## Weird second law of newton for rotation

the proof of second law of newton for rotation goes like this:
take a sphere rotating around some far axis
FT=maT
FT=m * ALPHA * R
multiple by R

tau = mR2 * ALPHA

and we can say it true for every limit mass in a body.
so

sigma tau = sigma (mR2) * ALPHA
sigma tau = I * ALPHA

internal torque=0
thus, sigma tau = sigma external tau

fine, i get it, i think.

but what if we didn't multiple by R?
FT=m * ALPHA * R

and do not multiple by R

now as far as i see it, this is also true for every limit mass on a body, so
sigma FT = sigma (mr) * ALPHA
internal forces=0 (?)
thus
sigma external FT = FT = sigma (mr) * ALPHA

but that just doest make sense... since it as though it doesn't matter where the force is applied...

thanks a lot for helping....
 PhysOrg.com physics news on PhysOrg.com >> Is there an invisible tug-of-war behind bad hearts and power outages?>> Penetrating the quantum nature of magnetism>> Rethinking the universe: Groundbreaking theory proposed in 1997 suggests a 'multiverse'

 Quote by Mad_Eye sigma external FT = FT = sigma (mr) * ALPHA but that just doest make sense... since it as though it doesn't matter where the force is applied...
What do you mean by "it doesn't matter..."?
In any case you have to keep in mind that you had vector quantities before. For example one could use a vector $\vec{R}$ which had length R, but direction perpendicular to the displacement and into the direction of the acceleration. Then your equation would be
$$\sum_i \vec{F_i}=\sum_i (m_i\vec{R}_i(t))\cdot\alpha$$
which due to the time dependence is not very helpful.

 Quote by Gerenuk What do you mean by "it doesn't matter..."? In any case you have to keep in mind that you had vector quantities before. For example one could use a vector $\vec{R}$ which had length R, but direction perpendicular to the displacement and into the direction of the acceleration. Then your equation would be $$\sum_i \vec{F_i}=\sum_i (m_i\vec{R}_i(t))\cdot\alpha$$ which due to the time dependence is not very helpful.
by "it doesn't matters" i simply mean that, wherever the force is exerts relative to the axis, it'll cause the same angular acceleration, which we know not to be true..

and i didn't quite get it... where the time came from?

## Weird second law of newton for rotation

The point is that you need to use exact notation, which encompasses using vectors for the force (otherwise the sum of the forces is not equal to the total external force!).
The time dependence is since the orientation and thus R will change with time.
 wow... i still don't get it... can you write to me the real proof of torque? so i can see how it should be done? thanks
 Have a look at http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=363521 It's not the full answer to your question, but feel free to request a special answer :) There I explain how the general torque law derives for a set of particle. If the particles form a rigid body, then the proof can be continued. I think about what you would like to hear and some time later I make a post.

 Tags second law, torque

 Similar discussions for: Weird second law of newton for rotation Thread Forum Replies Calculus & Beyond Homework 0 General Math 17 Biology 13 General Discussion 0 General Physics 2