Category: falling balls

In what sense is the Space Shuttle falling toward the earth?

When the space shuttle circles the earth, it’s experiencing only one force: the force of gravity. As a result, it’s perpetually accelerating toward the earth’s center. If it weren’t moving initially, it would begin to descend faster and faster until…splat. But it is moving sideways initially at an enormous speed. While it accelerates downward, that acceleration merely deflects its sideways velocity slightly downward. Instead of heading off into space, it heads a little downward. But it never hits the earth’s surface. Instead, it arcs past the horizon and keeps accelerating toward the center of the earth. In short, it orbits the earth—constantly accelerating toward the earth but never getting there.

Why is force = mass * acceleration an exact relationship (i.e. why not force = 2 * mass * acceleration)?

The answer to this puzzle lies in the definition of force. How would you measure the amount of a force? Well, you would push on something with a known mass and see how much it accelerates! Thus this relationship (Newton’s second law) actually establishes the scale for measuring forces. If your second relationship were chosen as the standard, then all the forces in the universe would simply be redefined up by a factor of two! This redefinition wouldn’t harm anything but then Newton’s second law would have a clunky numerical constant in it. Naturally, the 2 is omitted in the official law.

Does air resistance affect a horizontally thrown ball?

Yes. A ball thrown horizontally gradually loses its downfield component of velocity. For that reason, you must throw a ball somewhat below the 45° angle from horizontal in order to make it travel as far as possible. Actually, the air has even more complicated effects on spinning balls.

Is it possible for a ball to fall to earth at a different angle from the one at which it rose?

If the ground is level and there were no air resistance, the answer would be no. The flight of the ball is perfectly symmetric. It rises to a maximum height in a parabolic arc and then returns to the ground as the continuation of that same parabolic arc.

However, if the ground isn’t level, then the angle it hits the ground at might be different. For example, if you toss a ball almost horizontally off a cliff, it will hit the ground almost vertically. Horizontal and vertical are two very different directions.

Air resistance also tends to slow a ball’s motion and it’s particularly effective at stopping the downfield component of its velocity. Gravity makes sure that the ball descends quickly, but there is no force to keep the ball moving downfield against air resistance. The result is that balls tend to drop more sharply toward the ground. When you hit a baseball into the outfield, it may leave your bat at a shallow angle but it will drop pretty vertically toward the person catching it.

Finally, if the ball is spinning, it can obtain special forces from the air called lift forces. These forces can deflect its path in complicated ways and are responsible for curve balls in baseball, slices and hooks in golf, and topspin effects in tennis.

Why on Pg. 6, 2nd full paragraph, it says the car is accelerating if the slope of the road changes but in the “not accelerating” list it says a bicycle going up a hill is not accelerating. Aren’t those the same situation?

Here is why the two situations are different:

In the first case, the car is traveling on a road with a changing slope. Because the road’s slope changes, the car’s direction of travel must change. Since velocity includes direction of travel, the car’s velocity must change. In short, the car must accelerate. Picture a hill that gradually becomes steeper and steeper—the car’s velocity changes from almost horizontal to almost vertical as the slope changes.

In the second case, the bicycle is climbing a smooth, straight hill at a steady speed. Since the hill is smooth and straight, its slope is not changing. Since the bicycle experiences no change in its direction of travel or its speed, it is traveling at a constant velocity and is not accelerating.

Doesn’t weight have resistance to acceleration?

No, weight measures a different characteristic of an object. Mass measures inertia (or equivalently resistance to acceleration). But weight is just the force that gravity exerts on an object. While an object that has great weight also has great mass and is therefore hard to accelerate, it’s not the weight that’s the problem. To illustrate this, imagine taking a golf ball to the surface of a neutron star, where it would weigh millions of pounds because of the incredibly intense gravity. That golf ball would still accelerate easily because its mass would be unchanged. Only its weight would be affected by the local gravity. Similarly, taking that golf ball to deep space would reduce its weight almost to zero, yet its mass would remain the same as always.

Is it possible for a skydiver who jumps second from a plane to put himself in an aerodynamic position and overtake a person who jumped first?

Yes. When you skydive, your velocity doesn’t increase indefinitely because the upward force of air resistance eventually balances the downward force of gravity. At that point, you reach a constant velocity (called “terminal velocity”). Just how large this terminal velocity is depends on your shape. It is possible to increase your terminal velocity by rolling yourself into a very compact form. In that case, you can overtake a person below you who is in a less compact form.

How can an object in space “fall”?

Gravity still acts on objects, even though they are in space. No matter how far you get from the earth, it still pulls on you, albeit less strongly than it does when you are nearby. Thus if you were to take a ball billions of miles from the earth and let go, it would slowly but surely accelerate toward the earth (assuming that there were no other celestial objects around to attract the ball—which isn’t actually the case). As long is nothing else deflected it en route, the ball would eventually crash into the earth’s surface. Even objects that are “in orbit” are falling; they just keep missing one another because they have large sideways velocities. For example, the moon is orbiting the earth because, although it is perpetually falling toward the earth, it is moving sideways so fast that it keeps missing.

Is there a fixed amount of force in the universe?

No, forces generally depend on the distances between objects, so that two objects that are moving together or apart will experience different amounts of force as they move about. As a result, the total amount of force anywhere can change freely. But there are quantities that have fixed totals for the universe. The most important of these so-called “conserved” quantities is energy.

I can accept that weight is a force, but it doesn’t seem to follow common sense to me.

It would seem like a force if you had to lift yourself up ladder. Imagine carrying a friend up the ladder; you’d have to pull up on your friend the whole way. That’s because some other force (your friend’s weight) is pulling down on your friend. But when you think of weight as a measure of how much of you there is, then it doesn’t seem like a force. That’s where the relationship between mass and weight comes into play. Mass really is a measure of how much of you there is and, because mass and weight are proportional to one another, measuring weight is equivalent to measuring mass.