If an object with more mass experiences a greater gravitational force, why don't more massive objects fall faster? [duplicate]Don't heavier objects actually fall faster because they exert their own gravity?Why do two bodies of different masses fall at the same rate (in the absence of air resistance)?Don't heavier objects actually fall faster because they exert their own gravity?Why do two bodies of different masses fall at the same rate (in the absence of air resistance)?Why do objects with different masses fall at the same rate?Free falling objectsWhy do objects fall at the same acceleration?Was Aristotle Actually Correct About Gravitation?A contradiction statement to $F=ma$Galileo proved wrong?If inertial mass were equal to for example half of gravitational mass why would things not still fall at same rate?How does Newtonian gravity violate law of inertia?

Visiting the UK as unmarried couple

Can a Bard use an arcane focus?

A Standard Integral Equation

Can I use my Chinese passport to enter China after I acquired another citizenship?

Have I saved too much for retirement so far?

What is the term when two people sing in harmony, but they aren't singing the same notes?

My boss asked me to take a one-day class, then signs it up as a day off

Who must act to prevent Brexit on March 29th?

Latex for-and in equation

The most efficient algorithm to find all possible integer pairs which sum to a given integer

How do I repair my stair bannister?

node command while defining a coordinate in TikZ

Meta programming: Declare a new struct on the fly

Reply ‘no position’ while the job posting is still there (‘HiWi’ position in Germany)

Did US corporations pay demonstrators in the German demonstrations against article 13?

Can a controlled ghast be a leader of a pack of ghouls?

What does the "3am" section means in manpages?

For airliners, what prevents wing strikes on landing in bad weather?

Is there any significance to the Valyrian Stone vault door of Qarth?

How do ultrasonic sensors differentiate between transmitted and received signals?

Lifted its hind leg on or lifted its hind leg towards?

Modern Day Chaucer

Female=gender counterpart?

Indicating multiple different modes of speech (fantasy language or telepathy)



If an object with more mass experiences a greater gravitational force, why don't more massive objects fall faster? [duplicate]


Don't heavier objects actually fall faster because they exert their own gravity?Why do two bodies of different masses fall at the same rate (in the absence of air resistance)?Don't heavier objects actually fall faster because they exert their own gravity?Why do two bodies of different masses fall at the same rate (in the absence of air resistance)?Why do objects with different masses fall at the same rate?Free falling objectsWhy do objects fall at the same acceleration?Was Aristotle Actually Correct About Gravitation?A contradiction statement to $F=ma$Galileo proved wrong?If inertial mass were equal to for example half of gravitational mass why would things not still fall at same rate?How does Newtonian gravity violate law of inertia?













0












$begingroup$



This question already has an answer here:



  • Don't heavier objects actually fall faster because they exert their own gravity?

    11 answers



According to Sir Isaac Newton, the gravity equation runs like this:



$$ F = fracGm_1m_2r^2 $$



where $F$ is the gravitational force, $G$ the gravitational constant, $m_1$ and $m_2$ are the respective masses of two bodies being pulled together by said force, and $r$ is the distance between them.



Now Galileo asserted that regardless of the difference in mass of two objects falling onto Earth, their acceleration rate will always be the same, i.e. 9.8 meters per second squared.



Question:



Is this actually true?



It is clear from the above equation that the larger the object's mass (either of the $m$'s), the greater the force ($F$).



In other words, should we leave the distance ($r$) the same but increase the mass of either object, the force ($F$) would increase proportionately, resulting in a greater acceleration rate. Which was what Aristotle and everyone else after him thought until Galileo decided Aristotle was wrong and proved it by throwing two different objects from the tower of Pisa. They hit the ground at the same time: yes. So far as the naked eye could judge, anyway.



To clarify:



Compared to the Earth's mass, the masses of the two objects would have been so small that any difference in their respective acceleration rates would have been too tiny to detect, i.e. NEGLIGIBLE.



In other words, to all, or most, PRACTICAL (i.e. earth-based) purposes, Galileo was right.



But was he TECHNICALLY right?



Einstein's theory states that gravity and inertia are the same exact force. This strikes me as perfectly reasonable. However, it is asserted that this somehow confirms Galileo's conclusion. I don't see how.



Please explain.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$



marked as duplicate by John Rennie, ZeroTheHero, knzhou, Qmechanic yesterday


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.













  • 2




    $begingroup$
    What is your argument against Galileo's conclusion?
    $endgroup$
    – my2cts
    yesterday






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    $F=ma$, so the gravitational acceleration is independent of the mass of the falling body. However, see physics.stackexchange.com/q/3534
    $endgroup$
    – PM 2Ring
    yesterday







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Inertia isn't a force
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Stevens
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Ricky The difference is due to how much the Earth accelerates upwards to meet the falling object, in the centre of mass frame of (the Earth + object), the object's acceleration towards the centre of mass is still independent of its mass.
    $endgroup$
    – PM 2Ring
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Possible duplicate of Why do two bodies of different masses fall at the same rate (in the absence of air resistance)?
    $endgroup$
    – knzhou
    yesterday
















0












$begingroup$



This question already has an answer here:



  • Don't heavier objects actually fall faster because they exert their own gravity?

    11 answers



According to Sir Isaac Newton, the gravity equation runs like this:



$$ F = fracGm_1m_2r^2 $$



where $F$ is the gravitational force, $G$ the gravitational constant, $m_1$ and $m_2$ are the respective masses of two bodies being pulled together by said force, and $r$ is the distance between them.



Now Galileo asserted that regardless of the difference in mass of two objects falling onto Earth, their acceleration rate will always be the same, i.e. 9.8 meters per second squared.



Question:



Is this actually true?



It is clear from the above equation that the larger the object's mass (either of the $m$'s), the greater the force ($F$).



In other words, should we leave the distance ($r$) the same but increase the mass of either object, the force ($F$) would increase proportionately, resulting in a greater acceleration rate. Which was what Aristotle and everyone else after him thought until Galileo decided Aristotle was wrong and proved it by throwing two different objects from the tower of Pisa. They hit the ground at the same time: yes. So far as the naked eye could judge, anyway.



To clarify:



Compared to the Earth's mass, the masses of the two objects would have been so small that any difference in their respective acceleration rates would have been too tiny to detect, i.e. NEGLIGIBLE.



In other words, to all, or most, PRACTICAL (i.e. earth-based) purposes, Galileo was right.



But was he TECHNICALLY right?



Einstein's theory states that gravity and inertia are the same exact force. This strikes me as perfectly reasonable. However, it is asserted that this somehow confirms Galileo's conclusion. I don't see how.



Please explain.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$



marked as duplicate by John Rennie, ZeroTheHero, knzhou, Qmechanic yesterday


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.













  • 2




    $begingroup$
    What is your argument against Galileo's conclusion?
    $endgroup$
    – my2cts
    yesterday






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    $F=ma$, so the gravitational acceleration is independent of the mass of the falling body. However, see physics.stackexchange.com/q/3534
    $endgroup$
    – PM 2Ring
    yesterday







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Inertia isn't a force
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Stevens
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Ricky The difference is due to how much the Earth accelerates upwards to meet the falling object, in the centre of mass frame of (the Earth + object), the object's acceleration towards the centre of mass is still independent of its mass.
    $endgroup$
    – PM 2Ring
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Possible duplicate of Why do two bodies of different masses fall at the same rate (in the absence of air resistance)?
    $endgroup$
    – knzhou
    yesterday














0












0








0





$begingroup$



This question already has an answer here:



  • Don't heavier objects actually fall faster because they exert their own gravity?

    11 answers



According to Sir Isaac Newton, the gravity equation runs like this:



$$ F = fracGm_1m_2r^2 $$



where $F$ is the gravitational force, $G$ the gravitational constant, $m_1$ and $m_2$ are the respective masses of two bodies being pulled together by said force, and $r$ is the distance between them.



Now Galileo asserted that regardless of the difference in mass of two objects falling onto Earth, their acceleration rate will always be the same, i.e. 9.8 meters per second squared.



Question:



Is this actually true?



It is clear from the above equation that the larger the object's mass (either of the $m$'s), the greater the force ($F$).



In other words, should we leave the distance ($r$) the same but increase the mass of either object, the force ($F$) would increase proportionately, resulting in a greater acceleration rate. Which was what Aristotle and everyone else after him thought until Galileo decided Aristotle was wrong and proved it by throwing two different objects from the tower of Pisa. They hit the ground at the same time: yes. So far as the naked eye could judge, anyway.



To clarify:



Compared to the Earth's mass, the masses of the two objects would have been so small that any difference in their respective acceleration rates would have been too tiny to detect, i.e. NEGLIGIBLE.



In other words, to all, or most, PRACTICAL (i.e. earth-based) purposes, Galileo was right.



But was he TECHNICALLY right?



Einstein's theory states that gravity and inertia are the same exact force. This strikes me as perfectly reasonable. However, it is asserted that this somehow confirms Galileo's conclusion. I don't see how.



Please explain.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$





This question already has an answer here:



  • Don't heavier objects actually fall faster because they exert their own gravity?

    11 answers



According to Sir Isaac Newton, the gravity equation runs like this:



$$ F = fracGm_1m_2r^2 $$



where $F$ is the gravitational force, $G$ the gravitational constant, $m_1$ and $m_2$ are the respective masses of two bodies being pulled together by said force, and $r$ is the distance between them.



Now Galileo asserted that regardless of the difference in mass of two objects falling onto Earth, their acceleration rate will always be the same, i.e. 9.8 meters per second squared.



Question:



Is this actually true?



It is clear from the above equation that the larger the object's mass (either of the $m$'s), the greater the force ($F$).



In other words, should we leave the distance ($r$) the same but increase the mass of either object, the force ($F$) would increase proportionately, resulting in a greater acceleration rate. Which was what Aristotle and everyone else after him thought until Galileo decided Aristotle was wrong and proved it by throwing two different objects from the tower of Pisa. They hit the ground at the same time: yes. So far as the naked eye could judge, anyway.



To clarify:



Compared to the Earth's mass, the masses of the two objects would have been so small that any difference in their respective acceleration rates would have been too tiny to detect, i.e. NEGLIGIBLE.



In other words, to all, or most, PRACTICAL (i.e. earth-based) purposes, Galileo was right.



But was he TECHNICALLY right?



Einstein's theory states that gravity and inertia are the same exact force. This strikes me as perfectly reasonable. However, it is asserted that this somehow confirms Galileo's conclusion. I don't see how.



Please explain.





This question already has an answer here:



  • Don't heavier objects actually fall faster because they exert their own gravity?

    11 answers







newtonian-mechanics mass acceleration free-fall equivalence-principle






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited yesterday









Qmechanic

106k121961227




106k121961227










asked yesterday









RickyRicky

349311




349311




marked as duplicate by John Rennie, ZeroTheHero, knzhou, Qmechanic yesterday


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.









marked as duplicate by John Rennie, ZeroTheHero, knzhou, Qmechanic yesterday


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.









  • 2




    $begingroup$
    What is your argument against Galileo's conclusion?
    $endgroup$
    – my2cts
    yesterday






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    $F=ma$, so the gravitational acceleration is independent of the mass of the falling body. However, see physics.stackexchange.com/q/3534
    $endgroup$
    – PM 2Ring
    yesterday







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Inertia isn't a force
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Stevens
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Ricky The difference is due to how much the Earth accelerates upwards to meet the falling object, in the centre of mass frame of (the Earth + object), the object's acceleration towards the centre of mass is still independent of its mass.
    $endgroup$
    – PM 2Ring
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Possible duplicate of Why do two bodies of different masses fall at the same rate (in the absence of air resistance)?
    $endgroup$
    – knzhou
    yesterday













  • 2




    $begingroup$
    What is your argument against Galileo's conclusion?
    $endgroup$
    – my2cts
    yesterday






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    $F=ma$, so the gravitational acceleration is independent of the mass of the falling body. However, see physics.stackexchange.com/q/3534
    $endgroup$
    – PM 2Ring
    yesterday







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Inertia isn't a force
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Stevens
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Ricky The difference is due to how much the Earth accelerates upwards to meet the falling object, in the centre of mass frame of (the Earth + object), the object's acceleration towards the centre of mass is still independent of its mass.
    $endgroup$
    – PM 2Ring
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Possible duplicate of Why do two bodies of different masses fall at the same rate (in the absence of air resistance)?
    $endgroup$
    – knzhou
    yesterday








2




2




$begingroup$
What is your argument against Galileo's conclusion?
$endgroup$
– my2cts
yesterday




$begingroup$
What is your argument against Galileo's conclusion?
$endgroup$
– my2cts
yesterday




2




2




$begingroup$
$F=ma$, so the gravitational acceleration is independent of the mass of the falling body. However, see physics.stackexchange.com/q/3534
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
yesterday





$begingroup$
$F=ma$, so the gravitational acceleration is independent of the mass of the falling body. However, see physics.stackexchange.com/q/3534
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
yesterday





1




1




$begingroup$
Inertia isn't a force
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
yesterday




$begingroup$
Inertia isn't a force
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
yesterday




1




1




$begingroup$
@Ricky The difference is due to how much the Earth accelerates upwards to meet the falling object, in the centre of mass frame of (the Earth + object), the object's acceleration towards the centre of mass is still independent of its mass.
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
yesterday




$begingroup$
@Ricky The difference is due to how much the Earth accelerates upwards to meet the falling object, in the centre of mass frame of (the Earth + object), the object's acceleration towards the centre of mass is still independent of its mass.
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
yesterday




1




1




$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of Why do two bodies of different masses fall at the same rate (in the absence of air resistance)?
$endgroup$
– knzhou
yesterday





$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of Why do two bodies of different masses fall at the same rate (in the absence of air resistance)?
$endgroup$
– knzhou
yesterday











6 Answers
6






active

oldest

votes


















3












$begingroup$

Others have addressed the mathematics; here is an intuitive explanation. (I'm not sure if this will help the asker, given that their question shows a good grasp of the maths, but it may help others.)



Let's say my identical twin and I are pushing two different boulders along the ground. Because we're identical, we provide the same force. But my boulder is much heavier than his. The result is that my boulder moves more slowly.



So I find someone much more muscled to push my boulder for me. Muscly McMuscles applies a greater force, enough to get the boulder moving exactly as fast as my twin's.



Yes, bigger objects have a greater force acting on them.



No, this doesn't make them fall faster.



The greater force and the greater mass exactly balance each other out, so the big and small objects move just as fast (more precisely, they accelerate the same).






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Again an answer which ignores the problem of observing the phenomenon from a non-inertial frame. It's a pity that the OP was not able to grasp the point.
    $endgroup$
    – GiorgioP
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @If thinking that makes you happy, then ... etc ...
    $endgroup$
    – Ricky
    23 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @GiorgioP: I answered the question as summarised in the title: doesn't greater force produce greater acceleration? I'd love to see an answer that delves into the maths of the non-inertial frame (it's been far too long since I did any of that stuff myself!), but even your own answer and comments stop at saying "there's a difference but it's unobservably small".
    $endgroup$
    – Tim Pederick
    13 hours ago


















6












$begingroup$


Now Galileo asserted that regardless of the difference in mass of two objects falling onto Earth, their acceleration rate will always be the same, i.e. 9.8 meters per second squared. Question: Is this actually true?




Yes, and it is fairly straightforward to derive. For an object in free fall near the earth’s surface.



$$F=fracGMmr^2$$
$$ma=fracGMmr^2$$
$$a=fracGMr^2$$
$$a=g$$



Where $F$ is the gravitational force, $G$ is the universal gravitational constant, $M$ is the mass of the earth, $m$ is the mass of the object, $r$ is the radius of the earth, and $a$ is the object’s acceleration.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$




















    2












    $begingroup$

    The correct replies to this question have already been written elsewhere in SE.Physics (better if ignoring the negative score answers).



    However, it is probably useful to stress the basic issue underlying the answer to this question: if we describe motions in non-inertial frames, accelerations depend on the frame. Therefore, the fact that different masses are acclerated in the same way in inertial frames, does not imply that the same is true in non-inertial frames. And observing free fall of bodies on the Earth, means that we are using a non-inertial frame whose acceleration depends on the force between Earth and falling body. It is only the huge ratio between the mass of Earth and that of (reasonable size) falling bodies which makes practically unobservable the difference of accelerations.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      ". It is only the huge ratio between the mass of Earth and that of (reasonable size) falling bodies which makes practically unobservable the difference of accelerations." That's what I said. "Practically unobservable" does not mean that it doesn't exist.
      $endgroup$
      – Ricky
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      @Ricky yeah, but I would not insist on claiming that , in absence of air drag, a iron ball would fall faster than a feather, if observed from Earth. From the experimental point of view unobservable differences are equivalent to no difference at all.
      $endgroup$
      – GiorgioP
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      @Ricky Unless the falling body has a mass that's a significant fraction of Earth's, the acceleration it induces on the Earth is so tiny that not only is it immeasurable, it will also be swamped by various other effects, mainly air resistance, but also including the asymmetric distribution of mass in the Earth, seismic disturbances, tidal forces from the Sun, Moon, and the other planets (primarily Jupiter), other people dropping things at other locations, et cetera. If you insist on including the Earth's acceleration in your model you should also include those other things.
      $endgroup$
      – PM 2Ring
      15 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @PM2Ring: I absolutely agree with you on all points here.
      $endgroup$
      – Ricky
      7 hours ago


















    1












    $begingroup$

    This might sound confusing i agree. A body of greater mass does experience a greater force compared to a lighter object , but then the acceleration is the ratio of Force experienced over the mass which equals gravitational constant times Mass of earth( in this case) over distance squared , which is independent of the mas of the object that is falling . You can also understand it this way : a greater force is greater is required to maintain a given acceleration for a more massive body than the force that is required to maintain the same accelaration for a less massive body.In both cases force varies but accelaration remains same






    share|cite|improve this answer








    New contributor




    Maxwell's Ghost is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






    $endgroup$




















      1












      $begingroup$

      The gravitational force is proportional to the masses of the two interacting objects. Since force is mass times acceleration, instantaneous gravitational acceleration is independent of mass. This is a approximation. The solution to the full two body problem does depend on both masses. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_two-body_problem.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$




















        1












        $begingroup$

        To put more words into @Dale answer, the greater the gravitational mass,the greater the force due to gravity per Newton's law of gravity. But the greater the mass the greater its inertial mass as well, i.e., its resistance to a change in velocity, and therefore a greater force is required to accelerate the mass per Newton's second law, $F=ma$. Gravitational mass equals inertial mass, thus the acceleration is the same for all masses in the gravitational field.



        Hope this helps.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



















          6 Answers
          6






          active

          oldest

          votes








          6 Answers
          6






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          3












          $begingroup$

          Others have addressed the mathematics; here is an intuitive explanation. (I'm not sure if this will help the asker, given that their question shows a good grasp of the maths, but it may help others.)



          Let's say my identical twin and I are pushing two different boulders along the ground. Because we're identical, we provide the same force. But my boulder is much heavier than his. The result is that my boulder moves more slowly.



          So I find someone much more muscled to push my boulder for me. Muscly McMuscles applies a greater force, enough to get the boulder moving exactly as fast as my twin's.



          Yes, bigger objects have a greater force acting on them.



          No, this doesn't make them fall faster.



          The greater force and the greater mass exactly balance each other out, so the big and small objects move just as fast (more precisely, they accelerate the same).






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Again an answer which ignores the problem of observing the phenomenon from a non-inertial frame. It's a pity that the OP was not able to grasp the point.
            $endgroup$
            – GiorgioP
            yesterday










          • $begingroup$
            @If thinking that makes you happy, then ... etc ...
            $endgroup$
            – Ricky
            23 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            @GiorgioP: I answered the question as summarised in the title: doesn't greater force produce greater acceleration? I'd love to see an answer that delves into the maths of the non-inertial frame (it's been far too long since I did any of that stuff myself!), but even your own answer and comments stop at saying "there's a difference but it's unobservably small".
            $endgroup$
            – Tim Pederick
            13 hours ago















          3












          $begingroup$

          Others have addressed the mathematics; here is an intuitive explanation. (I'm not sure if this will help the asker, given that their question shows a good grasp of the maths, but it may help others.)



          Let's say my identical twin and I are pushing two different boulders along the ground. Because we're identical, we provide the same force. But my boulder is much heavier than his. The result is that my boulder moves more slowly.



          So I find someone much more muscled to push my boulder for me. Muscly McMuscles applies a greater force, enough to get the boulder moving exactly as fast as my twin's.



          Yes, bigger objects have a greater force acting on them.



          No, this doesn't make them fall faster.



          The greater force and the greater mass exactly balance each other out, so the big and small objects move just as fast (more precisely, they accelerate the same).






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Again an answer which ignores the problem of observing the phenomenon from a non-inertial frame. It's a pity that the OP was not able to grasp the point.
            $endgroup$
            – GiorgioP
            yesterday










          • $begingroup$
            @If thinking that makes you happy, then ... etc ...
            $endgroup$
            – Ricky
            23 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            @GiorgioP: I answered the question as summarised in the title: doesn't greater force produce greater acceleration? I'd love to see an answer that delves into the maths of the non-inertial frame (it's been far too long since I did any of that stuff myself!), but even your own answer and comments stop at saying "there's a difference but it's unobservably small".
            $endgroup$
            – Tim Pederick
            13 hours ago













          3












          3








          3





          $begingroup$

          Others have addressed the mathematics; here is an intuitive explanation. (I'm not sure if this will help the asker, given that their question shows a good grasp of the maths, but it may help others.)



          Let's say my identical twin and I are pushing two different boulders along the ground. Because we're identical, we provide the same force. But my boulder is much heavier than his. The result is that my boulder moves more slowly.



          So I find someone much more muscled to push my boulder for me. Muscly McMuscles applies a greater force, enough to get the boulder moving exactly as fast as my twin's.



          Yes, bigger objects have a greater force acting on them.



          No, this doesn't make them fall faster.



          The greater force and the greater mass exactly balance each other out, so the big and small objects move just as fast (more precisely, they accelerate the same).






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          Others have addressed the mathematics; here is an intuitive explanation. (I'm not sure if this will help the asker, given that their question shows a good grasp of the maths, but it may help others.)



          Let's say my identical twin and I are pushing two different boulders along the ground. Because we're identical, we provide the same force. But my boulder is much heavier than his. The result is that my boulder moves more slowly.



          So I find someone much more muscled to push my boulder for me. Muscly McMuscles applies a greater force, enough to get the boulder moving exactly as fast as my twin's.



          Yes, bigger objects have a greater force acting on them.



          No, this doesn't make them fall faster.



          The greater force and the greater mass exactly balance each other out, so the big and small objects move just as fast (more precisely, they accelerate the same).







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited yesterday

























          answered yesterday









          Tim PederickTim Pederick

          42948




          42948







          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Again an answer which ignores the problem of observing the phenomenon from a non-inertial frame. It's a pity that the OP was not able to grasp the point.
            $endgroup$
            – GiorgioP
            yesterday










          • $begingroup$
            @If thinking that makes you happy, then ... etc ...
            $endgroup$
            – Ricky
            23 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            @GiorgioP: I answered the question as summarised in the title: doesn't greater force produce greater acceleration? I'd love to see an answer that delves into the maths of the non-inertial frame (it's been far too long since I did any of that stuff myself!), but even your own answer and comments stop at saying "there's a difference but it's unobservably small".
            $endgroup$
            – Tim Pederick
            13 hours ago












          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Again an answer which ignores the problem of observing the phenomenon from a non-inertial frame. It's a pity that the OP was not able to grasp the point.
            $endgroup$
            – GiorgioP
            yesterday










          • $begingroup$
            @If thinking that makes you happy, then ... etc ...
            $endgroup$
            – Ricky
            23 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            @GiorgioP: I answered the question as summarised in the title: doesn't greater force produce greater acceleration? I'd love to see an answer that delves into the maths of the non-inertial frame (it's been far too long since I did any of that stuff myself!), but even your own answer and comments stop at saying "there's a difference but it's unobservably small".
            $endgroup$
            – Tim Pederick
            13 hours ago







          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          Again an answer which ignores the problem of observing the phenomenon from a non-inertial frame. It's a pity that the OP was not able to grasp the point.
          $endgroup$
          – GiorgioP
          yesterday




          $begingroup$
          Again an answer which ignores the problem of observing the phenomenon from a non-inertial frame. It's a pity that the OP was not able to grasp the point.
          $endgroup$
          – GiorgioP
          yesterday












          $begingroup$
          @If thinking that makes you happy, then ... etc ...
          $endgroup$
          – Ricky
          23 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          @If thinking that makes you happy, then ... etc ...
          $endgroup$
          – Ricky
          23 hours ago












          $begingroup$
          @GiorgioP: I answered the question as summarised in the title: doesn't greater force produce greater acceleration? I'd love to see an answer that delves into the maths of the non-inertial frame (it's been far too long since I did any of that stuff myself!), but even your own answer and comments stop at saying "there's a difference but it's unobservably small".
          $endgroup$
          – Tim Pederick
          13 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          @GiorgioP: I answered the question as summarised in the title: doesn't greater force produce greater acceleration? I'd love to see an answer that delves into the maths of the non-inertial frame (it's been far too long since I did any of that stuff myself!), but even your own answer and comments stop at saying "there's a difference but it's unobservably small".
          $endgroup$
          – Tim Pederick
          13 hours ago











          6












          $begingroup$


          Now Galileo asserted that regardless of the difference in mass of two objects falling onto Earth, their acceleration rate will always be the same, i.e. 9.8 meters per second squared. Question: Is this actually true?




          Yes, and it is fairly straightforward to derive. For an object in free fall near the earth’s surface.



          $$F=fracGMmr^2$$
          $$ma=fracGMmr^2$$
          $$a=fracGMr^2$$
          $$a=g$$



          Where $F$ is the gravitational force, $G$ is the universal gravitational constant, $M$ is the mass of the earth, $m$ is the mass of the object, $r$ is the radius of the earth, and $a$ is the object’s acceleration.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$

















            6












            $begingroup$


            Now Galileo asserted that regardless of the difference in mass of two objects falling onto Earth, their acceleration rate will always be the same, i.e. 9.8 meters per second squared. Question: Is this actually true?




            Yes, and it is fairly straightforward to derive. For an object in free fall near the earth’s surface.



            $$F=fracGMmr^2$$
            $$ma=fracGMmr^2$$
            $$a=fracGMr^2$$
            $$a=g$$



            Where $F$ is the gravitational force, $G$ is the universal gravitational constant, $M$ is the mass of the earth, $m$ is the mass of the object, $r$ is the radius of the earth, and $a$ is the object’s acceleration.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$















              6












              6








              6





              $begingroup$


              Now Galileo asserted that regardless of the difference in mass of two objects falling onto Earth, their acceleration rate will always be the same, i.e. 9.8 meters per second squared. Question: Is this actually true?




              Yes, and it is fairly straightforward to derive. For an object in free fall near the earth’s surface.



              $$F=fracGMmr^2$$
              $$ma=fracGMmr^2$$
              $$a=fracGMr^2$$
              $$a=g$$



              Where $F$ is the gravitational force, $G$ is the universal gravitational constant, $M$ is the mass of the earth, $m$ is the mass of the object, $r$ is the radius of the earth, and $a$ is the object’s acceleration.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$




              Now Galileo asserted that regardless of the difference in mass of two objects falling onto Earth, their acceleration rate will always be the same, i.e. 9.8 meters per second squared. Question: Is this actually true?




              Yes, and it is fairly straightforward to derive. For an object in free fall near the earth’s surface.



              $$F=fracGMmr^2$$
              $$ma=fracGMmr^2$$
              $$a=fracGMr^2$$
              $$a=g$$



              Where $F$ is the gravitational force, $G$ is the universal gravitational constant, $M$ is the mass of the earth, $m$ is the mass of the object, $r$ is the radius of the earth, and $a$ is the object’s acceleration.







              share|cite|improve this answer












              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer










              answered yesterday









              DaleDale

              6,4171828




              6,4171828





















                  2












                  $begingroup$

                  The correct replies to this question have already been written elsewhere in SE.Physics (better if ignoring the negative score answers).



                  However, it is probably useful to stress the basic issue underlying the answer to this question: if we describe motions in non-inertial frames, accelerations depend on the frame. Therefore, the fact that different masses are acclerated in the same way in inertial frames, does not imply that the same is true in non-inertial frames. And observing free fall of bodies on the Earth, means that we are using a non-inertial frame whose acceleration depends on the force between Earth and falling body. It is only the huge ratio between the mass of Earth and that of (reasonable size) falling bodies which makes practically unobservable the difference of accelerations.






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$












                  • $begingroup$
                    ". It is only the huge ratio between the mass of Earth and that of (reasonable size) falling bodies which makes practically unobservable the difference of accelerations." That's what I said. "Practically unobservable" does not mean that it doesn't exist.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Ricky
                    yesterday










                  • $begingroup$
                    @Ricky yeah, but I would not insist on claiming that , in absence of air drag, a iron ball would fall faster than a feather, if observed from Earth. From the experimental point of view unobservable differences are equivalent to no difference at all.
                    $endgroup$
                    – GiorgioP
                    yesterday










                  • $begingroup$
                    @Ricky Unless the falling body has a mass that's a significant fraction of Earth's, the acceleration it induces on the Earth is so tiny that not only is it immeasurable, it will also be swamped by various other effects, mainly air resistance, but also including the asymmetric distribution of mass in the Earth, seismic disturbances, tidal forces from the Sun, Moon, and the other planets (primarily Jupiter), other people dropping things at other locations, et cetera. If you insist on including the Earth's acceleration in your model you should also include those other things.
                    $endgroup$
                    – PM 2Ring
                    15 hours ago










                  • $begingroup$
                    @PM2Ring: I absolutely agree with you on all points here.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Ricky
                    7 hours ago















                  2












                  $begingroup$

                  The correct replies to this question have already been written elsewhere in SE.Physics (better if ignoring the negative score answers).



                  However, it is probably useful to stress the basic issue underlying the answer to this question: if we describe motions in non-inertial frames, accelerations depend on the frame. Therefore, the fact that different masses are acclerated in the same way in inertial frames, does not imply that the same is true in non-inertial frames. And observing free fall of bodies on the Earth, means that we are using a non-inertial frame whose acceleration depends on the force between Earth and falling body. It is only the huge ratio between the mass of Earth and that of (reasonable size) falling bodies which makes practically unobservable the difference of accelerations.






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$












                  • $begingroup$
                    ". It is only the huge ratio between the mass of Earth and that of (reasonable size) falling bodies which makes practically unobservable the difference of accelerations." That's what I said. "Practically unobservable" does not mean that it doesn't exist.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Ricky
                    yesterday










                  • $begingroup$
                    @Ricky yeah, but I would not insist on claiming that , in absence of air drag, a iron ball would fall faster than a feather, if observed from Earth. From the experimental point of view unobservable differences are equivalent to no difference at all.
                    $endgroup$
                    – GiorgioP
                    yesterday










                  • $begingroup$
                    @Ricky Unless the falling body has a mass that's a significant fraction of Earth's, the acceleration it induces on the Earth is so tiny that not only is it immeasurable, it will also be swamped by various other effects, mainly air resistance, but also including the asymmetric distribution of mass in the Earth, seismic disturbances, tidal forces from the Sun, Moon, and the other planets (primarily Jupiter), other people dropping things at other locations, et cetera. If you insist on including the Earth's acceleration in your model you should also include those other things.
                    $endgroup$
                    – PM 2Ring
                    15 hours ago










                  • $begingroup$
                    @PM2Ring: I absolutely agree with you on all points here.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Ricky
                    7 hours ago













                  2












                  2








                  2





                  $begingroup$

                  The correct replies to this question have already been written elsewhere in SE.Physics (better if ignoring the negative score answers).



                  However, it is probably useful to stress the basic issue underlying the answer to this question: if we describe motions in non-inertial frames, accelerations depend on the frame. Therefore, the fact that different masses are acclerated in the same way in inertial frames, does not imply that the same is true in non-inertial frames. And observing free fall of bodies on the Earth, means that we are using a non-inertial frame whose acceleration depends on the force between Earth and falling body. It is only the huge ratio between the mass of Earth and that of (reasonable size) falling bodies which makes practically unobservable the difference of accelerations.






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  The correct replies to this question have already been written elsewhere in SE.Physics (better if ignoring the negative score answers).



                  However, it is probably useful to stress the basic issue underlying the answer to this question: if we describe motions in non-inertial frames, accelerations depend on the frame. Therefore, the fact that different masses are acclerated in the same way in inertial frames, does not imply that the same is true in non-inertial frames. And observing free fall of bodies on the Earth, means that we are using a non-inertial frame whose acceleration depends on the force between Earth and falling body. It is only the huge ratio between the mass of Earth and that of (reasonable size) falling bodies which makes practically unobservable the difference of accelerations.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered yesterday









                  GiorgioPGiorgioP

                  4,1001527




                  4,1001527











                  • $begingroup$
                    ". It is only the huge ratio between the mass of Earth and that of (reasonable size) falling bodies which makes practically unobservable the difference of accelerations." That's what I said. "Practically unobservable" does not mean that it doesn't exist.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Ricky
                    yesterday










                  • $begingroup$
                    @Ricky yeah, but I would not insist on claiming that , in absence of air drag, a iron ball would fall faster than a feather, if observed from Earth. From the experimental point of view unobservable differences are equivalent to no difference at all.
                    $endgroup$
                    – GiorgioP
                    yesterday










                  • $begingroup$
                    @Ricky Unless the falling body has a mass that's a significant fraction of Earth's, the acceleration it induces on the Earth is so tiny that not only is it immeasurable, it will also be swamped by various other effects, mainly air resistance, but also including the asymmetric distribution of mass in the Earth, seismic disturbances, tidal forces from the Sun, Moon, and the other planets (primarily Jupiter), other people dropping things at other locations, et cetera. If you insist on including the Earth's acceleration in your model you should also include those other things.
                    $endgroup$
                    – PM 2Ring
                    15 hours ago










                  • $begingroup$
                    @PM2Ring: I absolutely agree with you on all points here.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Ricky
                    7 hours ago
















                  • $begingroup$
                    ". It is only the huge ratio between the mass of Earth and that of (reasonable size) falling bodies which makes practically unobservable the difference of accelerations." That's what I said. "Practically unobservable" does not mean that it doesn't exist.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Ricky
                    yesterday










                  • $begingroup$
                    @Ricky yeah, but I would not insist on claiming that , in absence of air drag, a iron ball would fall faster than a feather, if observed from Earth. From the experimental point of view unobservable differences are equivalent to no difference at all.
                    $endgroup$
                    – GiorgioP
                    yesterday










                  • $begingroup$
                    @Ricky Unless the falling body has a mass that's a significant fraction of Earth's, the acceleration it induces on the Earth is so tiny that not only is it immeasurable, it will also be swamped by various other effects, mainly air resistance, but also including the asymmetric distribution of mass in the Earth, seismic disturbances, tidal forces from the Sun, Moon, and the other planets (primarily Jupiter), other people dropping things at other locations, et cetera. If you insist on including the Earth's acceleration in your model you should also include those other things.
                    $endgroup$
                    – PM 2Ring
                    15 hours ago










                  • $begingroup$
                    @PM2Ring: I absolutely agree with you on all points here.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Ricky
                    7 hours ago















                  $begingroup$
                  ". It is only the huge ratio between the mass of Earth and that of (reasonable size) falling bodies which makes practically unobservable the difference of accelerations." That's what I said. "Practically unobservable" does not mean that it doesn't exist.
                  $endgroup$
                  – Ricky
                  yesterday




                  $begingroup$
                  ". It is only the huge ratio between the mass of Earth and that of (reasonable size) falling bodies which makes practically unobservable the difference of accelerations." That's what I said. "Practically unobservable" does not mean that it doesn't exist.
                  $endgroup$
                  – Ricky
                  yesterday












                  $begingroup$
                  @Ricky yeah, but I would not insist on claiming that , in absence of air drag, a iron ball would fall faster than a feather, if observed from Earth. From the experimental point of view unobservable differences are equivalent to no difference at all.
                  $endgroup$
                  – GiorgioP
                  yesterday




                  $begingroup$
                  @Ricky yeah, but I would not insist on claiming that , in absence of air drag, a iron ball would fall faster than a feather, if observed from Earth. From the experimental point of view unobservable differences are equivalent to no difference at all.
                  $endgroup$
                  – GiorgioP
                  yesterday












                  $begingroup$
                  @Ricky Unless the falling body has a mass that's a significant fraction of Earth's, the acceleration it induces on the Earth is so tiny that not only is it immeasurable, it will also be swamped by various other effects, mainly air resistance, but also including the asymmetric distribution of mass in the Earth, seismic disturbances, tidal forces from the Sun, Moon, and the other planets (primarily Jupiter), other people dropping things at other locations, et cetera. If you insist on including the Earth's acceleration in your model you should also include those other things.
                  $endgroup$
                  – PM 2Ring
                  15 hours ago




                  $begingroup$
                  @Ricky Unless the falling body has a mass that's a significant fraction of Earth's, the acceleration it induces on the Earth is so tiny that not only is it immeasurable, it will also be swamped by various other effects, mainly air resistance, but also including the asymmetric distribution of mass in the Earth, seismic disturbances, tidal forces from the Sun, Moon, and the other planets (primarily Jupiter), other people dropping things at other locations, et cetera. If you insist on including the Earth's acceleration in your model you should also include those other things.
                  $endgroup$
                  – PM 2Ring
                  15 hours ago












                  $begingroup$
                  @PM2Ring: I absolutely agree with you on all points here.
                  $endgroup$
                  – Ricky
                  7 hours ago




                  $begingroup$
                  @PM2Ring: I absolutely agree with you on all points here.
                  $endgroup$
                  – Ricky
                  7 hours ago











                  1












                  $begingroup$

                  This might sound confusing i agree. A body of greater mass does experience a greater force compared to a lighter object , but then the acceleration is the ratio of Force experienced over the mass which equals gravitational constant times Mass of earth( in this case) over distance squared , which is independent of the mas of the object that is falling . You can also understand it this way : a greater force is greater is required to maintain a given acceleration for a more massive body than the force that is required to maintain the same accelaration for a less massive body.In both cases force varies but accelaration remains same






                  share|cite|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  Maxwell's Ghost is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






                  $endgroup$

















                    1












                    $begingroup$

                    This might sound confusing i agree. A body of greater mass does experience a greater force compared to a lighter object , but then the acceleration is the ratio of Force experienced over the mass which equals gravitational constant times Mass of earth( in this case) over distance squared , which is independent of the mas of the object that is falling . You can also understand it this way : a greater force is greater is required to maintain a given acceleration for a more massive body than the force that is required to maintain the same accelaration for a less massive body.In both cases force varies but accelaration remains same






                    share|cite|improve this answer








                    New contributor




                    Maxwell's Ghost is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.






                    $endgroup$















                      1












                      1








                      1





                      $begingroup$

                      This might sound confusing i agree. A body of greater mass does experience a greater force compared to a lighter object , but then the acceleration is the ratio of Force experienced over the mass which equals gravitational constant times Mass of earth( in this case) over distance squared , which is independent of the mas of the object that is falling . You can also understand it this way : a greater force is greater is required to maintain a given acceleration for a more massive body than the force that is required to maintain the same accelaration for a less massive body.In both cases force varies but accelaration remains same






                      share|cite|improve this answer








                      New contributor




                      Maxwell's Ghost is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.






                      $endgroup$



                      This might sound confusing i agree. A body of greater mass does experience a greater force compared to a lighter object , but then the acceleration is the ratio of Force experienced over the mass which equals gravitational constant times Mass of earth( in this case) over distance squared , which is independent of the mas of the object that is falling . You can also understand it this way : a greater force is greater is required to maintain a given acceleration for a more massive body than the force that is required to maintain the same accelaration for a less massive body.In both cases force varies but accelaration remains same







                      share|cite|improve this answer








                      New contributor




                      Maxwell's Ghost is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.









                      share|cite|improve this answer



                      share|cite|improve this answer






                      New contributor




                      Maxwell's Ghost is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.









                      answered yesterday









                      Maxwell's GhostMaxwell's Ghost

                      132




                      132




                      New contributor




                      Maxwell's Ghost is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.





                      New contributor





                      Maxwell's Ghost is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.






                      Maxwell's Ghost is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.





















                          1












                          $begingroup$

                          The gravitational force is proportional to the masses of the two interacting objects. Since force is mass times acceleration, instantaneous gravitational acceleration is independent of mass. This is a approximation. The solution to the full two body problem does depend on both masses. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_two-body_problem.






                          share|cite|improve this answer









                          $endgroup$

















                            1












                            $begingroup$

                            The gravitational force is proportional to the masses of the two interacting objects. Since force is mass times acceleration, instantaneous gravitational acceleration is independent of mass. This is a approximation. The solution to the full two body problem does depend on both masses. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_two-body_problem.






                            share|cite|improve this answer









                            $endgroup$















                              1












                              1








                              1





                              $begingroup$

                              The gravitational force is proportional to the masses of the two interacting objects. Since force is mass times acceleration, instantaneous gravitational acceleration is independent of mass. This is a approximation. The solution to the full two body problem does depend on both masses. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_two-body_problem.






                              share|cite|improve this answer









                              $endgroup$



                              The gravitational force is proportional to the masses of the two interacting objects. Since force is mass times acceleration, instantaneous gravitational acceleration is independent of mass. This is a approximation. The solution to the full two body problem does depend on both masses. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_two-body_problem.







                              share|cite|improve this answer












                              share|cite|improve this answer



                              share|cite|improve this answer










                              answered yesterday









                              my2ctsmy2cts

                              5,7222719




                              5,7222719





















                                  1












                                  $begingroup$

                                  To put more words into @Dale answer, the greater the gravitational mass,the greater the force due to gravity per Newton's law of gravity. But the greater the mass the greater its inertial mass as well, i.e., its resistance to a change in velocity, and therefore a greater force is required to accelerate the mass per Newton's second law, $F=ma$. Gravitational mass equals inertial mass, thus the acceleration is the same for all masses in the gravitational field.



                                  Hope this helps.






                                  share|cite|improve this answer









                                  $endgroup$

















                                    1












                                    $begingroup$

                                    To put more words into @Dale answer, the greater the gravitational mass,the greater the force due to gravity per Newton's law of gravity. But the greater the mass the greater its inertial mass as well, i.e., its resistance to a change in velocity, and therefore a greater force is required to accelerate the mass per Newton's second law, $F=ma$. Gravitational mass equals inertial mass, thus the acceleration is the same for all masses in the gravitational field.



                                    Hope this helps.






                                    share|cite|improve this answer









                                    $endgroup$















                                      1












                                      1








                                      1





                                      $begingroup$

                                      To put more words into @Dale answer, the greater the gravitational mass,the greater the force due to gravity per Newton's law of gravity. But the greater the mass the greater its inertial mass as well, i.e., its resistance to a change in velocity, and therefore a greater force is required to accelerate the mass per Newton's second law, $F=ma$. Gravitational mass equals inertial mass, thus the acceleration is the same for all masses in the gravitational field.



                                      Hope this helps.






                                      share|cite|improve this answer









                                      $endgroup$



                                      To put more words into @Dale answer, the greater the gravitational mass,the greater the force due to gravity per Newton's law of gravity. But the greater the mass the greater its inertial mass as well, i.e., its resistance to a change in velocity, and therefore a greater force is required to accelerate the mass per Newton's second law, $F=ma$. Gravitational mass equals inertial mass, thus the acceleration is the same for all masses in the gravitational field.



                                      Hope this helps.







                                      share|cite|improve this answer












                                      share|cite|improve this answer



                                      share|cite|improve this answer










                                      answered yesterday









                                      Bob DBob D

                                      4,2692318




                                      4,2692318













                                          Popular posts from this blog

                                          Àrd-bhaile Cathair chruinne/Baile mòr cruinne | Artagailean ceangailte | Clàr-taice na seòladaireachd

                                          대한민국 목차 국명 지리 역사 정치 국방 경제 사회 문화 국제 순위 관련 항목 각주 외부 링크 둘러보기 메뉴북위 37° 34′ 08″ 동경 126° 58′ 36″ / 북위 37.568889° 동경 126.976667°  / 37.568889; 126.976667ehThe Korean Repository문단을 편집문단을 편집추가해Clarkson PLC 사Report for Selected Countries and Subjects-Korea“Human Development Index and its components: P.198”“http://www.law.go.kr/%EB%B2%95%EB%A0%B9/%EB%8C%80%ED%95%9C%EB%AF%BC%EA%B5%AD%EA%B5%AD%EA%B8%B0%EB%B2%95”"한국은 국제법상 한반도 유일 합법정부 아니다" - 오마이뉴스 모바일Report for Selected Countries and Subjects: South Korea격동의 역사와 함께한 조선일보 90년 : 조선일보 인수해 혁신시킨 신석우, 임시정부 때는 '대한민국' 국호(國號) 정해《우리가 몰랐던 우리 역사: 나라 이름의 비밀을 찾아가는 역사 여행》“남북 공식호칭 ‘남한’‘북한’으로 쓴다”“Corea 대 Korea, 누가 이긴 거야?”국내기후자료 - 한국[김대중 前 대통령 서거] 과감한 구조개혁 'DJ노믹스'로 최단기간 환란극복 :: 네이버 뉴스“이라크 "韓-쿠르드 유전개발 MOU 승인 안해"(종합)”“해외 우리국민 추방사례 43%가 일본”차기전차 K2'흑표'의 세계 최고 전력 분석, 쿠키뉴스 엄기영, 2007-03-02두산인프라, 헬기잡는 장갑차 'K21'...내년부터 공급, 고뉴스 이대준, 2008-10-30과거 내용 찾기mk 뉴스 - 구매력 기준으로 보면 한국 1인당 소득 3만弗과거 내용 찾기"The N-11: More Than an Acronym"Archived조선일보 최우석, 2008-11-01Global 500 2008: Countries - South Korea“몇년째 '시한폭탄'... 가계부채, 올해는 터질까”가구당 부채 5000만원 처음 넘어서“‘빚’으로 내몰리는 사회.. 위기의 가계대출”“[경제365] 공공부문 부채 급증…800조 육박”“"소득 양극화 다소 완화...불평등은 여전"”“공정사회·공생발전 한참 멀었네”iSuppli,08年2QのDRAMシェア・ランキングを発表(08/8/11)South Korea dominates shipbuilding industry | Stock Market News & Stocks to Watch from StraightStocks한국 자동차 생산, 3년 연속 세계 5위자동차수출 '현대-삼성 웃고 기아-대우-쌍용은 울고' 과거 내용 찾기동반성장위 창립 1주년 맞아Archived"중기적합 3개업종 합의 무시한 채 선정"李대통령, 사업 무분별 확장 소상공인 생계 위협 질타삼성-LG, 서민업종인 빵·분식사업 잇따라 철수상생은 뒷전…SSM ‘몸집 불리기’ 혈안Archived“경부고속도에 '아시안하이웨이' 표지판”'철의 실크로드' 앞서 '말(言)의 실크로드'부터, 프레시안 정창현, 2008-10-01“'서울 지하철은 안전한가?'”“서울시 “올해 안에 모든 지하철역 스크린도어 설치””“부산지하철 1,2호선 승강장 안전펜스 설치 완료”“전교조, 정부 노조 통계서 처음 빠져”“[Weekly BIZ] 도요타 '제로 이사회'가 리콜 사태 불러들였다”“S Korea slams high tuition costs”““정치가 여론 양극화 부채질… 합리주의 절실””“〈"`촛불집회'는 민주주의의 질적 변화 상징"〉”““촛불집회가 민주주의 왜곡 초래””“국민 65%, "한국 노사관계 대립적"”“한국 국가경쟁력 27위‥노사관계 '꼴찌'”“제대로 형성되지 않은 대한민국 이념지형”“[신년기획-갈등의 시대] 갈등지수 OECD 4위…사회적 손실 GDP 27% 무려 300조”“2012 총선-대선의 키워드는 '국민과 소통'”“한국 삶의 질 27위, 2000년과 2008년 연속 하위권 머물러”“[해피 코리아] 행복점수 68점…해외 평가선 '낙제점'”“한국 어린이·청소년 행복지수 3년 연속 OECD ‘꼴찌’”“한국 이혼율 OECD중 8위”“[통계청] 한국 이혼율 OECD 4위”“오피니언 [이렇게 생각한다] `부부의 날` 에 돌아본 이혼율 1위 한국”“Suicide Rates by Country, Global Health Observatory Data Repository.”“1. 또 다른 차별”“오피니언 [편집자에게] '왕따'와 '패거리 정치' 심리는 닮은꼴”“[미래한국리포트] 무한경쟁에 빠진 대한민국”“대학생 98% "외모가 경쟁력이라는 말 동의"”“특급호텔 웨딩·200만원대 유모차… "남보다 더…" 호화病, 고질병 됐다”“[스트레스 공화국] ① 경쟁사회, 스트레스 쌓인다”““매일 30여명 자살 한국, 의사보다 무속인에…””“"자살 부르는 '우울증', 환자 중 85% 치료 안 받아"”“정신병원을 가다”“대한민국도 ‘묻지마 범죄’,안전지대 아니다”“유엔 "학생 '성적 지향'에 따른 차별 금지하라"”“유엔아동권리위원회 보고서 및 번역본 원문”“고졸 성공스토리 담은 '제빵왕 김탁구' 드라마 나온다”“‘빛 좋은 개살구’ 고졸 취업…실습 대신 착취”원본 문서“정신건강, 사회적 편견부터 고쳐드립니다”‘소통’과 ‘행복’에 목 마른 사회가 잠들어 있던 ‘심리학’ 깨웠다“[포토] 사유리-곽금주 교수의 유쾌한 심리상담”“"올해 한국인 평균 영화관람횟수 세계 1위"(종합)”“[게임연중기획] 게임은 문화다-여가활동 1순위 게임”“영화속 ‘영어 지상주의’ …“왠지 씁쓸한데””“2월 `신문 부수 인증기관` 지정..방송법 후속작업”“무료신문 성장동력 ‘차별성’과 ‘갈등해소’”대한민국 국회 법률지식정보시스템"Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project: South Korea"“amp;vwcd=MT_ZTITLE&path=인구·가구%20>%20인구총조사%20>%20인구부문%20>%20 총조사인구(2005)%20>%20전수부문&oper_YN=Y&item=&keyword=종교별%20인구& amp;lang_mode=kor&list_id= 2005년 통계청 인구 총조사”원본 문서“한국인이 좋아하는 취미와 운동 (2004-2009)”“한국인이 좋아하는 취미와 운동 (2004-2014)”Archived“한국, `부분적 언론자유국' 강등〈프리덤하우스〉”“국경없는기자회 "한국, 인터넷감시 대상국"”“한국, 조선산업 1위 유지(S. Korea Stays Top Shipbuilding Nation) RZD-Partner Portal”원본 문서“한국, 4년 만에 ‘선박건조 1위’”“옛 마산시,인터넷속도 세계 1위”“"한국 초고속 인터넷망 세계1위"”“인터넷·휴대폰 요금, 외국보다 훨씬 비싸”“한국 관세행정 6년 연속 세계 '1위'”“한국 교통사고 사망자 수 OECD 회원국 중 2위”“결핵 후진국' 한국, 환자가 급증한 이유는”“수술은 신중해야… 자칫하면 생명 위협”대한민국분류대한민국의 지도대한민국 정부대표 다국어포털대한민국 전자정부대한민국 국회한국방송공사about korea and information korea브리태니커 백과사전(한국편)론리플래닛의 정보(한국편)CIA의 세계 정보(한국편)마리암 부디아 (Mariam Budia),『한국: 하늘이 내린 한 폭의 그림』, 서울: 트랜스라틴 19호 (2012년 3월)대한민국ehehehehehehehehehehehehehehWorldCat132441370n791268020000 0001 2308 81034078029-6026373548cb11863345f(데이터)00573706ge128495

                                          Cannot Extend partition with GParted The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) 2019 Community Moderator Election ResultsCan't increase partition size with GParted?GParted doesn't recognize the unallocated space after my current partitionWhat is the best way to add unallocated space located before to Ubuntu 12.04 partition with GParted live?I can't figure out how to extend my Arch home partition into free spaceGparted Linux Mint 18.1 issueTrying to extend but swap partition is showing as Unknown in Gparted, shows proper from fdiskRearrange partitions in gparted to extend a partitionUnable to extend partition even though unallocated space is next to it using GPartedAllocate free space to root partitiongparted: how to merge unallocated space with a partition