0

Question on Gravity and the old "all objects free fall at the same rate regardless of their mass"

I "drop" three objects, one at a time, towards the earth

  • First object has less mass than the earth

  • Second object has mass equal to the earth

  • Third object has greater mass than the earth

in all cases as Gravity "pulls" the two together. The greater mass object wins this simple "tug of war" due to inertia and is moved relatively less. The lighter mass object moves relatively more. You could plot a curve (heavier moves less) with the object of equal mass at center.

So what am I missing in the semantics of "all objects free fall at the same rate regardless of their mass" is popularly taught and I think the average person understands they are being told?

AccidentalFourierTransform
  • 53,248
  • 20
  • 131
  • 253
  • We can ask a similar question even in classical electromagnetism: force is the charge times the electric field of a conductor. However, if the charge was too large, then it would change the conductor electric field. So it seems you have to define this "abstraction" with a very tiny "objects". These are the sign of their non-linear nature. – heaven-of-intensity Aug 10 '17 at 17:49
  • 4
    Your conclusions are correct. This law is right for masses which are many times smaller in relation to the earth. The more interesting question would be Does exist a physical law which is independent from the any dimensional scale? :-) – HolgerFiedler Aug 10 '17 at 17:54
  • 1
  • Voted as a duplicate, but I don't think you are missing anything. You're digging into it deeper than intended. The statement is a simplification of what is really happening, best suited for objects relatively small compared to the object that they are falling towards. Even in that case, there is a technical difference due to the reasons you explain. The magnitude of the difference is so small that it's generally ignored when studying the simple example. In the same way, gravitational acceleration is not constant as a function of distance from the surface either, but it's close enough. – JMac Aug 10 '17 at 18:46

2 Answers2

3

The word "fall" is hiding some assumptions in your statement. You have some object with position $x$, while surface of the Earth sits at position $X$. Does "the rate of falling" mean $\frac{d^2 x}{dt^2}$ or $\frac{d^2(x-X)}{dt^2}$? The first is the rate of acceleration of the object through an inertial reference frame. The second is the acceleration of the separation of Earth and the object. The statement is fully correct in the first case but breaks down for large objects in the second case.

The first clearly does not depend on the mass of the object: $\ddot{x} = -\frac{1}{m}\frac{GMm}{(x-X)^2}$. But the second does! $$ \ddot{x}-\ddot{X} = -\frac{GMm}{(x-X)^2}\left(\frac{1}{m}+\frac{1}{M}\right)=-\frac{G(m+M)}{(x-X)^2}$$

Of course, for $M\gg m$, the mass of the object is negligible, which is why we usually ignore this issue and just say "everything falls at the same rate." And since most people are only going to imagine sufficiently small objects being dropped I think it is not very misleading to say.

Note that this happens because when you drop the object the Earth also accelerates so the surface of the Earth is no longer an inertial reference frame.

  • I had started writing an answer, but got pulled away before finishing. I see you wrote a very similar analysis in the mean time... – Floris Aug 10 '17 at 18:54
0

Let's do the math "properly". Assume there are two point masses, $m_1$ and $m_2$. The question "how quickly do they fall" can be rephrased as "how long is it until the distance between them is reduced from $D$ to $d$, where $d<D$ is the distance where they touch (I am using point masses - but obviously they are of finite size so they will hit when their centers are still some distance apart).

This is a problem that is most easily solved in the center of mass frame. The two points will move towards the center of mass with an acceleration that is inversely proportional to their mass (the heavier object will accelerate less). The distance to the center of mass is also proportional to the inverse of the mass.

Distance that object 1 has to fall, $d_1 = \frac{D m_2}{m_1+m_2}$; and $d_2 = \frac{Dm_1}{m_1+m_2}$. The total acceleration (of the distance between them) can be computed as the sum of the accelerations of $m_1$ and $m_2$ at a given moment in time. Now since they experience the same force, we can say

$$\frac{d^2x_1}{dt^2} = \frac{F}{m_1}\\ \frac{d^2x_2}{dt^2} = \frac{F}{m_2}$$

And their sum

$$a = F\frac{m_1+m_2}{m_1 m_2}$$

When $F=\frac{Gm_1 m_2}{r^2}$ this tells us that the rate at which the masses accelerate towards each other is given by

$$a = \frac{G(m_1+m_2)}{R^2}$$

As long as $m_1>>m_2$, this means the acceleration depends only on the distance; but when that assumption is no longer true, the masses do "fall towards each other", and we conclude that "really heavy things fall faster" (because the earth will "fall up" to meet them).

Another way of looking at this: the "effective $g$" (let's call it $g'$) when the mass of the object is $m$, falling towards an object with mass $M$, is $$g'=\frac{M+m}{M} g$$

Floris
  • 118,905
  • Im looking and this and thinking you have to conclude the counter intuitive " lighter falls faster/heavy falls slower" – Hume Bates Aug 10 '17 at 22:59
  • Let take two free floating object in space of equal mass and hold them let say 100 ft apart.. They should acceleration equally and meet at the middle distance of 50 ft each... But we take the same total combined mass of our same two free floating object but distribute inequality say 40% for object A to 60% object B Then the objects A at 40% being of less mass will have less inertia and move the greater distance to meet the objects B at 60% of greater mass greater inertia..(The greater mass object it will stay to a greater degree “at rest”) – Hume Bates Aug 10 '17 at 22:59
  • So less mass object accelerate faster due to less inertia .. Smaller “falls” to Bigger ... .. Isn’t this part this is why orbits work the way the way they do? .. the less mass moon orbits the more mass earth or why a spacecraft can get a “slingshot accelerate” by “falling” towards and around a planet ? – Hume Bates Aug 10 '17 at 23:00