How to conceptualize Newton's apple?Don't heavier objects actually fall faster because they exert their own gravity?Historically, how do we know that Earth moves around Sun? And it does so in an elliptical orbit?Newton's Third Law Of Motion: Earth Falling to an Apple?General Relativity view of Newton's appleFundamental paradox with Newton's Law of Gravity?Gravitational/centrifugal effects felt in a space elevatorDoes light travel faster if fired in the direction of Earth's rotation as opposed to against it?Doubt on how I have applied Newton's law of motion

Why does (inf + 0j)*1 evaluate to inf + nanj?

1, 2, 4, 8, 16, ... 33?

How can this Stack Exchange site have an animated favicon?

Does HTTP HSTS protect a domain from a bad-actor publically-trusted-CA issing a illegitimate valid certificate?

What is the meaning of word 'crack' in chapter 33 of A Game of Thrones?

How to conceptualize Newton's apple?

A high quality contribution but an annoying error is present in my published article

How does a preliminary hearing differ from a full trial?

A simple game that keeps track of the number of questions asked

How can an attacker use robots.txt?

Why did UK NHS pay for homeopathic treatments?

Co-Supervisor comes to office to help her students which distracts me

Is it really necessary to have a four hour meeting in Sprint planning?

Line segments inside a square

Safe to use 220V electric clothes dryer when building has been bridged down to 110V?

Does wetting a beer glass change the foam characteristics?

What is the difference between an astronaut in the ISS and a freediver in perfect neutral buoyancy?

How to say "cheat sheet" in French

How do pilots align the HUD with their eyeballs?

Is the mass of paint relevant in rocket design?

Order of ingredients when making Pizza dough

Two trains move towards each other, a bird moves between them. How many trips can the bird make?

How do you use the interjection for snorting?

To what extent is it worthwhile to report check fraud / refund scams?



How to conceptualize Newton's apple?


Don't heavier objects actually fall faster because they exert their own gravity?Historically, how do we know that Earth moves around Sun? And it does so in an elliptical orbit?Newton's Third Law Of Motion: Earth Falling to an Apple?General Relativity view of Newton's appleFundamental paradox with Newton's Law of Gravity?Gravitational/centrifugal effects felt in a space elevatorDoes light travel faster if fired in the direction of Earth's rotation as opposed to against it?Doubt on how I have applied Newton's law of motion






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








2












$begingroup$


I have no physics background, which is the genesis of my question.



In pop-science, it is frequently mentioned that Newton's apple didn't fall toward his head, but rather that his head came up and smacked the apple. Or, put another way, if you jump out of a window, you don't crash into the Earth, the Earth comes up and crashes into you.



Now, that is difficult to conceptualize since it is so far from daily experience. In other words, if one were sitting far away from Earth, viewing it from outer space, would one see oscillations of the Earth moving around smacking every free-falling object coming toward it? Meaning an apple falls from a tree in China, so Earth moves to the “east,” by some incomparably small number, in order to hit the apple; and an apple falls in the US, so it moves to the “west” to hit that apple.



That obviously isn't what it means, but that is how my non-physics-oriented brain tries to handle the information. How do I justify the Earth smacking something when it can't move in every direction to hit every object?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor



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






$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "In pop-science, it is frequently mentioned that Newton's apple didn't fall toward his head, but rather that his head came up and smacked the apple." It is? I haven't seen that in any pop-sci book. But see physics.stackexchange.com/q/3534/123208
    $endgroup$
    – PM 2Ring
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @PM 2ring Yes, Brian Greene frequently mentions it, as one example.
    $endgroup$
    – Sermo
    8 hours ago

















2












$begingroup$


I have no physics background, which is the genesis of my question.



In pop-science, it is frequently mentioned that Newton's apple didn't fall toward his head, but rather that his head came up and smacked the apple. Or, put another way, if you jump out of a window, you don't crash into the Earth, the Earth comes up and crashes into you.



Now, that is difficult to conceptualize since it is so far from daily experience. In other words, if one were sitting far away from Earth, viewing it from outer space, would one see oscillations of the Earth moving around smacking every free-falling object coming toward it? Meaning an apple falls from a tree in China, so Earth moves to the “east,” by some incomparably small number, in order to hit the apple; and an apple falls in the US, so it moves to the “west” to hit that apple.



That obviously isn't what it means, but that is how my non-physics-oriented brain tries to handle the information. How do I justify the Earth smacking something when it can't move in every direction to hit every object?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor



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






$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "In pop-science, it is frequently mentioned that Newton's apple didn't fall toward his head, but rather that his head came up and smacked the apple." It is? I haven't seen that in any pop-sci book. But see physics.stackexchange.com/q/3534/123208
    $endgroup$
    – PM 2Ring
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @PM 2ring Yes, Brian Greene frequently mentions it, as one example.
    $endgroup$
    – Sermo
    8 hours ago













2












2








2


0



$begingroup$


I have no physics background, which is the genesis of my question.



In pop-science, it is frequently mentioned that Newton's apple didn't fall toward his head, but rather that his head came up and smacked the apple. Or, put another way, if you jump out of a window, you don't crash into the Earth, the Earth comes up and crashes into you.



Now, that is difficult to conceptualize since it is so far from daily experience. In other words, if one were sitting far away from Earth, viewing it from outer space, would one see oscillations of the Earth moving around smacking every free-falling object coming toward it? Meaning an apple falls from a tree in China, so Earth moves to the “east,” by some incomparably small number, in order to hit the apple; and an apple falls in the US, so it moves to the “west” to hit that apple.



That obviously isn't what it means, but that is how my non-physics-oriented brain tries to handle the information. How do I justify the Earth smacking something when it can't move in every direction to hit every object?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor



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






$endgroup$




I have no physics background, which is the genesis of my question.



In pop-science, it is frequently mentioned that Newton's apple didn't fall toward his head, but rather that his head came up and smacked the apple. Or, put another way, if you jump out of a window, you don't crash into the Earth, the Earth comes up and crashes into you.



Now, that is difficult to conceptualize since it is so far from daily experience. In other words, if one were sitting far away from Earth, viewing it from outer space, would one see oscillations of the Earth moving around smacking every free-falling object coming toward it? Meaning an apple falls from a tree in China, so Earth moves to the “east,” by some incomparably small number, in order to hit the apple; and an apple falls in the US, so it moves to the “west” to hit that apple.



That obviously isn't what it means, but that is how my non-physics-oriented brain tries to handle the information. How do I justify the Earth smacking something when it can't move in every direction to hit every object?







newtonian-mechanics newtonian-gravity reference-frames relative-motion






share|cite|improve this question









New contributor



Sermo 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 question









New contributor



Sermo 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 question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 7 hours ago









Qmechanic

114k13 gold badges225 silver badges1352 bronze badges




114k13 gold badges225 silver badges1352 bronze badges






New contributor



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








asked 8 hours ago









SermoSermo

1162 bronze badges




1162 bronze badges




New contributor



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




New contributor




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












  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "In pop-science, it is frequently mentioned that Newton's apple didn't fall toward his head, but rather that his head came up and smacked the apple." It is? I haven't seen that in any pop-sci book. But see physics.stackexchange.com/q/3534/123208
    $endgroup$
    – PM 2Ring
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @PM 2ring Yes, Brian Greene frequently mentions it, as one example.
    $endgroup$
    – Sermo
    8 hours ago












  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "In pop-science, it is frequently mentioned that Newton's apple didn't fall toward his head, but rather that his head came up and smacked the apple." It is? I haven't seen that in any pop-sci book. But see physics.stackexchange.com/q/3534/123208
    $endgroup$
    – PM 2Ring
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @PM 2ring Yes, Brian Greene frequently mentions it, as one example.
    $endgroup$
    – Sermo
    8 hours ago







1




1




$begingroup$
"In pop-science, it is frequently mentioned that Newton's apple didn't fall toward his head, but rather that his head came up and smacked the apple." It is? I haven't seen that in any pop-sci book. But see physics.stackexchange.com/q/3534/123208
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
8 hours ago




$begingroup$
"In pop-science, it is frequently mentioned that Newton's apple didn't fall toward his head, but rather that his head came up and smacked the apple." It is? I haven't seen that in any pop-sci book. But see physics.stackexchange.com/q/3534/123208
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
8 hours ago












$begingroup$
@PM 2ring Yes, Brian Greene frequently mentions it, as one example.
$endgroup$
– Sermo
8 hours ago




$begingroup$
@PM 2ring Yes, Brian Greene frequently mentions it, as one example.
$endgroup$
– Sermo
8 hours ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















2














$begingroup$

The earth's gravity attracts the apple with a force of $mg$ where $m$ is the mass of the apple and $g$ is the acceleration due to gravity, which may be considered a constant and equal to 9.81 $fracms^2$ if the separation is not too great.



Newton's third law essentially states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. So the apple exerts an equal and opposite force of $mg$ on the earth. Although the forces are equal and opposite, the accelerations are not and are determined by Newton's second law, or $F=ma$, applied to each of the apple and the earth..



The acceleration of the apple is given by, where $m$ is the mass of the apple,



$$a_apple=fracFm=fracmgm=g=9.81fracms^2$$



Which is, of course, the acceleration of the apple downward toward the earth that we normally observe. However the earth, of mass $M$ is also accelerating upward, and its acceleration is given by



$$a_earth=fracFM=fracmMg$$



The mass $M$ of the earth is 5.972 x $10^24$ kg. The mass of an apple is about 0.1 kg. This means the acceleration of the earth upwards towards the apple is 1.67 x $10^-26fracms^2$. This is so small that it is essentially impossible to observe it.



Bottom line: While it is true that when an object falls to the earth the earth also rises to the object, if the object's mass is much much less than the mass of the earth, like our apple, the earth's upward acceleration would be too small to observe.



Hope this helps.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$














  • $begingroup$
    That helps a tremendous amount. To clarify, the Earth does indeed smack the apple, but because it is such a minor deviation, it is, as you say, essentially impossible to observe? And these events are occurring during every free-falling even on Earth.
    $endgroup$
    – Sermo
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Sermo The apple and the earth impact one another. But while the apple rushes towards the earth, the earth imperceptibly creeps up towards the apple. So the place where they "meet" at impact is an infinitely small distance from the original position of the surface of the earth. If the masses were equal to each other, they would meet iat the midpoint, if that makes sense to you.
    $endgroup$
    – Bob D
    7 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    That makes perfect sense. Thanks so much for your patience. :)
    $endgroup$
    – Sermo
    7 hours ago


















1














$begingroup$


Newton's apple didn't fall toward his head, but rather that his head came up and smacked the apple.




This is relative:



  1. From the apple's point of view, the Newton's head came up.

  2. From the Newton's point of view, the apple fall toward his head.

  3. From the center of mass of the system "Earth + apple" point of view, both movements perform.

  4. From the Sun's point of view, both movements perform, too, and their trajectories are not linear.

The other question is which object attracts the other one. The answer is that both of them attract the other object (with equal force).






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$














  • $begingroup$
    So, the apple isn't literally rushing up and hitting his head?
    $endgroup$
    – Sermo
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    You probably wanted to write “falling down”. What you mean “literally” is most likely the “common sense”, which is nothing else than the point of view of “normal” people (staying / sitting / lying) next to Newton — “normal” in the sense that they aren't just falling down (or jumping up).
    $endgroup$
    – MarianD
    7 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    The problem is that we humans discriminate against apples, so we don't care the apple's point of view :-))
    $endgroup$
    – MarianD
    7 hours ago



















0














$begingroup$

I think the important thing to bear in mind is that in classical dynamics, before you can have motion, there has to be acceleration, and before there can be acceleration, there has to be a force acting.



In the case of the apple and the Earth, when the apple is suspended, both bodies exert an equal and opposite force on each other (by Newton's 3rd Law). However, what you have to bear in mind is that there are also forces acting on the Earth from the hundreds (if not thousands) of other apples that are just being dropped in that same instant, at different points above the Earth. Of course, I am exaggerating a bit - there won't be that many apples, but there will be a lot of other objects all over the surface of the Earth, which are all simultaneously imposing gravitational reaction forces on it.



Overall, on average, the sum of all these forces is going to be pretty close to zero. Or, at least, it will be vastly dwarfed by the gravitational forces caused by the Sun and Moon. The Earth isn't going to be reacting to each little force that acts upon it individually and jumping around between them - it will be reacting to the overall resultant force generated by all of those forces at any given time, which will be relatively smooth and steady (on average).



The other thing to bear in mind is that, even if we just consider the Earth and a single apple in isolation, before you can have movement you have to have acceleration. The tiny gravitational force from the apple will cause an even tinier acceleration on the Earth, due to its very much larger mass. So, by the time the apple hits the ground, the Earth will have accelerated by such a tiny amount that any motion will be almost imperceptible and most likely impossible to detect/measure. However, again, this situation is highly unrealistic, because in practice it is not possible to isolate the Earth and a single apple from other nearby cosmic bodies, which will be generating much more significant forces.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$

















    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "151"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );







    Sermo is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









    draft saved

    draft discarded
















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f503899%2fhow-to-conceptualize-newtons-apple%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    2














    $begingroup$

    The earth's gravity attracts the apple with a force of $mg$ where $m$ is the mass of the apple and $g$ is the acceleration due to gravity, which may be considered a constant and equal to 9.81 $fracms^2$ if the separation is not too great.



    Newton's third law essentially states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. So the apple exerts an equal and opposite force of $mg$ on the earth. Although the forces are equal and opposite, the accelerations are not and are determined by Newton's second law, or $F=ma$, applied to each of the apple and the earth..



    The acceleration of the apple is given by, where $m$ is the mass of the apple,



    $$a_apple=fracFm=fracmgm=g=9.81fracms^2$$



    Which is, of course, the acceleration of the apple downward toward the earth that we normally observe. However the earth, of mass $M$ is also accelerating upward, and its acceleration is given by



    $$a_earth=fracFM=fracmMg$$



    The mass $M$ of the earth is 5.972 x $10^24$ kg. The mass of an apple is about 0.1 kg. This means the acceleration of the earth upwards towards the apple is 1.67 x $10^-26fracms^2$. This is so small that it is essentially impossible to observe it.



    Bottom line: While it is true that when an object falls to the earth the earth also rises to the object, if the object's mass is much much less than the mass of the earth, like our apple, the earth's upward acceleration would be too small to observe.



    Hope this helps.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$














    • $begingroup$
      That helps a tremendous amount. To clarify, the Earth does indeed smack the apple, but because it is such a minor deviation, it is, as you say, essentially impossible to observe? And these events are occurring during every free-falling even on Earth.
      $endgroup$
      – Sermo
      7 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @Sermo The apple and the earth impact one another. But while the apple rushes towards the earth, the earth imperceptibly creeps up towards the apple. So the place where they "meet" at impact is an infinitely small distance from the original position of the surface of the earth. If the masses were equal to each other, they would meet iat the midpoint, if that makes sense to you.
      $endgroup$
      – Bob D
      7 hours ago











    • $begingroup$
      That makes perfect sense. Thanks so much for your patience. :)
      $endgroup$
      – Sermo
      7 hours ago















    2














    $begingroup$

    The earth's gravity attracts the apple with a force of $mg$ where $m$ is the mass of the apple and $g$ is the acceleration due to gravity, which may be considered a constant and equal to 9.81 $fracms^2$ if the separation is not too great.



    Newton's third law essentially states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. So the apple exerts an equal and opposite force of $mg$ on the earth. Although the forces are equal and opposite, the accelerations are not and are determined by Newton's second law, or $F=ma$, applied to each of the apple and the earth..



    The acceleration of the apple is given by, where $m$ is the mass of the apple,



    $$a_apple=fracFm=fracmgm=g=9.81fracms^2$$



    Which is, of course, the acceleration of the apple downward toward the earth that we normally observe. However the earth, of mass $M$ is also accelerating upward, and its acceleration is given by



    $$a_earth=fracFM=fracmMg$$



    The mass $M$ of the earth is 5.972 x $10^24$ kg. The mass of an apple is about 0.1 kg. This means the acceleration of the earth upwards towards the apple is 1.67 x $10^-26fracms^2$. This is so small that it is essentially impossible to observe it.



    Bottom line: While it is true that when an object falls to the earth the earth also rises to the object, if the object's mass is much much less than the mass of the earth, like our apple, the earth's upward acceleration would be too small to observe.



    Hope this helps.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$














    • $begingroup$
      That helps a tremendous amount. To clarify, the Earth does indeed smack the apple, but because it is such a minor deviation, it is, as you say, essentially impossible to observe? And these events are occurring during every free-falling even on Earth.
      $endgroup$
      – Sermo
      7 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @Sermo The apple and the earth impact one another. But while the apple rushes towards the earth, the earth imperceptibly creeps up towards the apple. So the place where they "meet" at impact is an infinitely small distance from the original position of the surface of the earth. If the masses were equal to each other, they would meet iat the midpoint, if that makes sense to you.
      $endgroup$
      – Bob D
      7 hours ago











    • $begingroup$
      That makes perfect sense. Thanks so much for your patience. :)
      $endgroup$
      – Sermo
      7 hours ago













    2














    2










    2







    $begingroup$

    The earth's gravity attracts the apple with a force of $mg$ where $m$ is the mass of the apple and $g$ is the acceleration due to gravity, which may be considered a constant and equal to 9.81 $fracms^2$ if the separation is not too great.



    Newton's third law essentially states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. So the apple exerts an equal and opposite force of $mg$ on the earth. Although the forces are equal and opposite, the accelerations are not and are determined by Newton's second law, or $F=ma$, applied to each of the apple and the earth..



    The acceleration of the apple is given by, where $m$ is the mass of the apple,



    $$a_apple=fracFm=fracmgm=g=9.81fracms^2$$



    Which is, of course, the acceleration of the apple downward toward the earth that we normally observe. However the earth, of mass $M$ is also accelerating upward, and its acceleration is given by



    $$a_earth=fracFM=fracmMg$$



    The mass $M$ of the earth is 5.972 x $10^24$ kg. The mass of an apple is about 0.1 kg. This means the acceleration of the earth upwards towards the apple is 1.67 x $10^-26fracms^2$. This is so small that it is essentially impossible to observe it.



    Bottom line: While it is true that when an object falls to the earth the earth also rises to the object, if the object's mass is much much less than the mass of the earth, like our apple, the earth's upward acceleration would be too small to observe.



    Hope this helps.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    The earth's gravity attracts the apple with a force of $mg$ where $m$ is the mass of the apple and $g$ is the acceleration due to gravity, which may be considered a constant and equal to 9.81 $fracms^2$ if the separation is not too great.



    Newton's third law essentially states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. So the apple exerts an equal and opposite force of $mg$ on the earth. Although the forces are equal and opposite, the accelerations are not and are determined by Newton's second law, or $F=ma$, applied to each of the apple and the earth..



    The acceleration of the apple is given by, where $m$ is the mass of the apple,



    $$a_apple=fracFm=fracmgm=g=9.81fracms^2$$



    Which is, of course, the acceleration of the apple downward toward the earth that we normally observe. However the earth, of mass $M$ is also accelerating upward, and its acceleration is given by



    $$a_earth=fracFM=fracmMg$$



    The mass $M$ of the earth is 5.972 x $10^24$ kg. The mass of an apple is about 0.1 kg. This means the acceleration of the earth upwards towards the apple is 1.67 x $10^-26fracms^2$. This is so small that it is essentially impossible to observe it.



    Bottom line: While it is true that when an object falls to the earth the earth also rises to the object, if the object's mass is much much less than the mass of the earth, like our apple, the earth's upward acceleration would be too small to observe.



    Hope this helps.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered 7 hours ago









    Bob DBob D

    13.7k3 gold badges12 silver badges40 bronze badges




    13.7k3 gold badges12 silver badges40 bronze badges














    • $begingroup$
      That helps a tremendous amount. To clarify, the Earth does indeed smack the apple, but because it is such a minor deviation, it is, as you say, essentially impossible to observe? And these events are occurring during every free-falling even on Earth.
      $endgroup$
      – Sermo
      7 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @Sermo The apple and the earth impact one another. But while the apple rushes towards the earth, the earth imperceptibly creeps up towards the apple. So the place where they "meet" at impact is an infinitely small distance from the original position of the surface of the earth. If the masses were equal to each other, they would meet iat the midpoint, if that makes sense to you.
      $endgroup$
      – Bob D
      7 hours ago











    • $begingroup$
      That makes perfect sense. Thanks so much for your patience. :)
      $endgroup$
      – Sermo
      7 hours ago
















    • $begingroup$
      That helps a tremendous amount. To clarify, the Earth does indeed smack the apple, but because it is such a minor deviation, it is, as you say, essentially impossible to observe? And these events are occurring during every free-falling even on Earth.
      $endgroup$
      – Sermo
      7 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @Sermo The apple and the earth impact one another. But while the apple rushes towards the earth, the earth imperceptibly creeps up towards the apple. So the place where they "meet" at impact is an infinitely small distance from the original position of the surface of the earth. If the masses were equal to each other, they would meet iat the midpoint, if that makes sense to you.
      $endgroup$
      – Bob D
      7 hours ago











    • $begingroup$
      That makes perfect sense. Thanks so much for your patience. :)
      $endgroup$
      – Sermo
      7 hours ago















    $begingroup$
    That helps a tremendous amount. To clarify, the Earth does indeed smack the apple, but because it is such a minor deviation, it is, as you say, essentially impossible to observe? And these events are occurring during every free-falling even on Earth.
    $endgroup$
    – Sermo
    7 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    That helps a tremendous amount. To clarify, the Earth does indeed smack the apple, but because it is such a minor deviation, it is, as you say, essentially impossible to observe? And these events are occurring during every free-falling even on Earth.
    $endgroup$
    – Sermo
    7 hours ago












    $begingroup$
    @Sermo The apple and the earth impact one another. But while the apple rushes towards the earth, the earth imperceptibly creeps up towards the apple. So the place where they "meet" at impact is an infinitely small distance from the original position of the surface of the earth. If the masses were equal to each other, they would meet iat the midpoint, if that makes sense to you.
    $endgroup$
    – Bob D
    7 hours ago





    $begingroup$
    @Sermo The apple and the earth impact one another. But while the apple rushes towards the earth, the earth imperceptibly creeps up towards the apple. So the place where they "meet" at impact is an infinitely small distance from the original position of the surface of the earth. If the masses were equal to each other, they would meet iat the midpoint, if that makes sense to you.
    $endgroup$
    – Bob D
    7 hours ago













    $begingroup$
    That makes perfect sense. Thanks so much for your patience. :)
    $endgroup$
    – Sermo
    7 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    That makes perfect sense. Thanks so much for your patience. :)
    $endgroup$
    – Sermo
    7 hours ago













    1














    $begingroup$


    Newton's apple didn't fall toward his head, but rather that his head came up and smacked the apple.




    This is relative:



    1. From the apple's point of view, the Newton's head came up.

    2. From the Newton's point of view, the apple fall toward his head.

    3. From the center of mass of the system "Earth + apple" point of view, both movements perform.

    4. From the Sun's point of view, both movements perform, too, and their trajectories are not linear.

    The other question is which object attracts the other one. The answer is that both of them attract the other object (with equal force).






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$














    • $begingroup$
      So, the apple isn't literally rushing up and hitting his head?
      $endgroup$
      – Sermo
      7 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      You probably wanted to write “falling down”. What you mean “literally” is most likely the “common sense”, which is nothing else than the point of view of “normal” people (staying / sitting / lying) next to Newton — “normal” in the sense that they aren't just falling down (or jumping up).
      $endgroup$
      – MarianD
      7 hours ago











    • $begingroup$
      The problem is that we humans discriminate against apples, so we don't care the apple's point of view :-))
      $endgroup$
      – MarianD
      7 hours ago
















    1














    $begingroup$


    Newton's apple didn't fall toward his head, but rather that his head came up and smacked the apple.




    This is relative:



    1. From the apple's point of view, the Newton's head came up.

    2. From the Newton's point of view, the apple fall toward his head.

    3. From the center of mass of the system "Earth + apple" point of view, both movements perform.

    4. From the Sun's point of view, both movements perform, too, and their trajectories are not linear.

    The other question is which object attracts the other one. The answer is that both of them attract the other object (with equal force).






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$














    • $begingroup$
      So, the apple isn't literally rushing up and hitting his head?
      $endgroup$
      – Sermo
      7 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      You probably wanted to write “falling down”. What you mean “literally” is most likely the “common sense”, which is nothing else than the point of view of “normal” people (staying / sitting / lying) next to Newton — “normal” in the sense that they aren't just falling down (or jumping up).
      $endgroup$
      – MarianD
      7 hours ago











    • $begingroup$
      The problem is that we humans discriminate against apples, so we don't care the apple's point of view :-))
      $endgroup$
      – MarianD
      7 hours ago














    1














    1










    1







    $begingroup$


    Newton's apple didn't fall toward his head, but rather that his head came up and smacked the apple.




    This is relative:



    1. From the apple's point of view, the Newton's head came up.

    2. From the Newton's point of view, the apple fall toward his head.

    3. From the center of mass of the system "Earth + apple" point of view, both movements perform.

    4. From the Sun's point of view, both movements perform, too, and their trajectories are not linear.

    The other question is which object attracts the other one. The answer is that both of them attract the other object (with equal force).






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$




    Newton's apple didn't fall toward his head, but rather that his head came up and smacked the apple.




    This is relative:



    1. From the apple's point of view, the Newton's head came up.

    2. From the Newton's point of view, the apple fall toward his head.

    3. From the center of mass of the system "Earth + apple" point of view, both movements perform.

    4. From the Sun's point of view, both movements perform, too, and their trajectories are not linear.

    The other question is which object attracts the other one. The answer is that both of them attract the other object (with equal force).







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited 7 hours ago

























    answered 8 hours ago









    MarianDMarianD

    1,4641 gold badge7 silver badges15 bronze badges




    1,4641 gold badge7 silver badges15 bronze badges














    • $begingroup$
      So, the apple isn't literally rushing up and hitting his head?
      $endgroup$
      – Sermo
      7 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      You probably wanted to write “falling down”. What you mean “literally” is most likely the “common sense”, which is nothing else than the point of view of “normal” people (staying / sitting / lying) next to Newton — “normal” in the sense that they aren't just falling down (or jumping up).
      $endgroup$
      – MarianD
      7 hours ago











    • $begingroup$
      The problem is that we humans discriminate against apples, so we don't care the apple's point of view :-))
      $endgroup$
      – MarianD
      7 hours ago

















    • $begingroup$
      So, the apple isn't literally rushing up and hitting his head?
      $endgroup$
      – Sermo
      7 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      You probably wanted to write “falling down”. What you mean “literally” is most likely the “common sense”, which is nothing else than the point of view of “normal” people (staying / sitting / lying) next to Newton — “normal” in the sense that they aren't just falling down (or jumping up).
      $endgroup$
      – MarianD
      7 hours ago











    • $begingroup$
      The problem is that we humans discriminate against apples, so we don't care the apple's point of view :-))
      $endgroup$
      – MarianD
      7 hours ago
















    $begingroup$
    So, the apple isn't literally rushing up and hitting his head?
    $endgroup$
    – Sermo
    7 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    So, the apple isn't literally rushing up and hitting his head?
    $endgroup$
    – Sermo
    7 hours ago












    $begingroup$
    You probably wanted to write “falling down”. What you mean “literally” is most likely the “common sense”, which is nothing else than the point of view of “normal” people (staying / sitting / lying) next to Newton — “normal” in the sense that they aren't just falling down (or jumping up).
    $endgroup$
    – MarianD
    7 hours ago





    $begingroup$
    You probably wanted to write “falling down”. What you mean “literally” is most likely the “common sense”, which is nothing else than the point of view of “normal” people (staying / sitting / lying) next to Newton — “normal” in the sense that they aren't just falling down (or jumping up).
    $endgroup$
    – MarianD
    7 hours ago













    $begingroup$
    The problem is that we humans discriminate against apples, so we don't care the apple's point of view :-))
    $endgroup$
    – MarianD
    7 hours ago





    $begingroup$
    The problem is that we humans discriminate against apples, so we don't care the apple's point of view :-))
    $endgroup$
    – MarianD
    7 hours ago












    0














    $begingroup$

    I think the important thing to bear in mind is that in classical dynamics, before you can have motion, there has to be acceleration, and before there can be acceleration, there has to be a force acting.



    In the case of the apple and the Earth, when the apple is suspended, both bodies exert an equal and opposite force on each other (by Newton's 3rd Law). However, what you have to bear in mind is that there are also forces acting on the Earth from the hundreds (if not thousands) of other apples that are just being dropped in that same instant, at different points above the Earth. Of course, I am exaggerating a bit - there won't be that many apples, but there will be a lot of other objects all over the surface of the Earth, which are all simultaneously imposing gravitational reaction forces on it.



    Overall, on average, the sum of all these forces is going to be pretty close to zero. Or, at least, it will be vastly dwarfed by the gravitational forces caused by the Sun and Moon. The Earth isn't going to be reacting to each little force that acts upon it individually and jumping around between them - it will be reacting to the overall resultant force generated by all of those forces at any given time, which will be relatively smooth and steady (on average).



    The other thing to bear in mind is that, even if we just consider the Earth and a single apple in isolation, before you can have movement you have to have acceleration. The tiny gravitational force from the apple will cause an even tinier acceleration on the Earth, due to its very much larger mass. So, by the time the apple hits the ground, the Earth will have accelerated by such a tiny amount that any motion will be almost imperceptible and most likely impossible to detect/measure. However, again, this situation is highly unrealistic, because in practice it is not possible to isolate the Earth and a single apple from other nearby cosmic bodies, which will be generating much more significant forces.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



















      0














      $begingroup$

      I think the important thing to bear in mind is that in classical dynamics, before you can have motion, there has to be acceleration, and before there can be acceleration, there has to be a force acting.



      In the case of the apple and the Earth, when the apple is suspended, both bodies exert an equal and opposite force on each other (by Newton's 3rd Law). However, what you have to bear in mind is that there are also forces acting on the Earth from the hundreds (if not thousands) of other apples that are just being dropped in that same instant, at different points above the Earth. Of course, I am exaggerating a bit - there won't be that many apples, but there will be a lot of other objects all over the surface of the Earth, which are all simultaneously imposing gravitational reaction forces on it.



      Overall, on average, the sum of all these forces is going to be pretty close to zero. Or, at least, it will be vastly dwarfed by the gravitational forces caused by the Sun and Moon. The Earth isn't going to be reacting to each little force that acts upon it individually and jumping around between them - it will be reacting to the overall resultant force generated by all of those forces at any given time, which will be relatively smooth and steady (on average).



      The other thing to bear in mind is that, even if we just consider the Earth and a single apple in isolation, before you can have movement you have to have acceleration. The tiny gravitational force from the apple will cause an even tinier acceleration on the Earth, due to its very much larger mass. So, by the time the apple hits the ground, the Earth will have accelerated by such a tiny amount that any motion will be almost imperceptible and most likely impossible to detect/measure. However, again, this situation is highly unrealistic, because in practice it is not possible to isolate the Earth and a single apple from other nearby cosmic bodies, which will be generating much more significant forces.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$

















        0














        0










        0







        $begingroup$

        I think the important thing to bear in mind is that in classical dynamics, before you can have motion, there has to be acceleration, and before there can be acceleration, there has to be a force acting.



        In the case of the apple and the Earth, when the apple is suspended, both bodies exert an equal and opposite force on each other (by Newton's 3rd Law). However, what you have to bear in mind is that there are also forces acting on the Earth from the hundreds (if not thousands) of other apples that are just being dropped in that same instant, at different points above the Earth. Of course, I am exaggerating a bit - there won't be that many apples, but there will be a lot of other objects all over the surface of the Earth, which are all simultaneously imposing gravitational reaction forces on it.



        Overall, on average, the sum of all these forces is going to be pretty close to zero. Or, at least, it will be vastly dwarfed by the gravitational forces caused by the Sun and Moon. The Earth isn't going to be reacting to each little force that acts upon it individually and jumping around between them - it will be reacting to the overall resultant force generated by all of those forces at any given time, which will be relatively smooth and steady (on average).



        The other thing to bear in mind is that, even if we just consider the Earth and a single apple in isolation, before you can have movement you have to have acceleration. The tiny gravitational force from the apple will cause an even tinier acceleration on the Earth, due to its very much larger mass. So, by the time the apple hits the ground, the Earth will have accelerated by such a tiny amount that any motion will be almost imperceptible and most likely impossible to detect/measure. However, again, this situation is highly unrealistic, because in practice it is not possible to isolate the Earth and a single apple from other nearby cosmic bodies, which will be generating much more significant forces.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        I think the important thing to bear in mind is that in classical dynamics, before you can have motion, there has to be acceleration, and before there can be acceleration, there has to be a force acting.



        In the case of the apple and the Earth, when the apple is suspended, both bodies exert an equal and opposite force on each other (by Newton's 3rd Law). However, what you have to bear in mind is that there are also forces acting on the Earth from the hundreds (if not thousands) of other apples that are just being dropped in that same instant, at different points above the Earth. Of course, I am exaggerating a bit - there won't be that many apples, but there will be a lot of other objects all over the surface of the Earth, which are all simultaneously imposing gravitational reaction forces on it.



        Overall, on average, the sum of all these forces is going to be pretty close to zero. Or, at least, it will be vastly dwarfed by the gravitational forces caused by the Sun and Moon. The Earth isn't going to be reacting to each little force that acts upon it individually and jumping around between them - it will be reacting to the overall resultant force generated by all of those forces at any given time, which will be relatively smooth and steady (on average).



        The other thing to bear in mind is that, even if we just consider the Earth and a single apple in isolation, before you can have movement you have to have acceleration. The tiny gravitational force from the apple will cause an even tinier acceleration on the Earth, due to its very much larger mass. So, by the time the apple hits the ground, the Earth will have accelerated by such a tiny amount that any motion will be almost imperceptible and most likely impossible to detect/measure. However, again, this situation is highly unrealistic, because in practice it is not possible to isolate the Earth and a single apple from other nearby cosmic bodies, which will be generating much more significant forces.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered 7 hours ago









        Time4TeaTime4Tea

        2,9041 gold badge13 silver badges34 bronze badges




        2,9041 gold badge13 silver badges34 bronze badges
























            Sermo is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









            draft saved

            draft discarded

















            Sermo is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












            Sermo is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











            Sermo is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














            Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f503899%2fhow-to-conceptualize-newtons-apple%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

            Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

            Ласкавець круглолистий Зміст Опис | Поширення | Галерея | Примітки | Посилання | Навігаційне меню58171138361-22960890446Bupleurum rotundifoliumEuro+Med PlantbasePlants of the World Online — Kew ScienceGermplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN)Ласкавецькн. VI : Літери Ком — Левиправивши або дописавши її