6 ms·
It’s actually a very reasonable approximation within a certain regime: https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.4057 https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.4057 There’s a reason people
by Osmium 1y ago
It’s actually a very reasonable approximation within a certain regime:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.4057 https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.4057
There’s a reason people without training in sciences sometimes have the intuition that heavier things fall faster. This intuition isn’t developed in a vacuum (hah).
- TimorousBestie 1y agoYour pun made me audibly chuckle, so that deserves an upvote.
- WithinReason 1y agoYou can disprove this idea even in a simple thought experiment, you don't even need an actual experiment. If I take 2 large stones, connect them with a string so it's 1 object, will that object fall twice as fast than the 2 stones fall separately?
- Mikhail_K 1y agoThat will depend on the length of the rope, once aerodynamic effects are taken into account
- WithinReason 1y agolength is negligible
- cogman10 1y agoWorking under the theory that large dense things fall faster than small things, you'd expect that the large stone would drag the small stone. Much like if you attach a piece of wood to a rock with a rope and throw it in water, the rock will drag the wood down. You'd probably argue that even though they are connected with a string they are still 2 things and there's a density gap between the two of them. Now, if you try and figure out what makes a thing a thing, it starts breaking down. But if you've already have the working theory, then making an explanation isn't terribly hard.