Action and Reaction - I. Newton

AI Thread Summary
When standing on Mt. Everest, gravity causes a downward acceleration towards Earth, while according to Newton's third law, Earth experiences an equal and opposite force acting upwards. However, the Earth's massive mass results in an imperceptibly small acceleration in response to this force. The discussion highlights that while the force exerted by a person is significant, the resulting acceleration of Earth is negligible due to its enormous mass. The conversation also humorously suggests that future discussions might shift focus to "global acceleration" in the context of climate change. Overall, the interaction between a person's weight and Earth's mass illustrates fundamental principles of physics.
tkojemile
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I have for me a complex question! :(

If I get to Mt. Everest (let's say - highest place on Earth), then there is acceleration of my body towards the Earth - because of g - gravity force.

Now - question is does Earth have acceleration towards my body - as 3rd Isaac N. law would say!

And if it has - why?

Thanks for help
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes. The difference being, the acceleration on the Earth is negligible. Let's take f=ma, you exert, say, 800N (i.e. 80kg * 9.8ms-2) downwards. Likewise, the Earth now has a force 800N acting upwards. But, since that 800N is acting on 238083259285928234523kg of mass, the acceleration is just too small for anyone to care.

Maybe when global warming dies off, we'll move onto "global acceleration"?
 
dst said:
Maybe when global warming dies off, we'll move onto "global acceleration"?

Good one! Thanks for AW.
 

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 Are frictional forces action forces or reaction forces?
Replies
14
Views
1K
I Newton's Third Law: Action & Reaction Along the Line Connecting Two Objects
Replies
5
Views
1K
I Extending Newton's laws -- Is the concept of force still defined?
Replies
35
Views
5K
B Why Is an Object's Weight Equal to the Force of Gravity It Experiences?
2
Replies
51
Views
4K
B What is the Absolute Value of the Normal force on a block on this wedge?
Replies
3
Views
1K
Analysis of a deformable body and Newton's 3rd Law
Replies
31
Views
3K
How Does Mass Influence the Reaction in Newton's 3rd Law of Motion?
Replies
9
Views
2K
Reaction torque in a traction system
Replies
10
Views
2K
Centripetal acceleration problem (box sitting on a table)
Replies
3
Views
1K
B General Relativity: Action & Reaction in Gravitation
Replies
15
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top