Re: Galileo's Freefall Experiment

["Bob Sciamanda" <trebor@velocity.net>]

The argument (and its worth) does not depend on whether the proposed
model has the acceleration increasing or decreasing with mass:

If f(x) is an increasing function of x , and m1 > m2 , we are forced to
a12 > a1 > a2 .

But conceptually (intuitively) we now expect (in the combination) body 2
to slow down body 1, and body 1 to speed up body 2, so that we expect  a1
> a12 > a2;  so that , as before, the acceleration cannot be a monotonic
function of mass alone and satisfy our conceptual expectations - it would
be a weird model.  (Which is as much a statement about us, as about the
falling objects!)

-Bob

Bob Sciamanda
Physics, Edinboro Univ of PA (ret)
trebor@velocity.net
http://www.velocity.net/~trebor

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom McCarthy <tmccarthy@steds.org>
To: phys-l@atlantis.uwf.edu <phys-l@atlantis.uwf.edu>
Date: Monday, September 14, 1998 12:35 PM
Subject: Re: Galileo's Freefall Experiment


> . . .
> Shouldn't he have concluded, though, from your statement of
connectedness
> that the accel. should increase as the mass increased?
>    I know that surface area and so on makes a big difference but if the
> mass got larger and the face of the object looking downward stayed the
same,
> wouldn't Galileo have to conclude the accel increases as mass increases?
> . . .
> Tom