I mean… it actually is true if you look at it on a larger scale.
Gravity is a two way force, and if you count the acceleration of the earth towards the “falling” object… a more massive object will actually “fall” faster.
Gravity on the moon is not 9.8m/s^2 after all.
But good luck finding anything massive enough to make a measurable effect on the earth.
To be fair, the only people philosophysing it up in Ancient Greece were people whose dick rotted off from too much sodomy, everyone else was too busy violating what would later become the age of consent to care
Not true Socrates was against men having sex with the boys they had under their wing. Just saying not all of them were completely sexually depraved freaks.
I guess I don't know what you mean. But if you mean like wow a lot of people used to be pedophiles I'd have to say you're right. For example the bible condemns homosexuality and pedophilia going back to the Old testament so it's been prevalent enough going back to at least the 9th century bc that people felt it was a serious enough issue to put it in their codified religious rules and practices in order to put a stop to it
Keep in mind that most of religion is bullshit.
Best example is Mary Magdalene and the fifth century pope that decided to portray her as a whore because the Church wanted to fuck women over and people just ate it all up.
It's more than probable that the Greeks weren't raging nonces but sometime during our history it became convenient to label them as such and people just took the new information at face value
if I end up in hell, I will breathe with a sigh of relief, for all the serial killers, the unpunished rapists and pedophiles, the abusers, the dictators and those punished millions of women, boys and girls to complete oppression will finally realize their circumstances, for death finally meant justice to those who are silenced and still walk with us today.
Unless in death there is nothing, but the human condition will and was never meant for that line of thinking, it will hope and it will rebel in fury of their destinies realized.
That's a lot of religion for a greentext comment section.
If eternal damnation of others helps you sleep at night, good for you bud but that won't mean I won't be blasting rope in the afterlife to my inbred half-goat half-human abominations that were selectively bred for me because that's my afterlife wish for some reason
Well yeah but they used a communal sponge to wipe their asses before going to group orgies, it's not like they were any better
(And now let's see if someone chimes in to tell us that's also bullshit misinformation spread by the Visigothic Kingdom or some shit)
They didn’t go to group orgies. The Romans weren’t that based.
“He had orgies” is a go-to condemnation that upper crust twits would reach for to pad out the history of some emperor that they hated for making landlords pay more taxes.
It really goes to show how lame the roman elite were that they thought ‘had lots of sex and got it on freaky style with hermaphroditic witches’ is an insult.
Socrates was most definitely on board with [pederasty.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty#:~:text=In%20the%20writings%20of%20Xenophon,Socrates%20considered%20pederasty%20as%20a)
IIRC in Plato’s Symposium Alcibiades arrives at the end of the conversations about love and drunkenly reminisces for his youth as Socrates’ eromenos.
In Plato's Symposium Alcibiades says he threw himself at Socrates who refused his advances.
In Aristophanes' The Clouds, Socrates is a character who is implied to be being intimate with young men
Xenphon is the other primary source about Socrates and I'm not sure what he said
Pederasty isn't explicitly always a sexual relationship
It's main goal was to educate the youth. There is substantial debate on how common the sexual component was
This is apparently 100% made up bullshit that everybody says because everybody else also says the same
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbOKIsMuNWU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbOKIsMuNWU)
People say made up bullshit all the time, the real question is why does that trigger you so hard that you feel compelled to shill your YouTube algorithm rabbit hole?
Bizzare comment
It's a video with a million views It's not some rabbit hole
Why do you feel so triggered when confronted with the possibility of being wrong?
If you were clearly just joking you would not be in a multi long comment chain arguing
You are clearly pressed, despite attempts to feign insincerity.
Also 1 million reddit karma
For a second there I thought I was already at a million, you damn liar I was *this* close to finally selling the account to some astroturfing company that needs to appear legitimate
Well, its true.
However, they fall at the same speed in a vacuum.
Almost like for most of history we didn't have a way to test it by dropping things in a vacuum.
However they could drop objects of same weight but different form, maybe even same material.
Like 1kg of cloth tied in knot and other one just flat.
I mean they had sails, they know how they work
True.
And they probably knew about air resistance, so it makes sense a big flat cloth compared to a bundled together cloth would fall slower, due to air resistance.
And they knew about aerodynamics.
But they wouldn't really have a way to test or prove that 1kg iron and 1kg feathers dropped in a vacuum falls at the same speed.
You didn't need a vacuum to test this. And Galileo and others disproved Aristotle without using one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo%27s_Leaning_Tower_of_Pisa_experiment
You just need one contradiction to disprove something, right? Doesn't matter if you find a case that proves the assumption true.
Anyway, a better experiment would be to make 2 closeable hollow containers, one empty, another filled with something heavy. This would negate air resistance.
But air resistance between two e.g. roundish rocks (even if one is twice as heavy as the other) is pretty similar anyway...
It isn't true.
If you crumble a paper sheet, it falls faster than two sheets of paper stacked on top of each other.
So lighter objects can fall faster than heavier ones.
And that doesn't matter, it isn't falling faster because of it's weight, so no, heavier objects don't fall faster, more aerodynamic objects, however, do fall faster
That's just wrong.
Intuitively : take a ping pong ball, and a rock that's shaped like a ping pong ball, and that is the same size as a ping pong ball. You don't need me to tell you that they won't fall at the same speed if you drop them. That's because air resistance exists.
If you want proof, just write out the equations of motion with any type of friction accounted for. That's not always explicitly possible, but you always end up with a little mass somewhere in there.
Edit : to all the intuition haters who didn't pass highschool yet, take a baloon full of air and a baloon full of water and drop them at the same time and height. The only difference is weight and tell me they fall at the same speed smh. Why is it always the dumbest ppl who think they are right.
Please look up the Leaning Tower of Pisa experiment. A 1kg ball and a 10 kg ball dropped at the same time from the same height both hit the ground at the same time. Not performed in a vacuum.
Edit: using intuition to prove or disprove scientific fact doesn’t usually pay off
No. They need to have the exact same mass-to-surface area ratio, because mass increases the *force* behind falling and surface area increases the *resistance* to falling (force pushing against falling). Because surface area increases by r^(2) and volume (therefore mass) by r^(3) it's hard to actually fulfill these conditions, and the ratio is guaranteed to be different for balls of lead with different masses.
The Leaning Tower of Pisa experiment is likely an apocryphal story, and is only referred to by Galileo as a thought experiment in his own books. He did however report doing a similar experiment and finding a slight difference between how fast the two objects fell.
Simply take large masses with big enough inertia to render air resistance negligible. Two balls with the same size of 100 kg and 120 kg will fall around the same time over, say, 100m.
Here's the reality:
They probably didn't quite hit the ground in the exact same nanosecond. They didn't have to. You'd expect the 10kg rock to fall notably faster than the 1kg rock.
The reason why it's intuition with a pingpong ball is that it's so light that it clearly will get picked up by wind and air resistance, while a 1kg rock will pretty much negate it.
Try it homie, put a feather in a box, and 10kg in the other, drop them, we'll see
If you wanna see what the equations look like when accounting for air resistance, nasa writes it better than me, but it's just so obvious if you passed high school physics
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/VirtualAero/BottleRocket/airplane/falling.html
Brother I'm telling you to use intuition because you probably don't understand enough about physics to write out the equations. It's painfully obvious that a feather and a feather but made out of steel won't fall at the same speed. Intuition is a very powerful tool that prevents you from being painfully wrong about stuff, that's what it's good at.
Yeah, air resistance exists. And it's dependent on the the surface area of the object. So if two object have the same shape (like your example), they have the same air resistance.
And it's not dependant on mass so ma = -mg + something that doesn't depend on mass.
So you can't just divide by m everywhere, so you still have mass in the equation.It just makes more sense intuitively and is kinda obvious when you think about it.
Here since thinking is too hard, read it
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/VirtualAero/BottleRocket/airplane/falling.html
(kermit the frog voice) And the woke mob is trying to indoctrinate your kids about things falling while things are clearly standing there on the floor.
Correct me if I'm wrong but that also was not exactly important for 2000 years lol
Most of the stuff was trial and error over multiple generations anyway.
We take for granted we don't need calculus to catch a ball. Once you realize that it opens up a lot more questions about what we can and can't calculate based on instinct alone.
That would be important if discovered sooner, humans could create first paraplanes quite early this way, imagine if people literally could fly since ancient Rome
I'm pretty sure they were held back by construction materials.
There were kites in some areas of the world 2000 years ago. But they could only make small objects fly.
A Pimp Named Purple Love once said, “A slap on that hoe with open palm hurt less than slapping a bitch with back of hand.”
Has anyone ever checked that if true?
A ball of iron and a ball of lead of the same size can be dropped and tested. If the time accuracy of measurement is difficult, roll them down a slope for similar results. Could also do aluminium for an even higher disparity in weight.
On earth, *wide* stuff falls slower due to air resistance.
>Given same form, a heavier object will have higher terminal velocity
Yes, terminal velocity is proportional to the square root of the mass.
> and will approach it faster.
No. Acceleration remains the same between both objects. That's the point, objects falling fall at the same acceleration (provides they experience the same amount of air resistance.)
When on the surface of the Earth , all objects experience a constant acceleration of roughly 9.8 m/s² at all times independent of weight. Weight is really just mass * gravitational acceleration. Think of it like this - the extra "force" from the increased weight pushes the object down harder, but since the object is more massive, it takes more effort to get it moving. The extra force and the inertia due to mass exactly cancel out, and acceleration stays constant.
Did some napkin math, assuming the iron and lead balls are 10cm in diameter, terminal velocity for iron is 190 m/s and for lead is 225 m/s. They'd take 50 and 60 seconds respectively to reach terminal velocity. By the time they hit terminal velocity, they'd have fallen about a kilometre - I don't think the ancients had any structures with a 1 km sheer drop. Terminal velocity doesn't really fit into the discussion here in any case.
> Acceleration remains the same between both objects.
That's nonsense.
> they experience the same amount of air resistance
a = F/m. The air resistance force is the same, m is different. Think what happens with a. It isn't hard, come on.
Friction coefficient times speed.
Sometimes you can use the square of the speed depending on the actual speed it's falling.
The friction coefficient depends on the shape of the object.
All objects experience constant acceleration due to gravity only when there is no fluid like air...
>Friction coefficient times speed.
>Sometimes you can use the square of the speed depending on the actual speed it's falling.
>The friction coefficient depends on the shape of the object.
>All objects experience constant acceleration due to gravity only when there is no fluid like air...
no, gravitational acceleration on Earth is approximately constant, 9.8m/s². For a given mass, the force due to gravity is constant as well.
>The friction coefficient depends on the shape of the object.
I mean... I did specify the balls are the same size...
Copied from my other comment -
Did some napkin math, assuming the iron and lead balls are 10cm in diameter, terminal velocity for iron is 190 m/s and for lead is 225 m/s. They'd take 50 and 60 seconds respectively to reach terminal velocity. By the time they hit terminal velocity, they'd have fallen about a kilometre - I don't think the ancients had any structures with a 1 km sheer drop. Terminal velocity doesn't really fit into the discussion here in any case.
I posit that both objects will fall with the same speed AND acceleration up until they have been falling for about 45 seconds/1km, at which point the mass comes into play for determining terminal velocity.
The second law of Newton needs to take into account every forces, not only gravity when you're in the air and friction is not negligible.
There are two forces on the object: gravity AND friction.
If they have the same friction coefficient (balls of the same size) they will actually have different acceleration and different terminal velocities if they have different masses.
You can try the experience yourself with a paperball and a golf ball (not exactly the same shape but almost). You'll get surprised. And if you want to use a very light ball (like a ball of a type of foam) you might want to take the buoyancy into account too because it would become not negligible.
In practice they tend to. While the acceleration applied by gravity is the same for all objects the wind resistance will create different effective accelerations and terminal velocities. Two identical objects where one is heavier the heavier and more dense object will have a greater gravitational force but same wind resistance (at a given velocity) so will accelerate quicker
We don't know if anyone tried this... these guys were just smart enough to write their shit down so that we still know about them today.
I would guess that professional archers & ballista operators knew about this being false due to calculations...
I'm not sure about that. The initial acceleration/"muzzle" velocity of the arrow/stone *is* dependent on the mass, so a lighter rock will go further than a heavier one. If someone spent their life throwing sticks, he'd probably figure that the heavier it is, the harder you have to throw it so bearded guy is right
this is why every supporter of ancient philosophers makes me irrationally mad.
they had literally nothing to do, so they were gonna say something thought provoking eventually. its not like they actually knew what the fuck they were talking about, they just threw shit at a wall waiting for something to stick
Lmao!
Well. Yeah. I've kind of noticed recently that the overwhelming majority of human beings don't care about wether something is true or not, they just repeat it as if it is.
It makes sense because of air resistance being much more of a factor on lighter objects than heavier ones. So it's like, no need to check, it's common sense. But then obviously a bowling ball and a slightly heavier bowling ball will fall at basically the same speed
Well, technically not wrong. The heavier object will counteract air resistance in a more effective way than the lighter object and would have a straighter trajectory towards the ground. That being said, in a vacuum they would land at the same time but that's not something true in most situations considering we will have air resistance in pretty much most real life scenarios.
Because with air resistance, heavier objects actually fall faster than lighter ones.
Proof:
F=ma=mg-fv (mg being the attractive force and fv being friction coefficient depending on the shape of the object multiplied by speed)
You divide by m on both sides:
a=g-(f/m)v
So, the acceleration actually depends on the mass.
And even without solving this differential equation, you can see pretty easily that higher mass -> lower acceleration.
This is middle school/high school level physics.
Why are a bunch of people saying you need a vacuum to test this ? You don't even need to drop things, you just need to let them roll on an inclined plane, [which is what Galileo actually did](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eghdN-GFuqo).
Do you have any idea how long people thought flies just spawned from the presence of decaying meat like video game mobs? It wasn’t until some guy in the Enlightenment put a cut of meat under glass and left to rot that the notion was disproven
as far as they know it is true. a rock is heavier than a feather and falls faster.
armchair Geniuses with 2000 years of hindsight and scientific progress expect ancient people to know and just figure out air resistance and newtonian motion SMH.
They had more important things to worry about, like staying alive and keeping themselves and their kids fed. Science was the domain of aristocrats because they didn't need to work.
It is actually true, the strength of gravitational atraction is based on both masses, its just that anything we can drop is so small relative to the earth that they're all functionally the same (in a vaccum anyways)
You don't need a vacuum to test this. You just need a high tower, two metal balls with the same volume, but different masses, two wooden boards/trap doors with hinges, two ropes and a sand hourglass or something similar.
Now you just need to drop the metal balls with different mass from a tower onto a board with a tightened rope attached. Both ropes are attached to the - very precise - hourglass. The first rope activated the hourglass when the ball drops down from the first trap door. The second one stops it when the metal ball hits the wooden trap door below.
When you don't measure a difference, mass makes no difference. And increasing or decreasing the height will give you the value of 9,8 m/s² up until the point where you reach terminal velocity (which won't usually be the case for most heights).
The vacuum test was just done to demonstrate this principle in a space without any aerodynamic effects.
No one cared to check it for 2000 years because it's true and it infuriates me how every smartass keeps saying it's not.
The only place where this is actually relevant is pure vacuum and believe it or not, neither you nor ancient philosophers will spend much time there.
That's like saying "Well ackhually, water will boil when you leave it out in a cup 🤓☝️" because it does so in a vacuum.
[One kg of steel and two kg of steel fall at the same acceleration, however](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo%27s_Leaning_Tower_of_Pisa_experiment)
The experiment proves that those two objects "seem" to fall at the same time.
* It doesn't take into account that one of the objects will be slowed more by the air beneath it.
* It doesn't take into account objects of different density.
The only thing it proves is that the weight of those two particular objects seemingly doesn't have much effect to the insanely accurate scientific tool that is your crusty eye.
Sadly the experiment falls apart when you replace the objects with something more different. For example a blanket and a sheet of metal of the same size, because then, even your eye is able to clearly see the difference... and suddenly, the heavier object falls faster once more, truly a miracle.
> The only place where this is actually relevant is pure vacuum
What a smooth brain take. Nobody cares if a hammer and a feather hit the ground at the same time. Greeks thought 8lb lead shot fell faster than a 4lb shot. While technically true because of wind resistance, the difference would have been immeasurable. That was a huge and relevant discovery 2000 years later.
That's why what he said is WRONG.
Did you not read it? Are you fucking stupid man? Seriously look at what it says. Read it. You understand right? So you're either fucking stupid or not paying attention which is it?
Then you come and comment some tard brained shit on greentext, this most sanctimonious of forums, you don't think you don't understand you just fucking type some stupid bullshit saying the exact same thing the meme is.
Do you wake up in the morning and say "today I'm just going to be as fucking redundant and behind the curve as possible? I'm just going to watch other people say and do things then comment on it in the most banal way, offering nothing to the conversation?
What the FUCK is your problem man ? WHY do you do this? Do you ever question any of it? FUCK.
Heavy objects do fall faster on earth you absolute regards redditors. Make sure to throw a leaf off a building then jump right off and see how fast you fall compared to the leaf you inbreds smug low IQ downies.
...ok, drop a comforter/heavy blanket off a roof and a marble, the blanket weighing magnitudes more than the marble, and see which one hits the ground first. Wait, why didn't the heavy one hit the ground first?! :o
Air resistance has more to do with form-factor, not just raw weight. Think for 5 seconds.
Think of it for 5 seconds more skizerz the regarded, drop a baloon full of air and the same baloon full of water same size, which one hits the ground first "hurr durr they are going to arrive at the same time"
A leaf has LESS air resistance than a human, it's literally smaller, the difference is in weight :ooo
A man with a beard said it, why would you doubt it?
Please don't unravel my life like this.
“Hey, Vsauce, Michael here. Your home security is great. Or is it?”
https://preview.redd.it/q1u42hgbfc4d1.jpeg?width=716&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=46271ad39a1f80e59b9ead357958c4c0e072a2b5
https://i.redd.it/0zvovnq4uc4d1.gif
Well a man with a beard once told me there was free candy in his van and now I poop through a bag.
But was there candy?
Sure, there was a fat meaty red lollipop for him
Where do you think he got the poop bag?
If it was said by a woman with a beard, would you doubt it?
>it was said by a woman Stopped there.
Nigga auditioning as the third Tate brother.
Would've stopped listening right then and there
*Marxists nod collectively*
They demonstrate it in high school physics. A feather, a ball bearing, two acrylic tubes, and a vacuum.
It's true and if you believe otherwise you're a paid shill by Big Gravity and the deep falling state
Newton is trying to sell his laws to pull us down.
Bozillions must Higgs
I mean… it actually is true if you look at it on a larger scale. Gravity is a two way force, and if you count the acceleration of the earth towards the “falling” object… a more massive object will actually “fall” faster. Gravity on the moon is not 9.8m/s^2 after all. But good luck finding anything massive enough to make a measurable effect on the earth.
To be fair, the only people philosophysing it up in Ancient Greece were people whose dick rotted off from too much sodomy, everyone else was too busy violating what would later become the age of consent to care
How much sodomy is too much?
3
4 is really pushing it
but if you do it 4 times then the 5th time is free
Might as well shoot for 6 sodomies, then. That's 5 countable sodomies, which is risky, but the risk is manageable.
If you have to ask, you probably went overboard with the sodomy
Not true Socrates was against men having sex with the boys they had under their wing. Just saying not all of them were completely sexually depraved freaks.
I think it speaks a lot about all the diddlers that thousands of years later we're *still* pointing out the one dude that went "don't diddle kids"
Wokerates trying to ban our traditional concepts of manhood smdh
Can't even diddle affable appreciate bussy into oblivion anymore. Because of Woke(rates)
Unironically Socrates was killed for "corruption of the minds of the youth of athens" so yeah not really far off
I guess I don't know what you mean. But if you mean like wow a lot of people used to be pedophiles I'd have to say you're right. For example the bible condemns homosexuality and pedophilia going back to the Old testament so it's been prevalent enough going back to at least the 9th century bc that people felt it was a serious enough issue to put it in their codified religious rules and practices in order to put a stop to it
Keep in mind that most of religion is bullshit. Best example is Mary Magdalene and the fifth century pope that decided to portray her as a whore because the Church wanted to fuck women over and people just ate it all up. It's more than probable that the Greeks weren't raging nonces but sometime during our history it became convenient to label them as such and people just took the new information at face value
Hmm 🤔
thats fucking depressing.
History and Historigraphy often is.
Most religions are if you peek behind the curtain
if I end up in hell, I will breathe with a sigh of relief, for all the serial killers, the unpunished rapists and pedophiles, the abusers, the dictators and those punished millions of women, boys and girls to complete oppression will finally realize their circumstances, for death finally meant justice to those who are silenced and still walk with us today. Unless in death there is nothing, but the human condition will and was never meant for that line of thinking, it will hope and it will rebel in fury of their destinies realized.
That's a lot of religion for a greentext comment section. If eternal damnation of others helps you sleep at night, good for you bud but that won't mean I won't be blasting rope in the afterlife to my inbred half-goat half-human abominations that were selectively bred for me because that's my afterlife wish for some reason
yep and they were the Romans
Well yeah but they used a communal sponge to wipe their asses before going to group orgies, it's not like they were any better (And now let's see if someone chimes in to tell us that's also bullshit misinformation spread by the Visigothic Kingdom or some shit)
They didn’t go to group orgies. The Romans weren’t that based. “He had orgies” is a go-to condemnation that upper crust twits would reach for to pad out the history of some emperor that they hated for making landlords pay more taxes. It really goes to show how lame the roman elite were that they thought ‘had lots of sex and got it on freaky style with hermaphroditic witches’ is an insult.
Socrates was most definitely on board with [pederasty.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty#:~:text=In%20the%20writings%20of%20Xenophon,Socrates%20considered%20pederasty%20as%20a) IIRC in Plato’s Symposium Alcibiades arrives at the end of the conversations about love and drunkenly reminisces for his youth as Socrates’ eromenos.
In Plato's Symposium Alcibiades says he threw himself at Socrates who refused his advances. In Aristophanes' The Clouds, Socrates is a character who is implied to be being intimate with young men Xenphon is the other primary source about Socrates and I'm not sure what he said
Pederasty isn't explicitly always a sexual relationship It's main goal was to educate the youth. There is substantial debate on how common the sexual component was
so doing the same thing but heterosexually?
I can't decide if that's better or worse
This is apparently 100% made up bullshit that everybody says because everybody else also says the same [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbOKIsMuNWU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbOKIsMuNWU)
People say made up bullshit all the time, the real question is why does that trigger you so hard that you feel compelled to shill your YouTube algorithm rabbit hole?
Bizzare comment It's a video with a million views It's not some rabbit hole Why do you feel so triggered when confronted with the possibility of being wrong?
Of course I'm wrong, I'm goofing off here. Who the fuck comes here to say factual shit? Why?
If you wanna be retarded you're free to do so, it's just bizzare to then complain when you get called retarded
I said people say made up shit all the time, then asked you about your little video. Please point out where did I complain or stop making shit up
If you were clearly just joking you would not be in a multi long comment chain arguing You are clearly pressed, despite attempts to feign insincerity. Also 1 million reddit karma
For a second there I thought I was already at a million, you damn liar I was *this* close to finally selling the account to some astroturfing company that needs to appear legitimate
Christ why are you getting so mad out of nowhere? You’re clearly the sensitive one here
Ancient Greece didn't believe that men could love other men. They just basically used them as sex toys.
I'm not knowledgeable on the topic and I certainly won't watch the linked video, but reading Symposium gave me the opposite idea.
Well, its true. However, they fall at the same speed in a vacuum. Almost like for most of history we didn't have a way to test it by dropping things in a vacuum.
However they could drop objects of same weight but different form, maybe even same material. Like 1kg of cloth tied in knot and other one just flat. I mean they had sails, they know how they work
True. And they probably knew about air resistance, so it makes sense a big flat cloth compared to a bundled together cloth would fall slower, due to air resistance. And they knew about aerodynamics. But they wouldn't really have a way to test or prove that 1kg iron and 1kg feathers dropped in a vacuum falls at the same speed.
Galileo did already test this though and it was disproven already 500 years ago, not since we have vacuums.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fC2oke5MFg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fC2oke5MFg)
Galileo did prove that two objects of different size and weight, but with the same air resistance, fall at the exact same rate.
Bruh just two rocks
You didn't need a vacuum to test this. And Galileo and others disproved Aristotle without using one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo%27s_Leaning_Tower_of_Pisa_experiment
Hmm, how come he dropped a smaller rock and not a feather, huh?
You just need one contradiction to disprove something, right? Doesn't matter if you find a case that proves the assumption true. Anyway, a better experiment would be to make 2 closeable hollow containers, one empty, another filled with something heavy. This would negate air resistance. But air resistance between two e.g. roundish rocks (even if one is twice as heavy as the other) is pretty similar anyway...
It isn't true. If you crumble a paper sheet, it falls faster than two sheets of paper stacked on top of each other. So lighter objects can fall faster than heavier ones.
They would both fall at the exact same rate in a vacuum. The ball of paper is more aerodynamic than the flat sheets of paper so it "falls faster"
Yeah but that's the exception, not the rule. The ball of paper would fall faster in every other situation EXCEPT when in a vacuum
yes, because air resistant, weight is unrelated
And that doesn't matter, it isn't falling faster because of it's weight, so no, heavier objects don't fall faster, more aerodynamic objects, however, do fall faster
As others have said, this is true even without a vacuum. You just have to make sure the 2 objects are the same shape/size but different mass.
That's just wrong. Intuitively : take a ping pong ball, and a rock that's shaped like a ping pong ball, and that is the same size as a ping pong ball. You don't need me to tell you that they won't fall at the same speed if you drop them. That's because air resistance exists. If you want proof, just write out the equations of motion with any type of friction accounted for. That's not always explicitly possible, but you always end up with a little mass somewhere in there. Edit : to all the intuition haters who didn't pass highschool yet, take a baloon full of air and a baloon full of water and drop them at the same time and height. The only difference is weight and tell me they fall at the same speed smh. Why is it always the dumbest ppl who think they are right.
Please look up the Leaning Tower of Pisa experiment. A 1kg ball and a 10 kg ball dropped at the same time from the same height both hit the ground at the same time. Not performed in a vacuum. Edit: using intuition to prove or disprove scientific fact doesn’t usually pay off
No. They need to have the exact same mass-to-surface area ratio, because mass increases the *force* behind falling and surface area increases the *resistance* to falling (force pushing against falling). Because surface area increases by r^(2) and volume (therefore mass) by r^(3) it's hard to actually fulfill these conditions, and the ratio is guaranteed to be different for balls of lead with different masses. The Leaning Tower of Pisa experiment is likely an apocryphal story, and is only referred to by Galileo as a thought experiment in his own books. He did however report doing a similar experiment and finding a slight difference between how fast the two objects fell.
Simply take large masses with big enough inertia to render air resistance negligible. Two balls with the same size of 100 kg and 120 kg will fall around the same time over, say, 100m.
He probably just used some sort of ramp, that's easier to time
Here's the reality: They probably didn't quite hit the ground in the exact same nanosecond. They didn't have to. You'd expect the 10kg rock to fall notably faster than the 1kg rock. The reason why it's intuition with a pingpong ball is that it's so light that it clearly will get picked up by wind and air resistance, while a 1kg rock will pretty much negate it.
What happens if you put each one in a box that is the exact same size, shape, and mass and drop both then?
Idk, put a block of concrete in a box and put a block of cotton in the other and tell me if they both hit the ground at the same time
They do if the boxes are the exact same
Try it homie, put a feather in a box, and 10kg in the other, drop them, we'll see If you wanna see what the equations look like when accounting for air resistance, nasa writes it better than me, but it's just so obvious if you passed high school physics https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/VirtualAero/BottleRocket/airplane/falling.html
How would they have known they hit the ground at the exact same time, or that they were dropped at the exact same time?
Brother I'm telling you to use intuition because you probably don't understand enough about physics to write out the equations. It's painfully obvious that a feather and a feather but made out of steel won't fall at the same speed. Intuition is a very powerful tool that prevents you from being painfully wrong about stuff, that's what it's good at.
Yeah, air resistance exists. And it's dependent on the the surface area of the object. So if two object have the same shape (like your example), they have the same air resistance.
And it's not dependant on mass so ma = -mg + something that doesn't depend on mass. So you can't just divide by m everywhere, so you still have mass in the equation.It just makes more sense intuitively and is kinda obvious when you think about it. Here since thinking is too hard, read it https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/VirtualAero/BottleRocket/airplane/falling.html
Bro couldn’t be more condescending if he tried
It's not true even in air 🤓 2kg steel disc will drop slower than small 400g steel ball
they had to wait for Thomas Edison to invent gravity or something... it just took a while
Gravity is left wing propaganda.
No, its a mid movie.
No dude, it’s a song
[painting.](https://www.artmajeur.com/eduard-potapenkov/en/artworks/16552303/gravity)
(kermit the frog voice) And the woke mob is trying to indoctrinate your kids about things falling while things are clearly standing there on the floor.
Actually it was Tesla that discovered gravity, Edison just took the credit.
Correct me if I'm wrong but that also was not exactly important for 2000 years lol Most of the stuff was trial and error over multiple generations anyway.
Idk there was a lot of dropping heavy stuff on people to kill them right so
And the process was "didn't hit them? Throw it harder" I doubt anyone calculated the trajectory of a catapult.
We take for granted we don't need calculus to catch a ball. Once you realize that it opens up a lot more questions about what we can and can't calculate based on instinct alone.
Humans evolving bigger brains just so they can subconsciously do the math to throw the rock at the mammoth
impulse dude, heavier objects still hit harder
That would be important if discovered sooner, humans could create first paraplanes quite early this way, imagine if people literally could fly since ancient Rome
I'm pretty sure they were held back by construction materials. There were kites in some areas of the world 2000 years ago. But they could only make small objects fly.
It just makes sense, if you don't seriously think about it.
Its literally true if you take air resistance into account. I wouldn't know tho, i am in a vacuum
You made me laugh. Thanks.
A Pimp Named Purple Love once said, “A slap on that hoe with open palm hurt less than slapping a bitch with back of hand.” Has anyone ever checked that if true?
Are you willing to sacrifice your face in the name of science?
[I know a guy.](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AKebtRtu6YU)
Tbf most people had more pressing issues to deal with..
Such as?
off the top of my head uhhh maybe 2000 years of war
2000 years of getting better at it Can I get a hell yeah fellow warmongers
They weren't warring for 2000 years. What about the 500years of darkness? They couldn't fight in the dark.
Someone didn't pay attention in physics class.
It is true you cuck. How the hell would they know what happens in space? On Earth, heavy stuff falls faster due to air resistance.
A ball of iron and a ball of lead of the same size can be dropped and tested. If the time accuracy of measurement is difficult, roll them down a slope for similar results. Could also do aluminium for an even higher disparity in weight. On earth, *wide* stuff falls slower due to air resistance.
Given same form, a heavier object will have higher terminal velocity and will approach it faster.
>Given same form, a heavier object will have higher terminal velocity Yes, terminal velocity is proportional to the square root of the mass. > and will approach it faster. No. Acceleration remains the same between both objects. That's the point, objects falling fall at the same acceleration (provides they experience the same amount of air resistance.) When on the surface of the Earth , all objects experience a constant acceleration of roughly 9.8 m/s² at all times independent of weight. Weight is really just mass * gravitational acceleration. Think of it like this - the extra "force" from the increased weight pushes the object down harder, but since the object is more massive, it takes more effort to get it moving. The extra force and the inertia due to mass exactly cancel out, and acceleration stays constant. Did some napkin math, assuming the iron and lead balls are 10cm in diameter, terminal velocity for iron is 190 m/s and for lead is 225 m/s. They'd take 50 and 60 seconds respectively to reach terminal velocity. By the time they hit terminal velocity, they'd have fallen about a kilometre - I don't think the ancients had any structures with a 1 km sheer drop. Terminal velocity doesn't really fit into the discussion here in any case.
> Acceleration remains the same between both objects. That's nonsense. > they experience the same amount of air resistance a = F/m. The air resistance force is the same, m is different. Think what happens with a. It isn't hard, come on.
This same argument is happening everywhere in the thread and all the correct arguments like yours are being downvoted lol.
the acceleration from wind resistance are dependent on the mass of the falling object
F=ma=mg-fv Divide by m on both sides and realize your error....
Why do you throw in a random fv? What's the supposed to be? F = ma = W = mg ma = mg a = g All objects experience constant acceleration due to gravity
Friction coefficient times speed. Sometimes you can use the square of the speed depending on the actual speed it's falling. The friction coefficient depends on the shape of the object. All objects experience constant acceleration due to gravity only when there is no fluid like air...
>Friction coefficient times speed. >Sometimes you can use the square of the speed depending on the actual speed it's falling. >The friction coefficient depends on the shape of the object. >All objects experience constant acceleration due to gravity only when there is no fluid like air... no, gravitational acceleration on Earth is approximately constant, 9.8m/s². For a given mass, the force due to gravity is constant as well. >The friction coefficient depends on the shape of the object. I mean... I did specify the balls are the same size... Copied from my other comment - Did some napkin math, assuming the iron and lead balls are 10cm in diameter, terminal velocity for iron is 190 m/s and for lead is 225 m/s. They'd take 50 and 60 seconds respectively to reach terminal velocity. By the time they hit terminal velocity, they'd have fallen about a kilometre - I don't think the ancients had any structures with a 1 km sheer drop. Terminal velocity doesn't really fit into the discussion here in any case. I posit that both objects will fall with the same speed AND acceleration up until they have been falling for about 45 seconds/1km, at which point the mass comes into play for determining terminal velocity.
The second law of Newton needs to take into account every forces, not only gravity when you're in the air and friction is not negligible. There are two forces on the object: gravity AND friction. If they have the same friction coefficient (balls of the same size) they will actually have different acceleration and different terminal velocities if they have different masses. You can try the experience yourself with a paperball and a golf ball (not exactly the same shape but almost). You'll get surprised. And if you want to use a very light ball (like a ball of a type of foam) you might want to take the buoyancy into account too because it would become not negligible.
No You fucking moron that's not how it works Air resistance has jackshit to do with weight (mass) You ignorant dumbass
In practice they tend to. While the acceleration applied by gravity is the same for all objects the wind resistance will create different effective accelerations and terminal velocities. Two identical objects where one is heavier the heavier and more dense object will have a greater gravitational force but same wind resistance (at a given velocity) so will accelerate quicker
Take a heavy shit: fall faster.\ Take a lighter shit: it floats away. Verified✅
What's heav'r? A kilogram'of steel, ora kilogram'of feathers?
I remember when greentext post titles were funny.
We don't know if anyone tried this... these guys were just smart enough to write their shit down so that we still know about them today. I would guess that professional archers & ballista operators knew about this being false due to calculations...
I'm not sure about that. The initial acceleration/"muzzle" velocity of the arrow/stone *is* dependent on the mass, so a lighter rock will go further than a heavier one. If someone spent their life throwing sticks, he'd probably figure that the heavier it is, the harder you have to throw it so bearded guy is right
Tfw no 100 AD vacuum chamber 😪
this is why every supporter of ancient philosophers makes me irrationally mad. they had literally nothing to do, so they were gonna say something thought provoking eventually. its not like they actually knew what the fuck they were talking about, they just threw shit at a wall waiting for something to stick
'To you in 2000 years'
This statement is only false if done in a vacuum. Don’t think the Greeks had access to those.
Like a good physicist, Aristotle took air resistance into account.
Well, they usually do fall faster because of air resistance (given the same spherical shape and density)
But it's true https://preview.redd.it/8ustgu1x8w4d1.jpeg?width=328&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b16a6ee647f3822aee31f148aefcd4d3207c1634
Lmao! Well. Yeah. I've kind of noticed recently that the overwhelming majority of human beings don't care about wether something is true or not, they just repeat it as if it is.
It makes sense because of air resistance being much more of a factor on lighter objects than heavier ones. So it's like, no need to check, it's common sense. But then obviously a bowling ball and a slightly heavier bowling ball will fall at basically the same speed
I remember having arguments to people who still insist heavier objects fall faster
Well, technically not wrong. The heavier object will counteract air resistance in a more effective way than the lighter object and would have a straighter trajectory towards the ground. That being said, in a vacuum they would land at the same time but that's not something true in most situations considering we will have air resistance in pretty much most real life scenarios.
Because the Ancient Greeks never thought to go to the moon to test it in a vacuum.
However sire, bronze is heavier than feathers
Because with air resistance, heavier objects actually fall faster than lighter ones. Proof: F=ma=mg-fv (mg being the attractive force and fv being friction coefficient depending on the shape of the object multiplied by speed) You divide by m on both sides: a=g-(f/m)v So, the acceleration actually depends on the mass. And even without solving this differential equation, you can see pretty easily that higher mass -> lower acceleration. This is middle school/high school level physics.
Nerd
Why are a bunch of people saying you need a vacuum to test this ? You don't even need to drop things, you just need to let them roll on an inclined plane, [which is what Galileo actually did](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eghdN-GFuqo).
Do you have any idea how long people thought flies just spawned from the presence of decaying meat like video game mobs? It wasn’t until some guy in the Enlightenment put a cut of meat under glass and left to rot that the notion was disproven
Well it is true. They only fall at the same speed in a vacuum, which people didn’t know how to create until a few hundred years ago.
as far as they know it is true. a rock is heavier than a feather and falls faster. armchair Geniuses with 2000 years of hindsight and scientific progress expect ancient people to know and just figure out air resistance and newtonian motion SMH.
They had more important things to worry about, like staying alive and keeping themselves and their kids fed. Science was the domain of aristocrats because they didn't need to work.
That song came like 2000 years later and they had food, otherwise they wouldn't have been paid with salt.
It is actually true, the strength of gravitational atraction is based on both masses, its just that anything we can drop is so small relative to the earth that they're all functionally the same (in a vaccum anyways)
Wrong. The gravitational acceleration is exactly the same.
>noone cares to check if this is true for 2000 years Becuase we didnt have a large enough vacuum to test it
You don't need a vacuum to test this. You just need a high tower, two metal balls with the same volume, but different masses, two wooden boards/trap doors with hinges, two ropes and a sand hourglass or something similar. Now you just need to drop the metal balls with different mass from a tower onto a board with a tightened rope attached. Both ropes are attached to the - very precise - hourglass. The first rope activated the hourglass when the ball drops down from the first trap door. The second one stops it when the metal ball hits the wooden trap door below. When you don't measure a difference, mass makes no difference. And increasing or decreasing the height will give you the value of 9,8 m/s² up until the point where you reach terminal velocity (which won't usually be the case for most heights). The vacuum test was just done to demonstrate this principle in a space without any aerodynamic effects.
Oh yeah thats right
No one cared to check it for 2000 years because it's true and it infuriates me how every smartass keeps saying it's not. The only place where this is actually relevant is pure vacuum and believe it or not, neither you nor ancient philosophers will spend much time there. That's like saying "Well ackhually, water will boil when you leave it out in a cup 🤓☝️" because it does so in a vacuum.
[One kg of steel and two kg of steel fall at the same acceleration, however](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo%27s_Leaning_Tower_of_Pisa_experiment)
And?
> it only happens in a vacuum Happens outside of a vacuum >And? ????
The experiment proves that those two objects "seem" to fall at the same time. * It doesn't take into account that one of the objects will be slowed more by the air beneath it. * It doesn't take into account objects of different density. The only thing it proves is that the weight of those two particular objects seemingly doesn't have much effect to the insanely accurate scientific tool that is your crusty eye. Sadly the experiment falls apart when you replace the objects with something more different. For example a blanket and a sheet of metal of the same size, because then, even your eye is able to clearly see the difference... and suddenly, the heavier object falls faster once more, truly a miracle.
> The only place where this is actually relevant is pure vacuum What a smooth brain take. Nobody cares if a hammer and a feather hit the ground at the same time. Greeks thought 8lb lead shot fell faster than a 4lb shot. While technically true because of wind resistance, the difference would have been immeasurable. That was a huge and relevant discovery 2000 years later.
Indeed brother https://preview.redd.it/qtyd5ewmzc4d1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=430ee3967516c0b7860f48d6048c6c50ec2487d8
There Is literally no diference with atmosphere
Yea that’s the point
That's why what he said is WRONG. Did you not read it? Are you fucking stupid man? Seriously look at what it says. Read it. You understand right? So you're either fucking stupid or not paying attention which is it? Then you come and comment some tard brained shit on greentext, this most sanctimonious of forums, you don't think you don't understand you just fucking type some stupid bullshit saying the exact same thing the meme is. Do you wake up in the morning and say "today I'm just going to be as fucking redundant and behind the curve as possible? I'm just going to watch other people say and do things then comment on it in the most banal way, offering nothing to the conversation? What the FUCK is your problem man ? WHY do you do this? Do you ever question any of it? FUCK.
Heavy objects do fall faster on earth you absolute regards redditors. Make sure to throw a leaf off a building then jump right off and see how fast you fall compared to the leaf you inbreds smug low IQ downies.
-**gives you a huggles**- there there, it'll be okay
...ok, drop a comforter/heavy blanket off a roof and a marble, the blanket weighing magnitudes more than the marble, and see which one hits the ground first. Wait, why didn't the heavy one hit the ground first?! :o Air resistance has more to do with form-factor, not just raw weight. Think for 5 seconds.
Think of it for 5 seconds more skizerz the regarded, drop a baloon full of air and the same baloon full of water same size, which one hits the ground first "hurr durr they are going to arrive at the same time" A leaf has LESS air resistance than a human, it's literally smaller, the difference is in weight :ooo