Heavier objects do fall faster in a vacumn

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:24:33 -0500, Old Man wrote:

More massive objects don't exhibit greater acceleration
in a gravitational field nor do they take less time to fall
towards the center-of-mass of a multi-body system.

Bull****.

An object other than either a point mass (i.e. no
dimensions, i.e. an impossibility) or a uniform spherical
distribution of mass (another impossibility) exerts a force
slightly different from inverse square law. Go from here and
cut that bull****.

****ing jackasses.

Form of the mass counts. Shape matters. Learn the very first
lessons of physics.

--

fil zendash sad tomaneh mordasham sad tomaneh.

"Joe Maleki" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:24:33 -0500, Old Man wrote:

More massive objects don't exhibit greater acceleration
in a gravitational field nor do they take less time to fall
towards the center-of-mass of a multi-body system.

Bull****.

An object other than either a point mass (i.e. no
dimensions, i.e. an impossibility) or a uniform spherical
distribution of mass (another impossibility) exerts a force
slightly different from inverse square law. Go from here and
cut that bull****.

****ing jackasses.

Form of the mass counts. Shape matters. Learn the very first
lessons of physics.

Maleki's clumsy attempt to misdirect the discussion is
transparent. Yes, shape matters, a little, but total mass
doesn't. The discussion isn't about the shape of massive
bodies, but about an isolated system of point masses in
mutual gravitational free-fall.

Crudely rude, Maleki suffers from delusions of
competence. Old Man is fully aware of what Maleki
thinks he understands.

First, for spatial coincidence of CoG and CoM points,
a uniform matter distribution works, but isn't required:
spherically symmetric, like that of the Earth, is sufficient.
Contrary to Maleki's neophyte notions, not at all
"impossible".

Second, gravitational force is irrelevant. The linear
acceleration of a massive body's CoM, a = a(R_cm),
depends upon the location of it's CoG: in a non-
uniform gravitational field, linear acceleration at the
CoM is equal to gravitational acceleration at the CoG:
a(R_cm) = g(R_cg) which doesn't depend upon the
total mass, but depends only upon the mass distribution.

Third, Maleki's problem stems from making observations
from a non-inertial reference frame. The CoG of a system
of gravitating bodies isn't necessarily inertial.

In a non-uniform gravitational field, a massive body's
CoM is in free-fall, but not necessarily its CoG. Non-
uniform gravitation induces internal stress, and rotation
may occur about the body's CoM if the body's CoG is
displaced from its CoM.

[Old Man]

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 17:52:49 -0500, Old Man wrote:

Maleki's clumsy attempt to misdirect the discussion is
transparent. Yes, shape matters, a little, but total mass
doesn't. The discussion isn't about the shape of massive
bodies, but about an isolated system of point masses in
mutual gravitational free-fall.

Point masses! What a joke. There is no point mass. When mass
is present more than gravity is involved in the problem. In
a tiny lump of mass each spot of the mass is
electromagnetically connected to other spots in the mass
lump, and the effect of gravity on one spot unleashes a
whole set of electromagnetic interactions between the
"spots" and affects all the mass present in the lump. The
presence of _anything_ other than a single fictitious "point
mass" (or a fictitious uniform spherical distribution of
mass) unleashes all these effects. Do you want to fight
physics also? That's why I called you a jackass.

--

arus nimitunest beraghseh migoft otAgh kajeh.

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 20:15:28 -0500, Maleki wrote:

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 17:52:49 -0500, Old Man wrote:

Maleki's clumsy attempt to misdirect the discussion is
transparent. Yes, shape matters, a little, but total mass
doesn't. The discussion isn't about the shape of massive
bodies, but about an isolated system of point masses in
mutual gravitational free-fall.

Point masses! What a joke. There is no point mass. When mass
is present more than gravity is involved in the problem. In
a tiny lump of mass each spot of the mass is
electromagnetically connected to other spots in the mass
lump, and the effect of gravity on one spot unleashes a
whole set of electromagnetic interactions between the
"spots" and affects all the mass present in the lump. The
presence of _anything_ other than a single fictitious "point
mass" (or a fictitious uniform spherical distribution of
mass) unleashes all these effects. Do you want to fight
physics also? That's why I called you a jackass.


Let me use an extreme situation to show what I have in mind
better. I am saying that a uniform spherical lump of one kg
mass falls differently from same mass flattened to a plane
of infinite size and infinitesimal thickness, because the
force that the spherical lump would exert is proportional to
the inverse square of the distance while the force from the
infinite plane is proportional to the inverse of the
distance itself, not its square. So it would fall
differently. Does it makes sense?

--

che kas dAde budat namAyandegi
ke az ghowle mellat mozakhraf begi

"Hadi Khorsandi"

"Maleki" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 20:15:28 -0500, Maleki wrote:

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 17:52:49 -0500, Old Man wrote:

Maleki's clumsy attempt to misdirect the discussion is
transparent. Yes, shape matters, a little, but total mass
doesn't. The discussion isn't about the shape of massive
bodies, but about an isolated system of point masses in
mutual gravitational free-fall.

Point masses! What a joke. There is no point mass. When mass
is present more than gravity is involved in the problem. In
a tiny lump of mass each spot of the mass is
electromagnetically connected to other spots in the mass
lump, and the effect of gravity on one spot unleashes a
whole set of electromagnetic interactions between the
"spots" and affects all the mass present in the lump. The
presence of _anything_ other than a single fictitious "point
mass" (or a fictitious uniform spherical distribution of
mass) unleashes all these effects. Do you want to fight
physics also? That's why I called you a jackass.


Let me use an extreme situation to show what I have in mind
better. I am saying that a uniform spherical lump of one kg
mass falls differently from same mass flattened to a plane
of infinite size and infinitesimal thickness, because the
force that the spherical lump would exert is proportional to
the inverse square of the distance while the force from the
infinite plane is proportional to the inverse of the
distance itself, not its square. So it would fall
differently. Does it makes sense?

Sure it can be different. Old Man gave the answer, but
Maleki snipped the lesson. With respect to acceleration,
a(r), and gravitational field, g(r), a(R_cm) = g(R_cg),
but for Maleki's case, the difference between a sphere and
a disk of the same mass is null because R_cm = R_cg.
Try a sphere and a half sphere of the same mass.

[Old Man]

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 20:15:28 -0500, Maleki
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 17:52:49 -0500, Old Man wrote:

Maleki's clumsy attempt to misdirect the discussion is
transparent. Yes, shape matters, a little, but total mass
doesn't. The discussion isn't about the shape of massive
bodies, but about an isolated system of point masses in
mutual gravitational free-fall.

Point masses! What a joke. There is no point mass. When mass
is present more than gravity is involved in the problem. In
a tiny lump of mass each spot of the mass is
electromagnetically connected to other spots in the mass
lump, and the effect of gravity on one spot unleashes a
whole set of electromagnetic interactions between the
"spots" and affects all the mass present in the lump. The
presence of _anything_ other than a single fictitious "point
mass" (or a fictitious uniform spherical distribution of
mass) unleashes all these effects. Do you want to fight
physics also? That's why I called you a jackass.

Still misunderstanding effects of gravitation, I see. Deliberate or
not, the result is the same.

"Old Man" wrote in message
...
"Mehram Maleki " wrote in
.. .
Old Man wrote:
Maleki's clumsy attempt to misdirect the discussion is
transparent. Yes, shape matters, a little, but total mass
doesn't. The discussion isn't about the shape of massive
bodies, but about an isolated system of point masses in
mutual gravitational free-fall.

[Mehram]
Point masses! What a joke. There is no point mass. When mass
is present more than gravity is involved in the problem. In
a tiny lump of mass each spot of the mass is
electromagnetically connected to other spots in the mass
lump, and the effect of gravity on one spot unleashes a
whole set of electromagnetic interactions between the
"spots" and affects all the mass present in the lump. The
presence of _anything_ other than a single fictitious "point
mass" (or a fictitious uniform spherical distribution of
mass) unleashes all these effects. Do you want to fight
physics also? That's why I called you a jackass.

[Mehram]
Let me use an extreme situation to show what I have in mind
better. I am saying that a uniform spherical lump of one kg
mass falls differently from same mass flattened to a plane
of infinite size and infinitesimal thickness, because the
force that the spherical lump would exert is proportional to
the inverse square of the distance while the force from the
infinite plane is proportional to the inverse of the
distance itself, not its square. So it would fall
differently. Does it makes sense?

[Old Man]
Sure it can be different. Old Man gave the answer, but
Maleki snipped the lesson. With respect to acceleration,
a(r), and gravitational field, g(r), a(R_cm) = g(R_cg),
but for Maleki's case, the difference between a sphere and
a disk of the same mass is null because R_cm = R_cg.
Try a sphere and a half sphere of the same mass.

[hanson]
I liked the one wherein Mehram Maleki is pontificating,
pardon me, mullahficating:...."...saying that a uniform
spherical lump of one kg mass falls differently from
same mass flattened to a plane of infinite size and
infinitesimal thickness".... ahahahahaha.....AHAHAHAHA...

..... unfortunately, Mehram didn't finish his thought and
forgot or maliciously omitted to tell us how he intends
to flatten atoms "to a plane of infinite size and
infinitesimal thickness" and much less where his thin
2D foil that reaches beyond the cosmic event horizons
will fall to(wards)..........AHAHAHAHAHA......ahahahaha..

Mehram, sometimes you give the impression that you
suffer from professional deformation due to over-intensive
religious instruction....much like and akin to the myriads of
little green idiots who were indoctrinated to or indoctrinated
themselves with/by green bible to live by and proselytize that

= "It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people
= believe is true ... -- Paul Watson, Greenpeace, and ......
= "A lot of environmental [political] messages are simply not
= accurate. We use hype." -- Jerry Franklin, Ecologist, UoW, and...
= "We make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
= mention of any doubts we may have [about] being honest."
= -- Stephen Schneider (Stanford prof. who first sought fame as
= a global cooler, but has now hit the big time as a global warmer)

ahahahaha.....ahahahanson

I think the original post simply stated "more massive bodies" . How mass is
distributed will obviously affect the gravitational force. So lets rephrase
the question. If two distributed masses falling in a gravitational field had
the same distribution of "point" particles (e.g.molecules) but the particles
had different masses, would the objects move with different velocity? That
way we avoid the red herring of infinite sheets etc.
David
"Maleki" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 20:15:28 -0500, Maleki wrote:

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 17:52:49 -0500, Old Man wrote:

Maleki's clumsy attempt to misdirect the discussion is
transparent. Yes, shape matters, a little, but total mass
doesn't. The discussion isn't about the shape of massive
bodies, but about an isolated system of point masses in
mutual gravitational free-fall.

Point masses! What a joke. There is no point mass. When mass
is present more than gravity is involved in the problem. In
a tiny lump of mass each spot of the mass is
electromagnetically connected to other spots in the mass
lump, and the effect of gravity on one spot unleashes a
whole set of electromagnetic interactions between the
"spots" and affects all the mass present in the lump. The
presence of _anything_ other than a single fictitious "point
mass" (or a fictitious uniform spherical distribution of
mass) unleashes all these effects. Do you want to fight
physics also? That's why I called you a jackass.


Let me use an extreme situation to show what I have in mind
better. I am saying that a uniform spherical lump of one kg
mass falls differently from same mass flattened to a plane
of infinite size and infinitesimal thickness, because the
force that the spherical lump would exert is proportional to
the inverse square of the distance while the force from the
infinite plane is proportional to the inverse of the
distance itself, not its square. So it would fall
differently. Does it makes sense?

--

che kas dAde budat namAyandegi
ke az ghowle mellat mozakhraf begi

"Hadi Khorsandi"