samsingh

is true but some how i do dissagree

Now wait. Hear me out first before jumping to conclusions.

 

We often take for granted the thought that gravity is a force, but if it were a force, it wouldn't be constant because if it were constant, an object of less mass would accelerate more rapidly than an object of greater mass due to inverse proportionality. Force is mass times accelertion, so if the force were constant, and the mass decreased, then the acceleration must increase. But that's not the case. All free-falling objects in a vacuum affected by the same source of gravity accelerate uniformly.

 

The only way these two problems could be solved is if you were to say that gravity is not constant, but that wouldn't make sense in Newtonian physics because absolutely nothing about the earth changes, not its mass, not its density, nothing, and according to everything I've been raised to know, you cannot change just one thing in the universe without changing at least one more thing.

 

And to top it all off, gravity, supposedly a force, is not even measured in Newtons, the standard unit of force. It's measured in the unit of acceleration, 9.8m/s/s, which is what remains constant under gravity, not the force being applied.

 

So wouldn't it be more accurate if gravity was defined as an acceleration rather than a force? It certainly makes sense to me. Even my physics professor agrees that my logic is water tight.

your discussion is kind of good but it is a force because its that force which makes lighter mass aclerate.how can gravity be acleration when 2 equall mass bodies are allowed to freefall they will have the same speed or velocity and same acceleration because f=ma

can supersonic aircraft have vertical takeoff:cool:

you see when the 1mm metal is inside it will be attracted by electric magnet

i think ri can be negative