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

Do we know the situation in Britain before Sealion (summer 1940)?

Is it more effective to add yeast before or after kneading?

word frequency from file using partial match

Does Sitecore have support for Sitecore products in containers?

Is there a difference between equality and identity?

Why does this image of Jupiter look so strange?

Can Northern Ireland's border issue be solved by repartition?

My Project Manager does not accept carry-over in Scrum, Is that normal?

Strange Sticky Substance on Digital Camera

Writing a letter of recommendation for a mediocre student

Comma Code - Automate the Boring Stuff with Python

Hilbert's hotel: why can't I repeat it infinitely many times?

How to deal with my team leader who keeps calling me about project updates even though I am on leave for personal reasons?

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

Bus tickets in Krakow

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

while loop factorial only works up to 20?

How can I repair this gas leak on my new range? Teflon tape isn't working

What is the need of methods like GET and POST in the HTTP protocol?

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

How to deal with a Homophobic PC

Subverting the emotional woman and stoic man trope

Line segments inside a square

Does the Prepare Food ability from Cook's Utensils stack?



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;








3












$begingroup$


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
    10 hours ago










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

















3












$begingroup$


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
    10 hours ago










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













3












3








3


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 9 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 10 hours ago









SermoSermo

1212 bronze badges




1212 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
    10 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @PM 2ring Yes, Brian Greene frequently mentions it, as one example.
    $endgroup$
    – Sermo
    10 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
    10 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @PM 2ring Yes, Brian Greene frequently mentions it, as one example.
    $endgroup$
    – Sermo
    10 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
10 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
10 hours ago












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




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










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















3














$begingroup$

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
    9 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
    9 hours ago











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


















2














$begingroup$


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
    9 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
    9 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
    9 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









    3














    $begingroup$

    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
      9 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
      9 hours ago











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















    3














    $begingroup$

    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
      9 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
      9 hours ago











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













    3














    3










    3







    $begingroup$

    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 9 hours ago









    Bob DBob D

    13.8k3 gold badges12 silver badges40 bronze badges




    13.8k3 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
      9 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
      9 hours ago











    • $begingroup$
      That makes perfect sense. Thanks so much for your patience. :)
      $endgroup$
      – Sermo
      9 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
      9 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
      9 hours ago











    • $begingroup$
      That makes perfect sense. Thanks so much for your patience. :)
      $endgroup$
      – Sermo
      9 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
    9 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
    9 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
    9 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
    9 hours ago













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




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













    2














    $begingroup$


    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
      9 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
      9 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
      9 hours ago
















    2














    $begingroup$


    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
      9 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
      9 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
      9 hours ago














    2














    2










    2







    $begingroup$


    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 9 hours ago

























    answered 10 hours ago









    MarianDMarianD

    1,4741 gold badge7 silver badges15 bronze badges




    1,4741 gold badge7 silver badges15 bronze badges














    • $begingroup$
      So, the apple isn't literally rushing up and hitting his head?
      $endgroup$
      – Sermo
      9 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
      9 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
      9 hours ago

















    • $begingroup$
      So, the apple isn't literally rushing up and hitting his head?
      $endgroup$
      – Sermo
      9 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
      9 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
      9 hours ago
















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




    $begingroup$
    So, the apple isn't literally rushing up and hitting his head?
    $endgroup$
    – Sermo
    9 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
    9 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
    9 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
    9 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
    9 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 9 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

            ParseJSON using SSJSUsing AMPscript with SSJS ActivitiesHow to resubscribe a user in Marketing cloud using SSJS?Pulling Subscriber Status from Lists using SSJSRetrieving Emails using SSJSProblem in updating DE using SSJSUsing SSJS to send single email in Marketing CloudError adding EmailSendDefinition using SSJS

            Кампала Садржај Географија Географија Историја Становништво Привреда Партнерски градови Референце Спољашње везе Мени за навигацију0°11′ СГШ; 32°20′ ИГД / 0.18° СГШ; 32.34° ИГД / 0.18; 32.340°11′ СГШ; 32°20′ ИГД / 0.18° СГШ; 32.34° ИГД / 0.18; 32.34МедијиПодациЗванични веб-сајту

            19. јануар Садржај Догађаји Рођења Смрти Празници и дани сећања Види још Референце Мени за навигацијуу