Question about Terminal Velocity and Net Force

AI Thread Summary
In discussing terminal velocity, it was clarified that when an object reaches this state, the net force (Fnet) is zero because air resistance equals the object's weight, resulting in no acceleration or deceleration. The confusion arose from the teacher's assertion that movement requires a net force, which is incorrect; movement can occur without a net force as per Newton's First Law. The key point is that while Fnet is zero at terminal velocity, the object continues to move due to its inertia. Additionally, if the object is below terminal velocity, it experiences a negative Fnet and accelerates downward. The discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding the distinction between movement and acceleration in physics.
STS816
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
My physics teacher told my class that in order for there to movement, there must be a net force on an object. He also said that when an object reaches terminal velocity the Fnet is zero because air resistance equals that of the object's weight. Then, he said that the object continues to fall because of Newton's First Law.

Now my problem here is that I understand Newton's first law works the way it does because of the object's inertia. But if there is no Fnet on an object and the object is moving solely on its inertia through the air, wouldn't air resistance continue to slow it down?

I think the problem is coming from the first thing my teacher said. I think he meant to say that in order for there to be acceleration, there needs to be a net force. I probably just answered my own question in some way but I just want to be sure. Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In the simplest model, Air resistance will be proportional to velocity, and points opposite to gravity. Thus there will be some velocity, let's call it terminal velocity, such that weight = air resistance. Thus force = 0. Since force = 0, acceleration = 0, thus the velocity of the object does not change, thus the air resistance force stays the same and does not slow the object down any more, since gravity balances it.

"My physics teacher told my class that in order for there to movement, there must be a net force on an object. " That is false. An object can be stationary in one frame of reference, but moving in another frame with no additional forces added. "I think he meant to say that in order for there to be acceleration, there needs to be a net force. " That is correct.
 
I don't think you understand what "fnet" is. Fnet is the net force on the object. It is the weight minus the air resistance. When moving at terminal velocity, the net force is zero, so there is no acceleration or deceleration. If it is going slower than terminal velocity, fnet is negative, and it accelerates downward.
 
All right thanks you guys. I was pretty sure he was talking about acceleration, not movement, but I wanted to clear it up a little bit. The thing is that he just kept repeating that if there is no fnet then there is no movement and I really didn't think he could be wrong that many times but apparently he was.

It's good to know that my education is in good hands...
 
Yes, what russ_waters says is correct.

It is simply Newton's first law of motion.

"An object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by a net force."

Where "motion" is the velocity of the object. Any object with constant velocity has zero net force on it, whether that object is moving at 0 mph or 2,000 mph.

oh btw new poster -_-
hello world!
 

Thread 'Is calling fictitious forces "not real" just about terminology?'

Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
View full post »

Thread 'Derivation of Hamilton's Principle: Questions'

I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
View full post »

Similar threads

B Terminal Velocity Equation in vertical cylinder with some fluid
Replies
2
Views
1K
B Newton's first law?
Replies
37
Views
555
Reason for motion after terminal velocity
Replies
12
Views
2K
I Newton's Third Law: Action & Reaction Along the Line Connecting Two Objects
Replies
5
Views
1K
I Understanding Net Internal Torque and Kinetic Friction in a System
Replies
9
Views
2K
I Meaning of the terms in the formula of the net external force
Replies
17
Views
2K
B What Happens When The Applied Force Equals the Static Friction Force?
Replies
2
Views
3K
B Question about the definition of Torque Equilibrium
Replies
14
Views
799
Acceleration in terminal velocity?
Replies
9
Views
2K
Motion of a Parachuter (Terminal Velocity, Time of Flight, Distance)
Replies
10
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top