionally irrelevant. The effect of buoyancy is to subtract a fixed mass from each object: A mass equivalent to the mass of air displaced by the object. Effectively, buoyancy slightly reduces the density of both objects. The actual difference in the densities of the two objects is far greater than the slight change due to buoyancy in air, so buoyancy is not a significant factor.
So change the shape, a long copper rod and clump of coal.
If you do that then they definitely won't fall the same.
And the iron would hit the ground much faster because it pushes air molecules out of the way quicker.
They could just drop an empty bs filled wine bottle.
Maybe fill it with mercury (but don’t drink it)
Nope, denser objects fall faster than less dense ones (through the air). Remember: A kilogram of feathers is just as heavy as a kilogram of lead.
BeigeAgendaI’ll still choose to be hit by the feathers.
You’ll get hit by what you’re told to get hit by and you’ll like it.
Nope, denser objects fall faster than less dense ones (through the air).
Technically it’s objects with a higher mass-to-drag ratio, but most of the time it’s close enough
Not really true, it’s definitely possible for a less dense object to fall faster than a denser one. A drop of water will fall faster than a parachute made of aluminum.
Carl [he/him]They did figure out the earth was round and measure its size with sticks and shadows though, so that’s pretty cool.
plinky [he/him]make a vacuum without bamboo, and with medieval tech 😤
What about bamboo
The thing that always gets me about the renaissance is Galileo:
He did those experiments with things falling down? Measuring speed?
Yeah. Without a clock.
The theory for how to build those came later, based on what Galileo did.
Man, being a cop must have sucked before they invented time.
Officer: do you know how fast you were going?
Lord: No, do you?
Officers: grumbles you’re free to go.
Carriage pulls away
Officer ClocknTime: For now, for now.
Alright, I’m stealing this one for a Pathfinder session
BlackmistCouldn’t even measure it in Mississippis because they hadn’t discovered it yet.