• finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    TBF it took awhile to work out vacuum chamber technology, and some people did throw some spherical stuff off the tower of pisa at one point.

    • mEEGal@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 days ago

      A thing that size would have initial velocity to begin with,

      But acceleration does not depend on mass, (which is kinda weird from an earthling’s perspective), which Einstein formalized in an amazingly powerful theory called General Relativity

    • glorkon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 days ago

      It would fall at 2g, because two Earth-sized masses attract each other in that case. With smaller objects it’s just 1g, because the mass of, let’s say, a nice cup of tea is negligible compared to the mass of Earth.

  • Log in | Sign up@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    To be fair to Archimedes, heavy objects do usually fall faster than light ones*, and to be fair to Newton, stuff coming towards you usually has a higher relative velocity than things going away from you.+

    *You need your objects to be weigh a lot relative to their air resistance to notice otherwise.

    +You need some pretty ambitious equipment to detect that electromagnetic radiation such as light does not follow this pattern.

    • sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 days ago

      If you like novels I highly recommend Galileo’s Dream by Kim Stanley Robinson. It has a moment where Galileo realizes you could “weigh” time, in his experiments with objects rolling down an inclined plane.

  • DreadPirateShawn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    Rosencrantz: [holds up a feather and a wooden ball] Look at this. You would think this would fall faster than this.
    [drops them. ball hits the ground first]
    …and you would be absolutely right.

    ~ Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead

  • WizardofFrobozz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    I am most certainly not a science whiz but it’s so goddamn funny to see this whole comment section full of people just… explaning and correcting each other poorly with varying degrees of correctness. Just like 50 half-true and misremembered tidbits from everyone’s intro to high school physics class, blindly seeking targets in space. I promise you guys, there’s a very straight answer to this like two or three clicks away, written more clearly and succinctly than anyone here is managing to do.

    • markovs_gun@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 days ago

      I have noticed there is a bit of a more “anti intellectual” bent on Lemmy compared to Reddit. Like there is a lot of stupidity on reddit but usually someone comes in with actual knowledge. On Lemmy I just see people arguing in circles with each other with nobody ever actually looking anything up.

      • swelter_spark@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 days ago

        IMO, it’s okay to have casual conversations without being an expert or researching every post. Redditors’ habit of fact-checking everything is honestly tiring. Conversation has other purposes besides education. I think many people are looking more for human interaction than for correct facts.

        • markovs_gun@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 days ago

          Right but conversations about science where all parties are wrong and nobody is willing to actually look shit up are completely pointless. It’s the exact same problem that caused the situation in the OP in the first place.

    • LustyArgonian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      https://www.usgs.gov/water-science-school/science/how-much-does-a-cloud-weigh

      Doing the math: 1,000,000,000 x 0.5 = 500,000,000 grams of water droplets in our cloud. That is about 500,000 kilograms or 1.1 million pounds (about 551 tons). But, that “heavy” cloud is floating over your head because the air below it is even heavier— the lesser density of the cloud allows it to float on the dryer and more-dense air.

      Planes, helicopters- lots heavy stuff not falling faster than lighter ones

      • Caveman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 days ago

        Depends on whether or not you count in air resistance. I was just making a shitpost

      • Ephera@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        You can find exceptions, but on average, heavier objects will fall very slightly faster than light ones, because they excert their own gravity field onto Earth and therefore pull it towards themselves.

        This requires a somewhat unintuitive definition of “falling”, in that both the object and Earth itself moves, but given that any object with mass excerts a gravitational field, there is not actually any other definition.

          • Ephera@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 days ago

            Wut? This does not turn off gravitational pull for objects other than Earth.

            Or I’m misunderstanding what you’re trying to say, but yeah, no clue.

            • LustyArgonian@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 days ago

              You didn’t read it, it is literally telling you you are wrong.

              By experimenting with the acceleration of different materials, Galileo Galilei determined that gravitation is independent of the amount of mass being accelerated

              “… in a uniform gravitational field all objects, regardless of their composition, fall with precisely the same acceleration.”

              What is now called the “Einstein equivalence principle” states that the weak equivalence principle [above] holds

              Tests of the weak equivalence principle are those that verify the equivalence of gravitational mass and inertial mass. An obvious test is dropping different objects and verifying that they land at the same time. Historically this was the first approach – though probably not by Galileo’s Leaning Tower of Pisa experiment[19]: 19–21  but instead earlier by Simon Stevin,[20] who dropped lead balls of different masses off the Delft churchtower and listened for the sound of them hitting a wooden plank.

              Between 1589 and 1592,[1] the Italian scientist Galileo Galilei (then professor of mathematics at the University of Pisa) is said to have dropped “unequal weights of the same material” from the Leaning Tower of Pisa to demonstrate that their time of descent was independent of their mass

              Newton measured the period of pendulums made with different materials as an alternative test giving the first precision measurements.[3] Loránd Eötvös’s approach in 1908 used a very sensitive torsion balance to give precision approaching 1 in a billion. Modern experiments have improved this by another factor of a million.

              Experiments are still being performed at the University of Washington which have placed limits on the differential acceleration of objects towards the Earth, the Sun and towards dark matter in the Galactic Center.[45] Future satellite experiments[46] – Satellite Test of the Equivalence Principle[47] and Galileo Galilei – will test the weak equivalence principle in space, to much higher accuracy.[48]

              With the first successful production of antimatter, in particular anti-hydrogen, a new approach to test the weak equivalence principle has been proposed. Experiments to compare the gravitational behavior of matter and antimatter are currently being developed.

              • Ephera@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 days ago

                Ah, I’m not saying there’s a different force being applied to feather vs. hammer. The meme above doesn’t mean that they “fall faster” in the sense that the hammer falls at a higher velocity. It’s rather colloquial usage of “faster” to mean “finishes sooner”. Because what does happen, is that the hammer collides sooner with Earth, since the hammer pulls the Earth towards itself ever-so-slightly stronger than the feather does.

                I guess, for this to work, you cannot drop hammer and feather at the same time in the same place, since they would both pull Earth towards themselves with a combined force. You need to drop them one after another for the stronger pull of the hammer to have an effect.

                So, this is also going off of this formula:

                F = G * mass_1 * mass_2 / distance²
                

                But setting mass_1 as Earth’s mass and mass_2 as either the feather’s or hammer’s mass. A higher mass_2 ultimately leads to a higher force of attraction F.

  • Zerush@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    With same gravity constance everything fall down at the same speed, but only in a vacuum. In an atmosphere there count the air resistance of an object, even if they are made of the same material and weight, an iron sphere of 1 kg fall faster than a iron sheet of 1 kg.

    • ryannathans@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      Except if you could measure exactly the speed of objects falling in a vacuum, the heavier object would appear to fall faster due to the gravitational pull on the earth

      • lemonskate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 days ago

        Sad to see people trying to correct you here, maybe I can help explain.

        Gravitational force between two objects is GMmr^2, for dropping objects on the Earth (or Moon) we ignore the mass of the object we’re dropping because it’s practically insignificant, but if your experiment really was perfectly accurate then the observed rate would be extremely slightly different as the heavier of the two objects being dropped is also pulling the Earth up towards it a bit more than the lighter object. If the person performing the experiment is standing on the Earth (or just using the Earth as their reference frame) they would see this as the heavier object falling faster.

        • heatofignition@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 days ago

          R^2 is on the bottom. We don’t ignore the mass of one object because it’s insignificant, that would make the top of that equation 0 and the object wouldn’t fall at all.

          That nifty gravitational law gives you the force of gravity on an object, not the acceleration. Force also equals mass times the resultant acceleration, right? So Fg1 = m1*A1 = G*M*m1/r^2 and Fg2 = m2*A2 = G*M*m2/r^2. m1 and m2 are present on both sides of those equations, respectively, so they cancel, and you get A1 = G*M/r^2 and A2 = G*M/r^2, which are identical. The mass of an object affects the force of gravity, but when you look at acceleration the mass terms cancel out.

      • Zerush@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 days ago

        No, mass or weight of an object is irrelevant, in one of the jurney to the Moon, astronauts demostrate it with an hammer and a feather on the moon that both fellt at the same speed. It exist one gravity aceleration, on earth is 9,82 ms², which is the force of acceleration which experiment any object on Earth, the only difference which can slow it down is the resistant of air, this can be different in each object, but without atmosphere there is nothing which slow down the acceleration of the object, it’s irrelevant the material, weight, mass or form. Basic physic

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oo8TaPVsn9Y

        • ryannathans@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 days ago

          The difference is far too small to measure at these scales, the Earth would be falling toward the more massive object faster than the less massive object. Therefore the more massive object hits first.

          • mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 days ago

            Therefore the more massive object hits first.

            Only technically. The effect you’re describing is so minute that it’s insignificant.

            It’s like pointing out that the Great Pyramids of Giza are so massive that time moves 1 billionth slower for the surrounding objects. It’s neat that the effect is potentially measurable, but noone is going to be adjusting their clocks to account for it

            • ryannathans@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 days ago

              Science is built on technicalities. In an exam, if a student considered the centre of m_1 as the centre of gravity instead of the weighed centre of m_1 and m_2 they would fail. This is no different

              • mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 days ago

                Your analogy doesn’t hold up, because factors get ignored in physics discussion all the time. Whem was the last time you’ve see a question in a dynamics class that didn’t ignore air resistance for the sake of simplicity?

                The effect you’re describing is orders of magnitude smaller than that. I doubt the change would even register in a double floating-point variable if you did the calculations in Matlab

      • falcunculus@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 days ago

        I assume you mean keeping the outer diameter the same and making one ball lighter than the other. That’s clever, it would eliminate aerodynamism as a factor.

        However wouldn’t results still vary, since hollowing out the metal ball increases its buoyancy ? (Archimedes’ principle).

        • heatofignition@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 days ago

          They would have the same coefficient of drag, correct, but the air resistance would end up having more effect on the lighter mass of the hollow sphere, so it would be slightly slower to fall.

          Archimedes principle here is accounted for in the different weights. Everything that you can put on a scale is already being acted on by Archimedes principle in air.

  • it_depends_man@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    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.

    • markovs_gun@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 days ago

      Clocks existed then though. The oldest clocktower in Europe that still exists was built over 100 years before Galileo was born, and time measurement existed longer than that. You can measure time fairly accurately with water clocks which had been known for thousands of years before Galileo. Not having “modern” pendulum clocks yet doesn’t mean that they didn’t have any way to measure time. Even without water clocks you can get decently reliable measurements of time with rhythmic chants (think how today we might say "one Mississippi, two Mississippi, etc.). Early alchemical recipes often include time measurements in chanting a specific prayer or passage a certain number of times during a specific step. Sure you’re not going to get milisecond level accuracy this way but you don’t really need that for a lot of things. Hero of Alexandria built mechanical automata 1500 years before Galileo using pulleys and weights as timers. Time measurement not only existed before pendulum clocks, it was pretty decent.

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 days ago

      Couldn’t even measure it in Mississippis because they hadn’t discovered it yet.

    • MajorMajormajormajor@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      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.