BEFORE YOU SAY YES...follow my logic on this:\n\nall mass has a gravitational pull. \n\nthe earth is a huge mass which is why we feel gravity\n\nthe moon has a gravitional pull.\n\na bowling ball ALSO has a gravitional pull because its mass, its just that is gravity seems tiny because its mass is so much smaller than the earth or moon\n\na rubber ball has a less mass than a bowling ball.\n\nobjects on eart fall faster than on the moon because the earth has more mass\n\nSO since a bowling ball has more mass than a rubber ball wouldnt a bowling ball fall just a little bit faster?\n\non a tiny, tiny, TINY scale!\n\nit bothers me when people say all objects fall at the same rate because that isnt true....it just appears that way. am i right or wrong?
123856
You are correct, but the effects are so insignificant, it doesnt nearly matter.\n\nAll object in the universe have a gravitational attraction to one another.\nTake the Earth and bowling ball example,\nThe Earth exerts a force on the bowling ball, and the bowling ball exerts a force on the Earth.  Both on these forces cause the other object to accelerate towards a common center of mass.  In the case of the Earth's gravitational force on the bowling ball, the force is huge in comparison to the bowling ball's force exerted on the Earth, so much so that we can easily neglect the 2nd force.\n\nLets look at some numbers.....\nIf we say the Earth has a mass of 5.9742 E24 kg and say we will say we have a very heavy bowling ball with a mass of 1000 kg, then we can calculate the gravitaional force between them if we know the distance.  Lets estimate their centers of mass are 6380 (~larger than radius of Earth), we can calculate the gravitational force to be,\nF_g = (G*M*m)/r^2\nF_g = 9789.58 Newtons, which would cause an acceleration of 9.7895 mm/s^2 for the bowling ball and a miniscule 1.63 E-21 m/s^2 for Earth.  To put that in perspective of just how slow acceleration is, if you were to accelerated you car from at a constant acceleration of 1.63 E-21 m/s^2, it would take you about 86500000000000 YEARS to go from 0 to 10 miles per hour!  I think for simplicity sake, Newton did all right.\n\nEDIT:\nYes, the bowling ball very much so does pull on the Earth.  How is the "universe" to know which object is suppose to be the planet and which is the bowling ball?  ALL objects in the universe have a gravititational attraction to ALL other objects.  The Earth pulls in the bowling ball, and the bowling ball pulls on the Earth.  There are 2 equal forces pointed in opposite directions, therefroe momentum is conserved (which is a physical LAW).
540834
It does! It is going slower and slower all the time, due to the gravitational drag of the moon. Eventually, there will be tidal lock, and the moon will be much further away. And you and I will be a billion years dead.\nSee, all this happens on a PLANETARY time scale. We can't perceive it, except with very very sensitive devices that have only become available fairly recently.\nAs to why it spins ... maybe its happy? \nNo no no. It spins because it retains the orbital movement from when it coalesced into a solid mass. At the core, there is a gravitational singularity, and all the matter that makes up our planet is/was in orbit around it, but reached equilibrium in the collapse, forming the "solid" planetary mass.\nWhat astronomers are only now coming to realize (having deduced that there is a lot more matter in the universe than is readily observable) is that there are gravitational singularities at the core of virtually every large-scale body - planets, stars, and galaxies. \nThe whole notion of planets "coalescing" WITHOUT such a singularity is absurd, even in a Newtonian universe.\nSo, if you dug a deep enough hole, you would find a hole. Neat-o, huh?
331104
Gravity is a force of attraction here on earth that always pulls us toward the center of the planet.  Mass has a gravitational field.\n\nWhat I think that exterterrestrial life may have is some way of generating "anti" gravity such that the gravity here on earth would then repel an object.  It would be like having a "negative" mass.\n\nI think advanced propulsion systems would utilize such a drive, and who knows, some of these things that have been seen might just be the work of our government in secret.
237173
It's true - gravity pulls harder (i.e. more force) on a more massive (i.e. heavier) object. BUT that object is harder to accelerate - it has more interia. The two effects cancel each other out.\n\nClearly you don't like equations, but putting it in numbers can help:\n\nIf a 1kg object is pulled towards the earth, what will be the force, and what will be the acceleration?\nForce = mass * earth's gravitational field strength\nso Force = 1kg * 9.81N/kg\nForce = 9.81N (or 10N, roughly)\n\nAcceleration = Force / Mass\nSo Acc'n = 9.81N / 1kg = 9.81 m/s^2\n\nNow consider the same for a 10kg object:\n\nForce is now 98.1N (or 100N, roughly)\nSo Acc'n = 98.1N / 10kg = 9.81 m/s^2\n\nSo the acceleration is the same.
644090
I think the catch to your question is that "gravity would pull us away from the sun at a faster rate tus making gravity faster then light" is complete nonsense. Gravity is two objects pulling on each other. Gravity in and of itself doesn't pull anything anywhere, and it certainly doesn't pull two things away from each other, particularly if one of those two things has just exploded and no longer exists. If you are suggesting that the gravitational pull from the other planets would then pull us away from the ex-Sun, that might be, but the interaction between the remaining bodies in our solar system would be amazingly complex, not easily modelled, impacted by the force of the exploding star, and I see no reason at all to believe that it would cause the Earth to move out of orbit fast enough to escape the light coming from the ex-Sun.\n\nComplete gibberish.
4454
****Edit based on further details from asker *****\nSailing around the world is sailing within the sperhical confines of our planet.  If there were no athmosphere, or gravity, then we would simply fall off the earth.  However, as gravity is pushing us down, and is affecting the winds, ect within the athmosphere, we are bound to the surface of the water.  \n\nEven though a sphere is included in the define of spheroid, it is a type of spheroid, not the inclusive answer.  The fact that gravity pushes down on us from all around, mainly because the earth is spinning so fast, and other more complicated reasons; the sphereoid holds whatever is on it's surface down to adhere to the confines and shape of such a surface.\n\nEven if the world were flat, or a flattned sphereoid, we woudln't fall off, instead, we'd loop around to the otherside becasue gravity wouldn't allow us to actually 'drop' off the side of the cliff.  The inverse gravity on the other side of the plane would pull us to it's confine, or surface.\n\nSo, there's your answer.  Sorry i didn't get it more clear the first time.\n\nMathamatically you can say that gravity pushes us from all around using a tangent direction.  That means that no matter the point you are on this earth, gravity is pushing down on you within the same confines as any other like region.  As to falling off the earth, if gravity didn't exist, we wouldn't 'fall' exactly; we would more likely be thrown or float off the earth (thrown if the world is spinning).\n\n****End Edit.******\n\nThe world indeed is a sphere, but it is not a perfect sphere, due to the rotation of the earth around it's axis, as well as the rotation of the earth around the sun (central axis), the spinning and speed of the planet make it more of a spehere that jiggles, sometimes squeezed, and sometimes elongated.  But, not by much :) Just a bit :)
89865
I understand what you're saying, but you forgot one small thing:\n\nThe bowling ball has more mass, and therefore needs more pull to reach the same speed because of momentum. You know, it's harder to push a car than push a cup. The momentum pull and the pull of gravity completely cancel each other out, so all things fall at 9.81 m/s/s.
593651
Another string theory, \nG – hmm, \nwhy not then a G-string theory?\n\n\nCurios question it is. Let us as assume that you will put a geosynchronous satellite at about 300km from the center of the Earth. Since it is a geosynchronous satellite it will stay with the same point on the Earth say over your house.  The air resistance will be minimum as I‘ll assume that the planets atmosphere stays with the planet. Here are some numbers:\n\nEarth rotates at Ve= 1,700 km/hour (diameter ~13,000 km)\nOur geosynchronous satellite Vs= ~40,000 km/hour (at 300,000 km above center of the Earth)\nThis was just to show off, now let us do some serous computation.\n\nAnd the weight of the string say at 1gm/meter will weigh …. will weigh about 126.87 kg by employing the inverse square law of gravity.  (These were very tough computations).\nThat will apply a force of about 1,300 N on that satellite.  Why apply a steady pull? The weight of the string will bring the satellite down.\n\nThe daunting question is how are we are going to attach one end of that string to the satellite in the first place and then getting the other end to your house ;)? Or perhaps…\n\nThanks for all the fish
410636
Interesting question.  You can extend it - why does the Earth continue to turn on its axis?  And circle the sun?  Why does the sun circle the center of the galaxy?  Why do things keep going, year after year for billions and billions of years?\n\nNewton thought about this and came up with one of his famous laws:  Without an external force, a body in motion stays in motion, a body at rest stays at rest.\n\nThe second half is easy.  Put a rock on the floor and it will stay there forever until you pick it up.  It won't move without an external force.  So what if you shoot a bullet into the air.  We all know it falls back, but why?  Because the force of gravity acts on it.  Take away gravity and it will still stop.  Why?  Because the friction of air on the bullet's surface will slow it down and finally stop it.  Take away air, take away gravity, and the bullet will go on forever.\n\nSo to answer your question:  Simply put, the asteroids have no forces to stop them.  Gravity keeps them trapped around the sun, but they outside of the range where they fall in, so they simply continue to go around, just like the planets such as Earth.  The asteroids started in motion at the formation of the solar system 4.5 billion years ago, and except for random collisions that altered courses and accelerated (or decelerated) the rocks, no force has acted on them to slow them down.  A perfect example of Newton's law, even more amazing because Newton did not know of the existence of asteroids.
339600
Yes.\n\nIn fact there is a very nice relationship that when you are below the surface of the Earth (assuming the Earth is a perfect sphere), your weight is proportional to your radius from the center. E.g. if you were 1/3 of the way to the center (2/3 from the center), you'd weigh 2/3 as much as you do on the surface.\n\nThe proof uses a variant of Gauss's law from electromagnetics (because Newton's equation for gravity and Coulomb's equation for charge have the same form). Without delving into advanced calculus, the gravity that affects you depends only on the earth in the sphere below you - everything at your altitude and above cancels out. Since the volume of a sphere is proportional to r^3, but the gravitational force is proportional to 1/r^2, the remaining term is simply r - so your weight is proportional to the radius, if you're inside a sphere.\n\nOf course this assumes that the Earth's weight is distributed evenly. However, it's close enough to even for most purposes.
210275
The paper is out, because of wind resistance, leaving only the small and big rocks.  Refering to the 11th century-actually, Newton's law was supplanted some years ago, and we know that the acceleration due to gravity is determined by the combined gravitational forces of both objects.  Assuming an exactly equal shape and an exactly equal density of the two rocks, the larger would fall more rapidly, because of the involvement of it's own gravity.  If we assume, for example, that the small rock is the size of a baseball, and the big rock is the size of, oh...the moon, then the big rock will fall quite a bit faster (the combined gravity will be greater, because of greater mass).  As the large rock gets smaller, the gravity will decrease.  However, no matter how close in size the two rocks, there will be some difference.  It would not be easily measurable at anything less that a few million tons, but it would still be there.\nNewton was likely the greatest genius that ever lived...but we have moved beyond him in a lot of areas, including our understanding of gravity-
281839
It is pulled down by earth gravity, just like you are. And it is falling. But it is moving forward so fast that it misses the earth all the time. And as it happens in almost complete vacuum, there is almost nothing to slow it down. When it slows a little, it descends a little. Then we need a rocket to give it a boost.
54930
It would have to be a VERY large rock to have an acceleration of 2 m/s^2. That is even greater than the moon's gravitational acceleration. Even if your rock was incredibly dense, it would still have to be huge. I think this has to fall in the realm of pure fantasy.
309482
Ummm.... relativity doesn't have anything to do with it.\n\nBoth objects, regardless of their mass, are pulled toward Earth by the exact same gravitational force, and therefor are accelerated in exactly the same way (9.8 m/s^2) Thus they fall at the same rate.
4545
The rotational energy you impart to the object when spinning overcomes the force of gravity that would topple a stationary object.  \n\nA total layman's explanation:\n\nA perfect stationary top perfectly balanced will not fall over.  In real life though,it's impossible to perfectly balance a top.  It's shape practically guarantees that its center of gravity will not be directly over the balance point for any practical length of time.  Imperfections in the material will cause a slightly uneven weight distribution, air currents will introduce a small force, and mechanical vibrations will be transmitted through the medium the top rests on.  The upshot of all this is that as soon as the center of mass is no longer over the resting point, gravity is going to pull the top over.  \n\nNow gravity has an acceleration of 32 feet per second squared (if I remember my ancient high school course correctly).  It can only topple the top at a specific speed.  If you spin the top fast enough, any side that gravity tries to "pull down" will translate around so quickly that it literally has no time to fall.  If you were standing on a planet with a much higher gravity, you'd have to spin the top far faster to achieve stability, and if you were on the moon, it would spin for a much longer time. Eventually, however, the top starts to slow and the tip will inscribe little circles.  That action is called "precession".  And of course, eventually the thing drops to the table and the game is all up once it slows enough.\n\nAgain, that's a layman's view of how it works.  Some college physics major is probably going to come in here and make my answer look really foolish.
86753
They fall at the same rate because the acceleration of gravity on earth is nine point eight one meters per second squared. Because gravity is pulling them at the same rate, they fall at the same time. \n\nThey fall slower on the moon because gravity is less.
42949
I guess the helium ballon will lift the same mass, not more. \nThis is because although the mass will weight less (1/6), also the ballon will have less lift force because this depends on the volume x density x g(moon), and g(moon) is 1/6 also, so the less weight counteracts with less lift force.