Do heavier objects actually fall a TINY bit faster? | AskScience Blog

Pages

Friday, August 7, 2020

Do heavier objects actually fall a TINY bit faster?

Do heavier objects actually fall a TINY bit faster?


Do heavier objects actually fall a TINY bit faster?

Posted: 06 Aug 2020 11:47 PM PDT

If F=G(m1*m2)/r2 then the force between the earth an object will be greater the more massive the object. My interpretation of this is that the earth will accelerate towards the object slightly faster than it would towards a less massive object, resulting in the heavier object falling quicker.

Am I missing something or is the difference so tiny we could never even measure it?

Edit: I am seeing a lot of people bring up drag and also say that the mass of the object cancels out when solving for the acceleration of the object. Let me add some assumptions to this question to get to what I'm really asking:

1: Assume there is no drag 2: By "fall faster" I mean the two object will meet quicker 3: The object in question did not come from earth i.e. we did not make the earth less massive by lifting the object 4. They are not dropped at the same time 
submitted by /u/orsikbattlehammer
[link] [comments]

Is the seismic activity of the Earth increasing, or are we getting to hear more frequently about earthquakes just because seismographs are more widely available now and it is easier for news to disseminate widely?

Posted: 06 Aug 2020 09:59 AM PDT

Why can human body endure only a few degrees hotter bath, but endure multiple dozens of degrees colder baths?

Posted: 07 Aug 2020 03:13 AM PDT

Did humans domesticate one breed/species of wolf, that later spread worldwide? Or did different pockets in different regions domesticate more than one species?

Posted: 07 Aug 2020 05:01 AM PDT

As in, do dogs have one origin? If not, which dogs come from what wolves, and from where? Which wolf-dog transitions were the first to happen?

submitted by /u/Teleporpoise
[link] [comments]

In a Mach Cone, how fast is the air moving away from the supersonic object?

Posted: 06 Aug 2020 03:51 PM PDT

https://i.imgur.com/yvAWTgd.png

In this Schlieren image we see a bullet travelling at supersonic speed (V1) along the x-axis leaving a mach cone. The mach cone's pressure front travelling along the x-axis has a speed of V2, which is i suppose equal to the speed of the bullet. So, V2=V1.

My question is, what is V3 at the boundary of the mach cone flowing away? Does it have a speed? Is it also equal to V1's mach number? Or is it travelling at the speed of sound away from it?

submitted by /u/Ichijinijisanji
[link] [comments]

How on earth are tardigrades so damn resilient?

Posted: 07 Aug 2020 12:15 AM PDT

Seriously, what kind of evolutionary path and circumstances required those tiny bastards to become so god-like?

submitted by /u/AverageSpeaker
[link] [comments]

Can getting an heart transplant change your personality?

Posted: 07 Aug 2020 07:52 AM PDT

How would one calculate where the earths gravity decreases?

Posted: 07 Aug 2020 06:26 AM PDT

I would assume objects below sea level experience a weaker g force than objects at sea level but I have only a rudimentary memory of calculus and can't figure iut how to prove this or how much this decreases by.

I would assume cut the sphere into two pieces and act as though the entire mass is at the center point of each piece but I'm not positive on this. Can anyone verify or correct this?

submitted by /u/thereWasAnAttempt42
[link] [comments]

Numbers of N, Z, Q - are they really infinities of the same size?

Posted: 06 Aug 2020 09:06 AM PDT

In high school, we learnt abount infinities and their "sizes". That there are some smaller and bigger infinities.

We learnt following:
("method 1")
Number set A and set B.
If you can pair up numbers from these sets (one number from set A and one number from set B for each pair), then these sets are the same size.

For finite sets it makes sense, of course.
For infinite sets it makes sense, kid of. I can pair up numbers from set N (natural numbers) with set Z (whole numbers) or set Q (rational numbers) and say that these sets have same size.

But, lets consider this:
("method 2")
Number set X and set Y.
If you can "double pair up" (sorry for inventing english) numbers from these sets (one number from set X and two numbers from set B for each double pair), then these sets are not the same size, but set Y has double size of set X.

For finite sets it makes sense, of course.
For infinite sets.. does it make sense? Why do we use "method 1" in mathematics when we deal with infinite sets instead of "method 2"? I know that with "method 2" I could easily prove that set N has double size that the same set N (double pairs: 1 and 1,2 ; 2 and 3,4 ; 3 and 5,6 ; ...) and create nonsense. Is this the only reason? Or something else?

How can I tell, when some "method" (generally) can be used on finite sets, if that "method" can also be used for infinite sets?

submitted by /u/placenta23
[link] [comments]

What is the difference between blood types and why do our bodies only accept the correct type?

Posted: 06 Aug 2020 04:36 AM PDT

Why does explosions or fireballs form cauliflower-like structure?

Posted: 06 Aug 2020 11:25 AM PDT

Explosions and fireballs of lets say liquid fuel forms a big fireball, but if you look at it, it is formed of countless of small protrusions and cauliflower like structures? Why is that?

I understand heat, oxygen and fuel (or explosive matter) and their variances must cause this, but is there some scientific explanation for it?

submitted by /u/M3nt4lcom
[link] [comments]

If a landmass is on an oceanic plate that is subducting, what happens as it approaches the subduction zone?

Posted: 06 Aug 2020 01:25 PM PDT

I'm having trouble visualizing this interaction. I'm sure I learned it in school, but I can't for the life of me remember. I can't think of anywhere this interaction is currently occurring off the top of my head.

I'm presuming a continent size landmass just grinds the subduction process to a halt then collides with whatever is on the non-subbducting side ala India slamming into Asia? What about a smaller landmass? Say something the size of Madagascar or New Guinea? Is there a tectonic process of transferring middling landmasses from one large plate to another large plate without the plates merging? What about smallish islands, say from a hotsot, how do they survive interaction with a subduction zone, or do they?

What happens if the continent is somehow on the plate being subducted under? Say, an Australia being subducted under an Indonesian-style volcanic arc. If that's even possible I assume there'd be some sort of minor orogeny and merger?

submitted by /u/wordbankfacts
[link] [comments]

How rockets avoid space debris?

Posted: 06 Aug 2020 06:03 AM PDT

I recently saw some videos about space debris and how the earth space is full of them. So how space compannies avoid their rockets trom being hit from these debris?

submitted by /u/The-Sword-Of-Newton
[link] [comments]

Why doesn't the closeness of a lense to the surface improve the resolution ?

Posted: 06 Aug 2020 09:36 AM PDT

I'm starting a course in histology and we are looking at resolution limit. Seems like the closest you get to the target the bigger the sine of the semiangle of aperture. How is it that it doesn't increase the NA, thus reducing RL ?

submitted by /u/Duzae1
[link] [comments]

No comments:

Post a Comment