Back
to top
Newton's Law
Watch this threadPage 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
edwinelberticb
Badges:
1
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
hungrysalamander
Badges:
19
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Driving_Mad
Badges:
17
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report
#3
(Original post by hungrysalamander)
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction
Some people find this confusing, so you could also say, that when body A exerts a force on body B, body B exerts a force equal in magnitude but opposite in direction on body A.
This helps you to understand the fact the forces are exerted on different objects and not the same object, which is why weight and normal reaction force aren’t action-reaction pairs. The forces also have to be of the same type.
GGG
0
reply
Kallisto
Badges:
22
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report
#4
(Original post by edwinelberticb)
What is Newton's Third Law?
What is Newton's Third Law?
Example:
A jet is moving thanks to the jet engine that pushes it forwards. The force, which is needed to change the state of motion, is in the jet's direction (action). The jet in turn pushes the engine backwards, so in the counter direction with a counter force (reaction).
Strictly speaking all motions wouldn't work without these forces in pairs, even if it is just walking...
Last edited by Kallisto; 3 months ago
0
reply
Eimmanuel
Badges:
13
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report
#5
(Original post by Kallisto)
Simply speaking, it means that a force (action) working in a direction causes an opposite force (reaction) in the opposite direction. Both forces have the equal magnitude.
Example:
The motion of a jet in a certain direction (action) is caused by a jet engine working in an opposite direction (reaction). The force for the motion is equal to the opposite force of the jet engine.
Strictly speaking all motions wouldn't work without these forces in pairs, even if it is just walking...
Simply speaking, it means that a force (action) working in a direction causes an opposite force (reaction) in the opposite direction. Both forces have the equal magnitude.
Example:
The motion of a jet in a certain direction (action) is caused by a jet engine working in an opposite direction (reaction). The force for the motion is equal to the opposite force of the jet engine.
Strictly speaking all motions wouldn't work without these forces in pairs, even if it is just walking...
You are “explaining” force causes motion and this is wrong!
0
reply
Kallisto
Badges:
22
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#6
Report
#6
(Original post by Eimmanuel)
I recommend that you review your example.
You are “explaining” force causes motion and this is wrong!
I recommend that you review your example.
You are “explaining” force causes motion and this is wrong!
the force is just a consequence of motion, Motion itself is caused by acceleration to change the object's state of rest (and of course the velocity of an object in motion). I will correct it!
0
reply
Eimmanuel
Badges:
13
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#7
Report
#7
(Original post by Kallisto)
Simply speaking, it means that a force (action) that influence on an object causes a counter force (reaction). In other words: forces on an object work in pairs. They have different directions in which they work, but equal magnitudes.
Example:
A jet is moving thanks to the jet engine that pushes it forward. This motion is causing a force in the jet's direction (action). The jet in turn pushes the engine back, so in the counter direction with a counter force (reaction).
Strictly speaking all motions wouldn't work without these forces in pairs, even if it is just walking...
Simply speaking, it means that a force (action) that influence on an object causes a counter force (reaction). In other words: forces on an object work in pairs. They have different directions in which they work, but equal magnitudes.
Example:
A jet is moving thanks to the jet engine that pushes it forward. This motion is causing a force in the jet's direction (action). The jet in turn pushes the engine back, so in the counter direction with a counter force (reaction).
Strictly speaking all motions wouldn't work without these forces in pairs, even if it is just walking...
(Original post by Kallisto)
Oh, true. Thanks!
the force is just a consequence of motion, Motion itself is caused by acceleration to change the object's state of rest (and of course the velocity of an object in motion). I will correct it!
Oh, true. Thanks!
the force is just a consequence of motion, Motion itself is caused by acceleration to change the object's state of rest (and of course the velocity of an object in motion). I will correct it!
We don’t need a force to cause an object to be in motion. If an object is at rest, we need a force to change the state of motion of the object ie to get the object to start to move. If there is no opposing force such as air resistance or friction, the object will move with a constant velocity until some forces act on the moving object to change its state of motion ie to stop the moving object.
Hopefully, you can check your understanding with a good reference.
0
reply
Kallisto
Badges:
22
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#8
Report
#8
(Original post by Eimmanuel)
I understand that English is not your native language. If you are directly translating from your native language to English, you may want to consult English references to check what you have written.
We don’t need a force to cause an object to be in motion. If an object is at rest, we need a force to change the state of motion of the object ie to get the object to start to move. If there is no opposing force such as air resistance or friction, the object will move with a constant velocity until some forces act on the moving object to change its state of motion ie to stop the moving object.
Hopefully, you can check your understanding with a good reference.
I understand that English is not your native language. If you are directly translating from your native language to English, you may want to consult English references to check what you have written.
We don’t need a force to cause an object to be in motion. If an object is at rest, we need a force to change the state of motion of the object ie to get the object to start to move. If there is no opposing force such as air resistance or friction, the object will move with a constant velocity until some forces act on the moving object to change its state of motion ie to stop the moving object.
Hopefully, you can check your understanding with a good reference.
0
reply
Eimmanuel
Badges:
13
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#9
Report
#9
(Original post by Kallisto)
Very kind of you that you are so helpful and considerate with me, because English is not my native language. Nonetheless I have question to your explanation: don't we need an acceleration to change the state of motion of an object, but a force for acceleration? So no force, no acceleration and no acceleration, no state of motion to get an object in motion at last?
Very kind of you that you are so helpful and considerate with me, because English is not my native language. Nonetheless I have question to your explanation: don't we need an acceleration to change the state of motion of an object, but a force for acceleration? So no force, no acceleration and no acceleration, no state of motion to get an object in motion at last?
don't we need an acceleration to change the state of motion of an object, but a force for acceleration?
So no force, no acceleration and no acceleration, no state of motion to get an object in motion at last?
It would be better that you phrase your question proper statement to avoid confusion. I don’t know what you mean by no state of motion.
(Original post by Kallisto)
…the force is just a consequence of motion, Motion itself is caused by acceleration to change the object's state of rest (and of course the velocity of an object in motion). …
…the force is just a consequence of motion, Motion itself is caused by acceleration to change the object's state of rest (and of course the velocity of an object in motion). …
0
reply
Kallisto
Badges:
22
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#10
Report
#10
(Original post by Eimmanuel)
(...) I don’t know what you mean by no state of motion.
Be very frank, none of the points is good.
(...) I don’t know what you mean by no state of motion.
Be very frank, none of the points is good.
Last edited by Kallisto; 1 month ago
0
reply
Eimmanuel
Badges:
13
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#11
Report
#11
I think your “movement state” is state of motion.
In a nutshell, a force causes an object to accelerate (Newton’s 2nd law) OR a force causes an object to change its state of motion.
Read post #7 and #9 a few times.
The change of state of motion of an object is the consequence of applying a force on the object.
Not really sure what you want to describe.
Motion is just motion while acceleration is a change in the motion (in short) over a period of a time interval or rate of change of velocity.
If you have further queries, send me an email as I don't want to further "kidnapped the thread". Thanks.
In a nutshell, a force causes an object to accelerate (Newton’s 2nd law) OR a force causes an object to change its state of motion.
Read post #7 and #9 a few times.
(Original post by Kallisto)
… the force is just a consequence of motion,
… the force is just a consequence of motion,
(Original post by Kallisto)
… Motion itself is caused by acceleration to change the object's state of rest (and of course the velocity of an object in motion). I will correct it!
… Motion itself is caused by acceleration to change the object's state of rest (and of course the velocity of an object in motion). I will correct it!
Motion is just motion while acceleration is a change in the motion (in short) over a period of a time interval or rate of change of velocity.
If you have further queries, send me an email as I don't want to further "kidnapped the thread". Thanks.
0
reply
X
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
