Question about the Galileo concept?

15 views
Skip to first unread message

Eclectic Eccentirc Khattak No.1

unread,
Feb 24, 2012, 6:55:43 PM2/24/12
to Classical Physics
Gravity is a force which accelerates objects toward each other. Thus
it is said that the earth and the Newton's apple fall toward each
other. Apple looks a lot to fall to the earth as compared to the
falling of earth toward the apple which is so tiny to be detected.
Similarly, Galileo concept was demonstrated by the crew of Apollo-15
on the Moon (which has gravity but lacks air) by dropping a hammer and
a feather.

BUTshouldn’t heavier objects strike each other first because of their
greater gravitational accelerations?

Explanation:

Assume hammer and feather dropped simultaneously from same ANTIPODEAN
altitude. As moon can be seen from two different gravitational fields
["gf" of feather "gh" of hammer] therefore cognizance shows that
hammer and moon should strike each other first as gh > gf. OR

Consider moon, feather & hammer are three point masses. Both hammer
and feather can be dropped from the same altitude say 100 ft above the
lunar surface but at different times not simulteneouly.

1- Apply the universal law of gravitation to Moon & hammer; F = GMm/
d^2


When they strike each other then dropped feather

2- Apply the universal law of gravitation to Moon & feather; F = GMm/
d^2

Since gh > gf therefore moon and hammer would strike each other first
[theoritically].

Dum de de dum de de de Dum

So what would you think?

GO

JohnEB

unread,
Feb 25, 2012, 2:54:32 AM2/25/12
to classica...@googlegroups.com
 Eclectic Eccentirc Khattak No.1 said:
"BUTshouldn’t heavier objects strike each other first because of their greater gravitational accelerations? "
On the surface of the moon, the acceleration is the same for all objects.
 

Eclectic Eccentirc Khattak No.1

unread,
Feb 26, 2012, 6:36:27 PM2/26/12
to Classical Physics
It’s just a question and therefore shouldn’t be considered an
onslaught or any challenge.

I just asked is Galileo statement correct THEORITICALLY for
aforementioned explanation?

JohnEB

unread,
Feb 26, 2012, 8:21:22 PM2/26/12
to classica...@googlegroups.com
No.
 
This is nonsense:
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages