3 ms·
It's correct. Terminal velocity is irrelevant here; it's true outside the atmosphere too. I really am talking about force and acceleration. It's clear that the
by dreamcompiler 7y ago
It's correct. Terminal velocity is irrelevant here; it's true outside the atmosphere too. I really am talking about force and acceleration.
It's clear that there's more force on a heavier object. How much force do you have to apply to counteract a bucket full of rocks from falling to the ground, vs. an empty bucket? Your arm is certainly applying more force to the former.
So then the question becomes Why doesn't the full bucket fall faster? Because it has more inertia, and thus it's more difficult to accelerate. But there's also more force, which overcomes this difficulty. The amount of greater force is exactly identical to the greater inertia, so the acceleration remains the same. The "exactly identical" here is no coincidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle
- taeric 7y agoAh, I see what I screwed up. I was sloppy and saying force, but really only talking about acceleration. So yeah, that makes sense. Similarly, I only mentioned terminal velocity because I said faster. Which could apply there. But my point was focused on acceleration of falling objects. I get that there are a lot of ways to muddy that discussion. As exemplified by my postings. :).