Timeline for Common false beliefs in Physics
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 9, 2012 at 9:17 | history | edited | Raskolnikov | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Jun 9, 2012 at 8:41 | history | edited | Raskolnikov | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 274 characters in body
|
| Jun 7, 2011 at 13:50 | comment | added | Chani | call me a moron but i still totally agree with the so called "false belief" in this question. hah aha hha | |
| Jan 29, 2011 at 5:08 | comment | added | Nick T | Reminds me of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead | |
| Jan 21, 2011 at 18:21 | comment | added | ErikE | @Pavel You're ignoring tidal effects. Splitting something in two doesn't really change anything, because the two halves, being in close proximity, experience different tidal forces than those between two objects farther apart. | |
| Jan 12, 2011 at 1:22 | comment | added | Roman Starkov | There is also the complication of buoyancy - a dense object would be heavier at the same mass, and thus fall faster even if air was friction-less. | |
| Dec 15, 2010 at 23:30 | comment | added | Mateen Ulhaq | I still like to think that big flaming trucks fall $1 + 10^{-100}$ times faster than feathers. [Neglecting air resistance, etc.] | |
| Dec 1, 2010 at 9:44 | comment | added | Pavel Radzivilovsky | Seems important to mention here Galileo's famous gedankenexperiment. If you follow the line of thought that heavy objects fall faster, and go split a heavy falling object in two, large one and big one, both should be falling slower than the original. The upper part would be pulling lower part up, wanting to go even slower, hence a contradiction. | |
| Dec 1, 2010 at 4:37 | comment | added | Zo the Relativist | @Tim: Yes--which is why I really prefer to use something like 'a penny and a bowling ball' than the standard 'feather and a bowling ball' | |
| Nov 30, 2010 at 19:59 | comment | added | Robin Maben | It was also nice to mention that when we talk of "same gravitational acceleration for light and heavy bodies", the difference in mass finally reveals itself in the force with which the objects hit the ground! (not so counter-intuitive!) :) | |
| Nov 26, 2010 at 21:47 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Robert Cartaino | ||
| Nov 21, 2010 at 23:29 | vote | accept | C.S. | ||
| Dec 27, 2011 at 6:07 | |||||
| Nov 18, 2010 at 17:52 | comment | added | Raskolnikov | Well, the devil is always in the details. | |
| Nov 18, 2010 at 17:49 | comment | added | Vagelford | If you are assuming a fixed earth, then you are correct. But if you let the earth move, then the Earth moves more rapidly when you drop a bigger mass than when you drop a smaller one. In that sense, bigger masses drop faster. This has nothing to do with the equivalence principle of course. | |
| Nov 18, 2010 at 3:22 | comment | added | Tim Goodman | +1 for "setting aside air resistance"... it always bugs me when people point out how things fall at the same rate, while neglecting to mention that this assumes air resistance is negligible. Leaving out this clarification I think leads to more confusion, as all someone has to do is drop a rock next to a feather to (incorrectly) conclude that Galileo was wrong. | |
| Nov 17, 2010 at 23:27 | comment | added | Noldorin | As with the misconception I mention, Galileo is probably turning in his grave to hear that in the 21st century some still believe this! (It is however sadly true.) | |
| Nov 17, 2010 at 22:56 | history | edited | Raskolnikov | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
deleted 1 characters in body
|
| Nov 17, 2010 at 22:44 | history | answered | Raskolnikov | CC BY-SA 2.5 |