Mass vs Falling Speed

Have you ever heard of air resistance? Retard.

>>8424789
Yes, and if the bag is enveloping the egg than shouldn't it fall at the same rate of the bag because the air isn't falling around the egg thus it should make it fall at the same rate as the bag because air resistance is equal, yet in real life the egg will pull the bag down around it and land very fast. Did you even read my post?

>>8424792
I guess you really are retarded. The bag may have the same shape, but it does not have the same density. Wow. So it falls faster. Incredible.
The egg alone falls faster than the bag alone. The combination of the two falls at a rate somewhere in between those two, closer to that of the egg. Is that what you're asking?

>>8424792
Also, the egg is pulling down on the bag. The two objects are not magically distinct. Also, with your argument, no solid object should ever be able to fall, because any solid object can be semantically divided into its boundary surface and interior. If an object's extremely thin boundary surface were full of air, then it would not really fall. This is analogous to the bag in your idea. If you include the interior, then the object obviously falls much better, just like when you add the egg.

>>8424800
Yes that answers my question, I was never taught that in school so I thought I would ask that on a science board. Glad you feel superior though :^)

>>8424803
Guess what, I am because I can think for two fucking seconds and use google. I wasn't taught it either.

>>8424808
I googled it and couldn't find it, good for you though

File: image.jpg (150KB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 640x1136px

>>8424809

>>8424786
Because mass has an influence on aerodynamics. If you take two identical feathers except one of them is made of lead, then it'll fall faster because the force that air exerts on it will produce a smaller acceleration (which is synthesised by saying F=ma).

>>8424786
As I understand it, you are saying that an egg in a bag will fall faster than either the egg or the bag by themselves?

I don't have any eggs, but that sounds incredible. As in, not credible.

>>8424811
>mobileposter
>superior

File: gravity.png (80KB, 1721x562px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1721x562px

>>8424786
>Not trolling, but it makes me wonder if this is all bullshit.

in this equation M1 is the earth mass and M2 is the mass of whatever is falling towards the surface. The releative difference between a hammer mass and a feather mass is << than the mass of the earth so the meme about falling at "exactly the same rate in a vacuum" was born. Even though its not exactly true.

>>8425280
This is wrong, ignore.

>>8425417
>This is wrong

youre an idiot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDp1tiUsZw8

>>8425423
Either troll or incredibly stupid.

>>8424786
Going to give an answer without being a jackass about it

The rate of which objects fall is dependent on density and air resistance. Objects with higher density will sink below objects with lower density, the higher the density difference the faster this happens

This is why helium balloons fly up. If you put a helium balloon in a vaccum, it would fall, the helium is less dense than Earth's atmosphere, but in a vaccuum the only force acting upon it is gravity alone

Anyways, if you put an egg in a bag, the bag will fall faster because you've increased its density compared to the surrounding atmosphere. Make sense?

Sorry about the other jackasses

>>8425440
Stop confusing him with this density crap, buoyancy isn't relevant in this case.
This >>8425000 is the answer to OP's confusion.
Two objects with the same shape and surface material falling at the same speed will encounter the same air resistance, but the acceleration caused by that air resistance is dependent on the mass of the object, the greater the mass, the smaller the acceleration.
So for the case of the egg and the bag, while the gravitational acceleration remains the same, the negative acceleration due to air resistance is smaller when the egg is in the bag, due to its higher mass.

>>8425467
This

>>8425440
Stupid.

>>8425497
>mfw I'm a stupid brainlet

This is why I'm a chemist and not a physicist. Sorry

>>8425467
>gravitational acceleration remains the same

this is an acceptable simplification for Fg=(G*M1*M2)/(R^2)

>>8425530
I'm not sure what you're trying to say but I think you're confusing force with acceleration.

>>8425538
substitute Fg=M2*a solve for a. solve again for Fg=M1*a determine the time to intersect between two accelerating bodies (planet and object). Solve again for planet and object of different mass, result will be so slightly different as to make no meaningful difference in this context.

>>8425051
It should just make OP feel worse :^)

>>8424786
gravitational force scales with mass
air resistance does not.