Can force be understood in terms of time/speed?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the relationship between force, time, and motion, particularly in different environments like space and Earth. It highlights that gravity does not directly prevent movement; rather, friction and other forces play a significant role. The concept of applying force at a rate is clarified, emphasizing that force itself does not have a rate but can be applied over a duration. The conversation also touches on the nuances of continuous force application, such as holding an object in place. Overall, the dialogue aims to clarify misconceptions about force and its interaction with time and motion.
jocose
Messages
12
Reaction score
1
If there is a massive object floating in space and I tap the side of it with a relatively small force it will move said object a very small amount.

If I tried the same thing on Earth the object would not move because of gravity. I'm inferring (perhaps erroneously) that this means the object is in fact moving but gravity is repositioning the object faster than I displace it?

If this is correct what would happen if I applied a small force very quickly. Would it be possible to outpace the speed at which gravity is moving the object back into position? Would a 1 Newton tap successively applied at an extremely fast rate equal a greater force?

I know F=MA and that acceleration is the rate of change. Is it there for paradoxical to view a force being applied at a rate as the rate is built into the definition?

What is happening when a force is applied continuously such as when I am holding an object in place. Is a force being applied at a "rate"?

I'm confused by this for some reason and if anyone could better characterize what a force is in relation to time I would appreciate it. I suspect its probably confusing for the same reason elastic collisions such as in Newtons cradle are counter intuitive as they deal with infinite quantities.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm totally confused by virtually everything you've said. This doesn't sound like any kind of physics I've ever seen or heard of. Maybe you can pose a specific focusing problem involving the concepts you are wondering about, and we can help you work your way through it. Focusing problems are often an effective way of learning a subject.
 
jocose said:
If there is a massive object floating in space and I tap the side of it with a relatively small force it will move said object a very small amount.
It will accelerate the object a small amount -- it may then move forever.
If I tried the same thing on Earth the object would not move because of gravity.
That isn't true. Gravity does not prevent anything from moving (at least directly). Consider a book resting on a table. If you apply a small horizontal force to it and it doesn't move, what prevented it from moving? Not gravity: friction.

If you consider the vertical forces, still isn't gravity that keeps it from moving, it's the vertical force applied to the book by the table that keeps it from moving.
Is a force being applied at a "rate"?
Force doesn't have a rate -- but it can have a duration. A short tap is a short duration of applied force.
 
  • Like
Likes jocose
russ_watters said:
It will accelerate the object a small amount -- it may then move forever.

That isn't true. Gravity does not prevent anything from moving (at least directly). Consider a book resting on a table. If you apply a small horizontal force to it and it doesn't move, what prevented it from moving? Not gravity: friction.

If you consider the vertical forces, still isn't gravity that keeps it from moving, it's the vertical force applied to the book by the table that keeps it from moving.

Force doesn't have a rate -- but it can have a duration. A short tap is a short duration of applied force.
Thanks Russ,

This is helpful. I've mixed several things up. I apologize for being inarticulate but as you can tell I was very confused.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
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...
Back
Top