Skip to main content
Physics

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

Cancel
2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ "An object in free fall is inertial and weightless" Careful. In Newtonian mechanics which is the best way to model this scenario, an object in freefall is not on an inertial path. It is accelerating under the force of gravity. In General Relativity you would say the object is on a geodesic path, but the surface of the Earth is not. It's a wholly different paradigm of mechanics that's totally unnecessary here. $\endgroup$ Commented yesterday
  • $\begingroup$ You're using language that throws a lot of ambiguity into the mix. You're referring to a ball in freefall, but then say that the hill contacts the ball. You're not mentioning that the hill is frictionless. Therefore, the touch must impart some kind of friction, which in turn means the ball is not in freefall as the imparted friction infringes on the "free" fall that the ball is supposedly in. Secondly, are you assuming that the hill is an unmalleable solid? $\endgroup$ Commented 6 hours ago