2010-10-09, 04:46 PM
(This post was last modified: 2010-10-09, 05:42 PM by 2147483647.)
When calculating for gravity, mass is disregarded (negligible) when it is over a relatively small distance change in mass. For example, the acceleration due to gravity on the Earth's surface is -9.81 m/s^2 for most objects at sea level. If you drop a large object such as a person, and a small object such as a bullet at the same time off a tower, both objects should hit the ground at the same time (the time is negligible).
However, the true equation for describing gravitational force that is used for large objects over large distances is G(m1*m2)/d^2, where m is mass and d is distance. In this case, people with a larger mass would fall faster due to experiencing stronger gravitational force, so you would fall faster than those bullets you're dropping on the floor. Imagine a bottle with various liquids in a normal gravity environment. The densest liquids will end up on the bottom and and the least on the top.
Since you stated the opposite, that the bullets fall faster in your hypothetical situation, it makes more sense to describe the "gravity" in your hypothetical situation more as an anti-gravity (repulsive) factor coming from the ceiling that causes smaller objects to move away faster from the ground than larger ones. When considering liquids in your hypothetical situation, the least densest liquid will end up on the bottom, and the densest liquid will end up on the top. Assuming that you're already on the ground from being subjected to the gravity for a long time, iron will be unlikely to be the first to break out of your bloodstream since it is denser than other compounds that are in your body.
Anyways, smaller things falling faster is not the way gravity works. Also, gravity change is negligible over a reasonably massive planet, so if people were to ever travel to another planet or mass other than the Earth, they're just going to adapt one time. I don't see why scientists should need to experiment for this by placing a subject in an ever changing (anti)gravitational room.
However, the true equation for describing gravitational force that is used for large objects over large distances is G(m1*m2)/d^2, where m is mass and d is distance. In this case, people with a larger mass would fall faster due to experiencing stronger gravitational force, so you would fall faster than those bullets you're dropping on the floor. Imagine a bottle with various liquids in a normal gravity environment. The densest liquids will end up on the bottom and and the least on the top.
Since you stated the opposite, that the bullets fall faster in your hypothetical situation, it makes more sense to describe the "gravity" in your hypothetical situation more as an anti-gravity (repulsive) factor coming from the ceiling that causes smaller objects to move away faster from the ground than larger ones. When considering liquids in your hypothetical situation, the least densest liquid will end up on the bottom, and the densest liquid will end up on the top. Assuming that you're already on the ground from being subjected to the gravity for a long time, iron will be unlikely to be the first to break out of your bloodstream since it is denser than other compounds that are in your body.
Anyways, smaller things falling faster is not the way gravity works. Also, gravity change is negligible over a reasonably massive planet, so if people were to ever travel to another planet or mass other than the Earth, they're just going to adapt one time. I don't see why scientists should need to experiment for this by placing a subject in an ever changing (anti)gravitational room.