# Definition of The first law of motion

• johsun123
In summary: For example, the moon orbits Earth because of the Earth's gravitational force. If the Earth were far away from the sun, the moon would orbit at a different speed because its orbit would be longer. But the law does not say anything about the mass of the planets or how big or small they are.
johsun123
Text book definition is "In the absence of forces, ("body") at rest will stay at rest, and a body moving at a constant velocity in a straight line continues doing so indefinitely".

My thinking.
Moon is orbiting Earth in a circular path, and not in a straight line. Still that motion follows the first law

So shouldn't the definition be

"In the absence of forces, ("body") at rest will stay at rest, and a body in (any state of) motion continues doing so indefinitely".

Non-linear motion also can be subject to 1st law. So why is the bolded terms used in textbook?

Last edited:
"In the absence of forces". In case of the moon, the Earth exerts a force( gravity) to the moon. Thus the velocity changes, orbiting the earth, due to gravity.
It is the same force that pull Newton's apple to Earth and "bend" the moon motion from going in straight line.

Last edited:
I get thet gravity makes moon orbit earth, else it would have gone in a straight line away from earth.

Gravity has acted and moon is now orbiting earth. Even in this state of circular motion, the first law will be applicable( though motion is NOT in a straight line)

1)In the absence of forces, " a body in circular motion " also will continue its circular motion .

2) In the absence of forces "A body in spinning motion" also will continue it spinning motion,

not just the standard test book definition of

In the absence of motion, "a body moving at a constant velocity in a straight line" will coninue its motion.

So isn't the textbook definition about only stright line incomplete?

welcome to pf!

hi johsun123! hiazizlwl! welcome to pf!
johsun123 said:
2) In the absence of forces "A body in spinning motion" also will continue it spinning motion

correct
1)In the absence of forces, " a body in circular motion " also will continue its circular motion .

rubbish!

where did you get this from?​

azizlwl's analysis is correct

tiny-tim said:
hi johsun123! hiazizlwl! welcome to pf!

correct

rubbish!

where did you get this from?​

azizlwl's analysis is correct

I used circular to mean orbiting motion of planets around sun or moon around earth.

Moon is in a circular motion w r to Earth( due to gravity). Now unless it is acted upon by an asteroid or similar object, will it not continue it's circular(orbiting) motion?

Last edited:
but it's not "in the absence of forces" …

it's in the presence of forces!

As tiny tim said azizlwl,s analysis is correct.You seem to have contradicted yourself johsun in that you state that "in the absence of forces a body in circular motion also will continue its circular motion" but you also indicate that there is no absence of forces "due to gravity"

So, you cannot apply first law to a satellite oribiting earth, and which is already under influence of gravity?

The second law describes satellite motion.For circular motion there is a resultant force acting towards the centre of the circle(the gravitational force for the moon,planets and other satellites) and the satellite accelerates in the direction of the resultant force.This acceleration is due to the satellite continually changing direction ie at all instants moving tangentially to the circle.

The second law describes satellite motion.For circular motion there is a resultant force acting towards the centre of the circle(the gravitational force for the moon,planets and other satellites) and the satellite accelerates in the direction of the resultant force.This acceleration is due to the satellite continually changing direction ie at all instants moving tangentially to the circle.

Second law describes satellite motion. Got it.

So can we say, satellite motion cannot be described by first law. If not, why not? Please explain.

The first law describes what happens if there is no resultant force.The object continues doing whatever it happens to be doing.If at rest it will remain at rest.If moving it will continue moving in the same way,in a straight line and at steady speed.

The second law describes what happens if there is a resultant force.It does not remain at rest or move in a straight line at steady speed and therefore it must change speed and/or direction.In other words it accelerates.

Let assume your hypothesis is right. The moon is orbiting the Earth due to 1st. law with added state of orbiting.

Now let take a bigger picture, the solar system.
Why the planets are orbiting at different rate, shown in Keppler's Law.
Maybe they are also obeying "your" first law. How about if the Earth as far as Jupiter from the sun. What speed it will take?
But why there's correlations between orbiting period and mass of the planet.
What they got to do with "your" first law that doesn't say anything about mass?

Newton's 1st law does not mention mass. How big or small the object is, without resultant force it will never move or change direction.

Last edited:
O.K

Thanks.

## What is the first law of motion?

The first law of motion, also known as the law of inertia, states that an object will remain at rest or continue to move at a constant velocity unless acted upon by an external force.

## Who discovered the first law of motion?

The first law of motion was discovered by Sir Isaac Newton in the 17th century. It is one of his three laws of motion that laid the foundation for classical mechanics.

## How does the first law of motion relate to everyday life?

The first law of motion can be observed in everyday life, such as when a book remains on a table until someone picks it up or when a car continues to move forward until the brakes are applied. It explains why objects stay in motion or at rest unless acted upon by a force.

## What is the difference between the first law of motion and the second law of motion?

The first law of motion deals with the concept of inertia and how objects behave when no external force is applied. The second law of motion, on the other hand, explains how an object's motion changes when a force is applied to it.

## Can the first law of motion be violated?

No, the first law of motion is a fundamental principle of physics and has been observed to hold true in all cases. However, there are some cases where it may seem like the law is being violated, but this is usually because there are external forces at play that are not immediately apparent.

• Thermodynamics
Replies
16
Views
951
• Thermodynamics
Replies
3
Views
5K
• Thermodynamics
Replies
2
Views
1K
• Thermodynamics
Replies
6
Views
2K
• Classical Physics
Replies
17
Views
768
• Mechanics
Replies
10
Views
1K
• Thermodynamics
Replies
2
Views
1K
• Mechanics
Replies
117
Views
6K
• Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
55
Views
634
• Thermodynamics
Replies
7
Views
3K