Page 1 of 1

### Why Free Fall has no dependancy on mass, but gravity, yes?

Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 1:31 pm
Hi All,

Since monthes, I (re-)discovered an old difficulty. This one substantialised itself to the more recent days.

Here it is:
Galileo Galilei showed that objects in free fall (further in the text: "fall") had no dependancy on the mass.

And then, a guy named Newton, came, and we understood:
"G M*m/r^2", where:
G is gravific constant,
M is the mass of the planet (Earth),
m is the mass of the object,
and r: the distance over the ground, ("^2" meaning: value at the square).

-I just bought the Newton's Principia, (translated from latin to english), and I made searches: "Universal gravity": 0 result;
"Universal": about 50 results, (Newton worship to use the term Universal, Before making a theoretical assumption, what is contradictory);

-I know that we rendered Newton compatible with Galileo: With the inertial mass, which compensate the attractive mass.

-During the searches, no way, no place to see the equation in such. Actually, you'll find several paragraphes, where the famous equation may be extracted, but depending on 1 sole interpretation.

Reading him, I can find paragraph(s), which may lead to this equation; but understanding him naturally, I cannot extract this equation with certitude, (i. e.: rather than another).

Could someone help me, in finding the most accurate paragraph leading to the famous equation?

-In particular, I'd like to know how (or if) Newton auto-justified himself about the ability to see 2 instantly, for ever, opposed phenomenonS: Inertia and Attractivity ?

### Re: Why Free Fall has no dependancy on mass, but gravity, yes?

Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 9:09 pm
NielsBohr wrote:I'd like to know how (or if) Newton auto-justified himself
I believe he had an arrangement with his housemaid, he paid her a bit extra and she did it for him.

### Re: Why Free Fall has no dependancy on mass, but gravity, yes?

Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 9:22 pm
Harbal wrote:
NielsBohr wrote:I'd like to know how (or if) Newton auto-justified himself
I believe he had an arrangement with his housemaid, he paid her a bit extra and she did it for him.
-Okay, let's accept it, but.. .."it" what?

-I was so enjoyed that some one replied to me, endly, but for a joke missing its own foundation!

-HEY, I KNOW THE FACE OF YOUR AVATAR; IT WAS A SOCIAL PLAY IN MY GENERATION, CALLED: MAD. (And I really knew an english comrade, calling his mom every 5 minutes, and who looked like this).
This play is nice, you have a taste for (other's) jokes, like: "You landed elsewhere", do you remember?

### Re: Why Free Fall has no dependancy on mass, but gravity, yes?

Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 10:04 pm
it's like saying that cheddar has no dependancy on fermented curd, but cheese, yes?

### Re: Why Free Fall has no dependancy on mass, but gravity, yes?

Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 10:08 pm
That's a question..

I think you realise the kind of problem, what is good, to give help.

Huh... not sure that cheese is Newton, since Newton is later than Galileo. That is what I remember. But in schools, Newton is taught before, (to break the schoolers criticism, I think).

Now, why this monopole of a later guy, I don't really know...

### Re: Why Free Fall has no dependancy on mass, but gravity, yes?

Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 10:53 pm
NielsBohr wrote:That's a question..

I think you realise the kind of problem, what is good, to give help.

Huh... not sure that cheese is Newton, since Newton is later than Galileo. That is what I remember. But in schools, Newton is taught before, (to break the schoolers criticism, I think).

Now, why this monopole of a later guy, I don't really know...
Whooosh...

Since there is no gravity without mass, free fall depends upon the relationship between the mass of two bodies.

They teach Newton, because he's had the most impact; and was English. English is the most widespread language of the world.

### Re: Why Free Fall has no dependancy on mass, but gravity, yes?

Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 7:45 am
Hi, sorry I went asleep, yesterday.
Hobbe's Choice wrote:Since there is no gravity without mass,

Hobbe's Choice wrote:free fall depends upon the relationship between the mass of two bodies.

"depends upon a relationship" does not mean anything, given the fact that a relationship is already a dependance.
Hobbe's Choice wrote:They teach Newton, because he's had the most impact; and was English. English is the most widespread language of the world.
-Yeah, the most impact, or accordance with Church, but he wrote in latin, rather than in english. That is not my question anyway; I am asking why a late writer is taught before the predecessor who SHOWED!

### Re: Why Free Fall has no dependancy on mass, but gravity, yes?

Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2017 10:49 pm
NielsBohr wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2017 1:31 pm -In particular, I'd like to know how (or if) Newton auto-justified himself about the ability to see 2 instantly, for ever, opposed phenomenonS: Inertia and Attractivity ?
Yes, Newton auto-justified himself. He realized: on one hand, new scientific or technological or spiritual or theist discoveries always find resistance in the acceptence by the public. This you may want to call "mental inertia".

On the one other hand (luckily he only had two hands), he realized that there is a highly attractive, should we say mesmerizing quality in science news and other already mentioned detailed discoveries.

So the two forces work against each other; the public attraction and the public's inertia and apathy. Newton realized he had to appeal to BOTH of these forces at once if he ever had any hope of seeing his theory in print and read by many.

So the answer is so obvious, that I oughtnot even mention it. But I will:

He anthropomorphized the qualities of inertia and free fall, and hence we had had nyumerous films and plays called "Free Fall" and not realizing how expensive it can get to fall. The object, I meant public, just LOVED Newton's fourth law, as well as the two fundamental theorems of calculus, without which there would never have had world pageants (beautiful girls to name the queen) develop or its culture develop.

I applaud your diligence, Niels, as well as am appalled by its furtavaganza.

### Re: Why Free Fall has no dependancy on mass, but gravity, yes?

Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2017 10:56 pm
NielsBohr wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2017 1:31 pmWhy Free Fall has no dependancy on mass, but gravity, yes?
Free fall has dependency on mass, too. The acceleration of free fall near the surface of the planet is highly dependent on the density and mass of the planet. Free fall has a different acceleration on Earth from how much it has on the Moon. Things on the moon fall slower, they appear as if they were impeded by the viscuous resistance of a thick liquid, as well as if the liquid had had a buoyancy effect on the moving objects.