As per Law of Gravitation, there is no gravitational force on a massless object, so it
will not accelerate.
But mass-less object does not exist. It should have some mass and all objects fall down on
earth with same acceleration irrespective of their mass(if air resistance is neglected).
No. Inertia is determined by weight, so the more the object weighs the more its inertia. Unless the object weighs zero, it must have some sort of inertia.
Inertia is a property of objects with mass and, as such, a massless object has no inertia.
No, inertia is the push or force that you give the object. You need a force to give an object inertia.
The stronger gravitational condition would make the object fall faster. The weaker the gravitational condition the slower the object would fall.
The big flat object is subject to air resistance on the earth. In a vacuum, it would fall at the same rate as the smaller object. Also, if the big flat object is a piece of paper, you can crumple it into a ball and it will fall at the same rate as the smaller object because air resistance will not be as much of a factor.
Such an object is said to be in "free fall".
On object falling under the force of gravity (9.8 m/s2) would, in a vacuum, fall a distance of 706 metres in 12 seconds. In a non-vacuum, i.e. air, the object would fall less distance in the same time due to drag.xt = 0.5 (9.8) t2
One way would be to use a small object. Another way is to place the object where it has least distance to fall.
Gravity causes an object to fall from a height. Without gravity, the object would just be floating in the air.
Weightless is not the same as massless -- it is an object's mass that warps space (and time) around it, creating a gravitational field.
Air resistance of an object can slow its fall. If every object had the same resistance, everything would fall at the same speed.
By definition a massless particle has no rest mass therefore it can not take up any spacial volume. I think the confusion lies with calling something that is massless, a particle. This is because as soon as we hear particle we think "object" and objects have definite mass and volume. A photon is massless and sometimes people may refer to it as a particle of light. But in fact that is sort of a misnomer being that it really isn't a particle, though it has particle-like properties. If something is massless theorists have said that the object does not interact with the Higgs field, though gravitational effects are still felt by the photon, example: gravitational lensing.
The stronger gravitational condition would make the object fall faster. The weaker the gravitational condition the slower the object would fall.
The shadow will fall on the opposite side that the light hit the object. Assuming that the object is a solid object that you cannot see through, there would be no light on the other side, hence causing the shadow.
The big flat object is subject to air resistance on the earth. In a vacuum, it would fall at the same rate as the smaller object. Also, if the big flat object is a piece of paper, you can crumple it into a ball and it will fall at the same rate as the smaller object because air resistance will not be as much of a factor.
Your object has distance units for mass, which is remarkable. Forget this homework stuff, report the huge massless object to the authorities if it is dangerous. If it seems safe, publish or perish.
A first rank tensor is called a vector. A massless spin-2 field would be indistinguishable from, or it would describe gravity, if its equations of motions are the Einstein field equations.
Such an object is said to be in "free fall".
In a vacuum, i.e. space, both objects would accelerate at the same rate. If the object they were attracted to was the same size as our planet the acceleration would be 9.81 m/s squared. In an atmosphere the acceleration would be inconsistent and based on air resistance.
Yes, it does. If it didn't, nothing would ever fall.