Newton's First Law of Motion is Wrong (Proven Wrong in This Thread)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion challenges Newton's First Law of Motion by presenting an experiment with two balls colliding on a frictionless plane, claiming they come to rest despite not being acted upon by external forces. Participants argue that during the collision, the balls exert forces on each other, contradicting the initial claim. The conversation emphasizes that acceleration occurs during the collision, which implies the presence of force, thus supporting Newton's laws rather than disproving them. Critics highlight the importance of understanding the complete dynamics of the collision rather than misapplying the theory. Overall, the thread underscores a misunderstanding of fundamental physics principles regarding motion and force.
NewtonWasWrong
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Please note this is a very serious thread.

Please note Newton's First Law:

First law: When viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object either remains at rest or moves at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force.


Here is an experiment to prove this First Law wrong.
Consider two balls rolling at a constant velocity directly toward each other on a frictionless plane. Ball A is heading due east at 5 m/s and Ball B is heading due west at 5 m/s. The balls engage in an inelastic collision. The balls will both come to rest. This can be proven experimentally.

Please note that Newton's Second Law describes Force = Mass * Acceleration. Neither ball has an acceleration, meaning that neither ball has any force associated with it. So despite not being acted upon by any FORCE, during the collision, the balls change velocity from 5 meters/second to zero. This simple experiment clearly shows that an object will not necessarily stay in motion at a constant velocity despite not being acted upon by an external force.
 
Science news on Phys.org
NewtonWasWrong said:
Please note that Newton's Second Law describes Force = Mass * Acceleration. Neither ball has an acceleration, meaning that neither ball has any force associated with it. So despite not being acted upon by any FORCE, during the collision, the balls change velocity from 5 meters/second to zero. This simple experiment clearly shows that an object will not necessarily stay in motion at a constant velocity despite not being acted upon by an external force.
This is silly. When the balls collide they exert forces on each other!
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
Doc Al said:
This is silly. When the balls collide they exert forces on each other!
Please note Newton's Second Law of Motion:

Second law: The vector sum of the forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration a of the object; thus, F = ma.

Please note that the acceleration of both balls are equal to 0. Please note that mass*0=0. Consequently, neither ball produces a force (or rather, produces a force equal to 0).
 
NewtonWasWrong said:
Please note that the acceleration of both balls are equal to 0.
Only before they collide! Once they collide, they certainly have a non-zero acceleration. You indicated such yourself!
 
NewtonWasWrong said:
Please note Newton's Second Law of Motion:

Second law: The vector sum of the forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration a of the object; thus, F = ma.

Please note that the acceleration of both balls are equal to 0. Please note that mass*0=0. Consequently, neither ball produces a force (or rather, produces a force equal to 0).

In the collision, both balls change their speed from five meters/second to zero meters per second. That's an acceleration, and you can even calculate its average value throughout the collision: If the time between when the balls first touch andwhen they stop moving is ##\Delta{t}## seconds, the average magnitude of the acceleration will be ##\frac{\Delta{v}}{\Delta{t}} = \frac{5}{\Delta{t}} m/sec^2##.

Non-zero ##a##, non-zero ##m##, got to be a non-zero ##F##.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
NewtonWasWrong said:
Please note this is a very serious thread.
Next time, before posting an obviously wrong and completely ignorant challenge to an established theory it might be good to exercise a little humility and actually learn enough of the theory to be able to use it correctly.

You completely failed to recognize the obvious forces acting on the objects, and therefore completely failed to correctly apply the theory. Furthermore, you arrogantly assumed that you were the only person in the last 300 years smart enough to have correctly analyzed an inelastic collision using the theory.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters, Vanadium 50, vanhees71 and 3 others
I need to calculate the amount of water condensed from a DX cooling coil per hour given the size of the expansion coil (the total condensing surface area), the incoming air temperature, the amount of air flow from the fan, the BTU capacity of the compressor and the incoming air humidity. There are lots of condenser calculators around but they all need the air flow and incoming and outgoing humidity and then give a total volume of condensed water but I need more than that. The size of the...
Thread 'Why work is PdV and not (P+dP)dV in an isothermal process?'
Let's say we have a cylinder of volume V1 with a frictionless movable piston and some gas trapped inside with pressure P1 and temperature T1. On top of the piston lay some small pebbles that add weight and essentially create the pressure P1. Also the system is inside a reservoir of water that keeps its temperature constant at T1. The system is in equilibrium at V1, P1, T1. Now let's say i put another very small pebble on top of the piston (0,00001kg) and after some seconds the system...
Back
Top