About Newts First Law of motion

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter PiRsq
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    First law Law Motion
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around Newton's First Law of Motion, specifically the concept of net force being zero when an object is at rest or moving at constant velocity. Participants explore the implications of this law, the necessity of forces in motion, and the challenges of understanding these principles in different contexts, including everyday experiences and theoretical scenarios.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express confusion about how an object can have a net force of zero while in motion, questioning if a force is required to maintain that motion.
  • Others clarify that a net force of zero means no unbalanced forces are acting on the object, allowing it to maintain constant velocity without additional force.
  • One participant mentions the role of friction and air drag in everyday experiences, suggesting that these forces must be countered to achieve constant velocity.
  • A participant introduces the historical perspective, noting that earlier beliefs held that a force was necessary to keep an object in motion, referencing Aristotle and early astronomers.
  • Another participant provides an example involving a ball tossed in a moving plane to illustrate that the ball continues moving forward with the plane, suggesting that no force is needed to maintain that motion.
  • One post emphasizes that force is defined as the rate of change of momentum, indicating that if force is zero, momentum remains constant, and introduces the concept of relative motion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express varying levels of understanding and confusion regarding the implications of Newton's First Law. Multiple competing views remain about the necessity of forces for maintaining motion, and the discussion does not reach a consensus on these points.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight the difficulty of imagining motion in a vacuum, which may affect their understanding of the law. Additionally, there are references to historical beliefs and definitions that may not align with modern interpretations.

PiRsq
Messages
112
Reaction score
0
About Newts First Law of motion...

U kno the first law of motion..."Object has a netforce of zero when its at rest or moving at constant velocity..." I don't get how you could say an object has a total netforce of zero when its moving...If its moving in one direction then isn't a force acting on it to go in that direction?
 
Science news on Phys.org
Um ... not exactly.
This is something that find hard to understand at first, but eventually it is understandable.

First you have to understand that this is a law of nature, so we cannot really say 'why', we only put laws to understand nature.

What may seem illogical for you now is that you need a force in order to make an object moving in a constant velocity.
Well, you do not need the force to maintain its speed, as long as the net (or resultant) force is zero.

In our everyday life experience, there is always friction and air drag acting on moving objects, therefore we always need a force to make an object move at a constant velocity.
What this force that we provide actually does is that it works against the resistance forces (friction and air drag and maybe other forces) to make the net force zero, which will make the object move at a constant velocity.

Tell us if you still feel there is something you don't understand.

I hope i helped.
 
I think I understand a little better, its just hard to imagine a object in a vacuum I guess...
 
Consider that a tiny moving object has two properties because of its motion. It has a speed and a direction. Now Newton saw that neither one of these properties could just change without some cause acting. The kind of causes that act to change the speed or direction (or both) of a moving object are called Forces.

An ordinary object moving through the air will feel two kinds of forces: the air pressure which tends to decrease its speed in the direction of motion, and gravity which continually adds a certain speed change in the down direction.
 


Originally posted by PiRsq
U kno the first law of motion..."Object has a netforce of zero when its at rest or moving at constant velocity..." I don't get how you could say an object has a total netforce of zero when its moving...If its moving in one direction then isn't a force acting on it to go in that direction?


Dock, Please restrict your misinformation to the Theory Development fourm Integral
 
Last edited by a moderator:


Originally posted by PiRsq
If its moving in one direction then isn't a force acting on it to go in that direction?

Hi PiRsq,
well the fact that you ask this question means IMO that you really look at physics from its very birth-place. Yes, for thousands of years it was generally accepted that a force is needed to keep a body in motion. Everyday experience says so, and even the scholars (e.g. Aristotle) wrote this down in their doctrines. But astronomers, since long, have known that there is 'eternal' motion in the sky, as exhibited by the Sun, Moon, and planets circling about. IIRC, even Copernicus and Kepler (who laid the foundations of Physics) assumed that the planets are 'brushed' around the sun by quasi-mechanical devices impeding some tangential force on them (=pushing them). It was Newton who postulated that there is no such pushing force, just gravitational attraction. He postulated that the only force acting on a planet (if you neglect other planets) is directed towards the Sun but not in the direction of the planet's motion (well, for a circular orbit...). This means the planets go on forever without anything actually pushing them. That is maybe the sort of 'motion in vacuum' which you (among many people) find so hard to imagine. Hope this helps a bit :wink:
 
Example: say you're flying in a plane. You toss a ball up in the air. It acts normally -- goes up and comes straight down. If it needed a force to keep it moving, it ought to stop moving forward with the plane as soon as it left your hand, and get slammed backwards. Obviously this doesn't happen. :)
 
This is a post made by FZ+ which I erronously deleted in an effort ot clean out the post he is referring to. Sorry FZ!
Integral

It is important to know that force is defined in physics as being the rate of change of momentum, which is m*v. So, if the force is zero, then all it means is that m*v is constant. Further, reality is based not on absolute motion, but on relative motion. So, it is irrelevant without a reference point whether you are at rest or moving at steady velocity. We usually imply relative to the Earth when we say this.
 

Similar threads

High School How does an object maintain constant velocity according to Newton's First Law?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
High School Newton's first law and a body on an infinite and frictionless road
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
High School Is Newton's Second Law Flawed? An Exploration of Zero Force in Space
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
8K
Undergrad Does Newton's or Galileo's first law depend on gravity?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Graduate The Confusion of Weight and Mass in Physics Education
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
Undergrad Is it accurate to say work is motion against an opposing force?
  • · Replies 75 ·
3
Replies
75
Views
5K
High School Newton's first law?
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
5K
Undergrad Newton's first law of motion and Inertial Systems
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
High School Understanding Newton's First Law of Motion in Physics
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Undergrad Newton's First Law of Motion is Wrong (Proven Wrong in This Thread)
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
27K