According to general relativity that is?
-
In my left hand, I have a pen.
In my right hand, I have a hammer.
Now, if we were on Earth and I were to drop these to the ground, you'd think that the hammer would get there first (and you'd be partially correct, but only due to the larger shape of the hammer).
BUT on the international space station, nothing falls. Or rather, everything falls, orbiting Earth in a common state of free fall.
If an astronaut releases the hammer and the pen, from his point of view, they just stay in place.
BUT, I'm sure you still could determine that there was something different about the hammer and the pen, even though they don't fall and even though you don't need to support them from below.
With one flick of the finger, the pen runs away rapidly
With the same (as good as one can do the same) flick of the finger, the hammer doesn't go far at all, and it hurts a finger more than it hurts the hammer
What is different about the pen and the hammer? The hammer has more mass. This implies that the hammer has more inertia, and more desire to remain in its same state of motion.
There you go, acceleration (in general usage of the term) DOES DEPEND on mass.
BUT, what DOESN'T DEPEND on mass, is acceleration due to GRAVITY ALONE. I.e. free fall.
Whether you choose to analyze free fall with general relativity or with Newtonian mechanics...the acceleration DOES NOT depend on mass. Reason: because mass "cancels out" of the equation. It is both the cause and the hindrance property, which have no net effect on the result.
In my right hand, I have a hammer.
Now, if we were on Earth and I were to drop these to the ground, you'd think that the hammer would get there first (and you'd be partially correct, but only due to the larger shape of the hammer).
BUT on the international space station, nothing falls. Or rather, everything falls, orbiting Earth in a common state of free fall.
If an astronaut releases the hammer and the pen, from his point of view, they just stay in place.
BUT, I'm sure you still could determine that there was something different about the hammer and the pen, even though they don't fall and even though you don't need to support them from below.
With one flick of the finger, the pen runs away rapidly
With the same (as good as one can do the same) flick of the finger, the hammer doesn't go far at all, and it hurts a finger more than it hurts the hammer
What is different about the pen and the hammer? The hammer has more mass. This implies that the hammer has more inertia, and more desire to remain in its same state of motion.
There you go, acceleration (in general usage of the term) DOES DEPEND on mass.
BUT, what DOESN'T DEPEND on mass, is acceleration due to GRAVITY ALONE. I.e. free fall.
Whether you choose to analyze free fall with general relativity or with Newtonian mechanics...the acceleration DOES NOT depend on mass. Reason: because mass "cancels out" of the equation. It is both the cause and the hindrance property, which have no net effect on the result.
-
if it is acceleration due to gravity whicj is 32 ft/s^2 i dont think mass will affect acceleration like dropping a heavy ball and a feather on a high building( without air resistance) both items of different mass will drop at the same time but if you consider the amount of energy to accelerate a bigger mass compared to a smaller mass i think that it will be considered a factor
-
Yes, the formula is F=MA, mass and acceleration affect the force needed. if you re-arrange the problem its A=F/M OR M=A/M so they are related.
-
ΣF=ma, which means that the sum of the forces equals mass times acceleration.
-
Mass is one of the variables, yes.