Description using Newton's laws

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheShapeOfTime
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Laws Newton's laws
AI Thread Summary
In discussing a car making a left turn, Newton's first law explains that objects inside the car tend to move outward due to inertia. The second law raises questions about the unbalanced forces acting on the car, which are primarily provided by friction between the tires and the road. The third law is relevant in that the car exerts a downward force on the road, and the road exerts an equal and opposite force back on the car. However, the third law does not directly explain the turning motion itself; rather, it highlights the interaction between the car and the road. Without friction, the car would be unable to turn effectively, illustrating the importance of these forces in motion.
TheShapeOfTime
Let's use the scenerio of a car going from uniform motion, to a turn to the left. I'm trying to describe this in relation to Newton's laws in hopes to get a greater understanding. What I know is that objects in the car are affected by Newton's first law, which states (among other things) that objects in motion wish to stay in motion. Thus, the objects move towards the outside of the turn. As for the second law, what causes the unbalanced force? Does the third law come into play here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You forgot that the car itself isn't an inertial reference frame. This is an accelerating reference frame we're talking about. To compensate for the frame change, we have to add a force on every object inside the frame, pointing in the opposite direction to the movement of the reference frame.
If you judge from an outsider's point of view, the object is just moving in a straight line.

You don't need the third law to explain this.
 
TheShapeOfTime said:
What I know is that objects in the car are affected by Newton's first law, which states (among other things) that objects in motion wish to stay in motion. Thus, the objects move towards the outside of the turn.
Right. Unless a force is exerted on an object, it will keep moving in a straight line. For objects not firmly attached to the car, that's just what they do. (From inside the car it looks like they are being pulled towards the outside of the turn.)
As for the second law, what causes the unbalanced force?
What do you think? What's the only thing (except for air) in contact with the car?
 
Doc Al said:
What do you think? What's the only thing (except for air) in contact with the car?

The road. :)

From what I understand, the third law is applies only when a force is applied to an object. In this example, the car pushes down on the road, and the road pushes back with equal force. But, the third law has nothing to do with the turning (unbalanced forces).
 
Right. If not for the road exerting a sideways force on the car, the car could not turn. For an unbanked road, that force is a friction force. Take away the friction--try making a sharp turn on a patch of oil or a sheet of ice--and you can't make the turn.

Of course, whenever a force is exerted, Newton's 3rd law comes into play. If the road pushes the car, the car pushes the road.
 

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

I Stuck in understanding Newton's 3 laws
Replies
18
Views
2K
How Does Mass Influence the Reaction in Newton's 3rd Law of Motion?
Replies
9
Views
2K
Why were Newton's laws of motion discovered so late?
2
Replies
66
Views
9K
Debate over the experimental procedure for Newton's 2nd Law
Replies
6
Views
1K
Additivity of mass: provable from Newton's laws?
Replies
10
Views
3K
Confusion about Newton's laws, sum of forces equals zero
Replies
4
Views
6K
Connecting Newton's 3rd law of motion to circular motion
Replies
21
Views
11K
A question about Newton's laws & free body diagrams....
Replies
6
Views
2K
Relationship between mass and acceleration
Replies
9
Views
3K
Why not use the product rule to expand Newton's 2nd law?
Replies
40
Views
6K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top