Newton's first law?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter pjhirv
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Newton's first law states that a body at rest or moving at constant velocity experiences no net external force. This law is often interpreted as indicating that inertial reference frames exist, where non-interacting objects maintain straight-line motion. The discussion highlights the equivalence of stating that the net force is zero and that no forces act on the body, emphasizing that both interpretations are valid. The conversation also references Newton's "Principia" and the evolution of Newtonian physics, noting that modern interpretations should not contradict historical texts.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Newtonian Physics principles
  • Familiarity with the concept of inertial reference frames
  • Knowledge of Newton's "Principia" and its historical context
  • Basic grasp of force and motion terminology
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the definitions and implications of inertial reference frames in physics
  • Read Newton's "Principia" for historical insights into his laws of motion
  • Explore modern interpretations of Newton's laws in the context of Einstein's theory of relativity
  • Investigate the differences in textbook explanations of Newton's first law across various editions
USEFUL FOR

Physics students, educators, and anyone interested in the foundational concepts of classical mechanics and the historical evolution of scientific theories.

  • #31
Herman Trivilino said:
What's not the point? The entire post is a discussion involving thinking about these things now. And getting a right answer before class starts.
Yes, you got it. Gongrats!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: berkeman
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
PeroK said:
Prior to Newton, most people assumed that objects required a continuous force to keep them moving. And that the planets were kept in their orbits by the hand of God.
This belief persisted even to 1960 and beyond. In that year, the US launched a satellite which was a simple balloon and which stayed up in orbit for some while. I remember standing outside my grandad's cottage, along with my dad and we saw it ("the sateloon") go overhead. This was the very first satellite that was big enough actually to see - quite a big deal for me. My dear old grandad said "But why can't we hear the engine?". He blew it for me; up till then I thought he knew everything.
 
  • #33
Sputnik was seen by viewers on Earth.
 
  • #34
Herman Trivilino said:
Sputnik was seen by viewers on Earth.
OH? It was tiny but the satelloon was huge. Did you yourself see Sputnik? I wonder what the viewing figures were.

65 years ago the light pollution may have been less but I remember seeing it with no trouble. I may need to alter my statement to include the words "many many viewers in the general public" (at least some of my mates!). I remember many radio hams tuned into bleep bleep but the active radio source in sputnik was predictably detectable.
 
  • #35
sophiecentaur said:
This belief persisted even to 1960 and beyond. In that year, the US launched a satellite which was a simple balloon and which stayed up in orbit for some while. I remember standing outside my grandad's cottage, along with my dad and we saw it ("the sateloon") go overhead. This was the very first satellite that was big enough actually to see - quite a big deal for me. My dear old grandad said "But why can't we hear the engine?". He blew it for me; up till then I thought he knew everything.
By today's standards your grandad would have been progressive in not believing that the balloon was a government conspiracy to poison the atmosphere! Newton's first law is the least of it.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sophiecentaur and weirdoguy
  • #36
sophiecentaur said:
Did you yourself see Sputnik?
I don't remember. I was 2 years old. :-)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sophiecentaur
  • #37
Herman Trivilino said:
I don't remember. I was 2 years old. :-)
I read in several articles (just google it) that sputnik1, at a distance of over 500km was not visible to the naked eye but, with the help of a radio receiver, could be found with binoculars. Sputnik 2 was a bit bigger and had a dog on board - same visibility. For those of a sensitive disposition I can report that one dog was, in fact, harmed in the experiment. There were stories that it was gassed humanely to avoid its suffering - but really??
 
  • #38
I read that near sunrise and sunset a glint from reflected sunlight could be seen.
 
  • #39
Strictly speaking the first Newton law says that inertial frames do exist.
By definition an inertial frame is the frame in which equations of a closed system's motion are invariant relative to the Galilean group.
(A mechanical system is said to be closed if it does not experience external influences)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dextercioby and weirdoguy
  • #40
Herman Trivilino said:
I read that near sunrise and sunset a glint from reflected sunlight could be seen.
We can't say it never happened but the conditions would have been rare and fleeting and the viewers having elf-like eyesight. Bins and a radio helped to reveal Sputnik with a bit more certainty.
If that was the case then would we not see loads of space debris nowadays? We see many satellites easily these days but the reflecting areas involved are huge in comparison.
 
  • #41
sophiecentaur said:
We can't say it never happened but the conditions would have been rare and fleeting and the viewers having elf-like eyesight. Bins and a radio helped to reveal Sputnik with a bit more certainty.

Did you watch the movie October Sky? Don't remember for sure but think they witnessed it. Maybe it was fictionalized.
 
  • #42
Herman Trivilino said:
Did you watch the movie October Sky?
Did you ever see the film "The Sound Barrier"? It even made a claim for the wrong country and 'made up' a bit about reversing the controls.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
875
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
4K