Difference between Newton's first and second law

AI Thread Summary
The discussion clarifies the distinction between Newton's first and second laws, emphasizing that the first law pertains to the absence of acceleration, while the second law involves the presence of acceleration. It is confirmed that a particle not accelerating in an inertial frame implies a net force of zero, aligning with the principle that a particle at rest or moving at constant velocity experiences no net force. The conversation also highlights that Newton's second law can be expressed as the rate of change of momentum, with the equation F_net = ma applicable when mass is constant. Participants discuss the derivative of momentum and its implications in various scenarios, including cases with changing mass. Overall, the thread effectively reinforces the foundational concepts of Newtonian mechanics.
alpha372
Messages
43
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


I'd just like some verification really: see step three


Homework Equations



net force = 0 --> equilibrium; net force = ma

The Attempt at a Solution


I've come to the conclusion that the difference between Newton's first law and second law is acceleration:

Newton's first law:
absence of acceleration

Newton's second law:
presence of acceleration

I was wondering if it would be safe to say:

"A particle not accelerating in an inertial frame of reference implies that the net force acting on the particle is zero"

(after all, if it is not accelerating, wouldn't that automatically imply that the particle is a rest or moving at a constant velocity?)

Instead of what the book more or less says:
"A particle at rest or moving at a constant velocity in an inertial frame of reference implies that the sum of the forces acting on the particle is zero"
 
Physics news on Phys.org
alpha372 said:

Homework Statement


I'd just like some verification really: see step three


Homework Equations



net force = 0 --> equilibrium; net force = ma

The Attempt at a Solution


I've come to the conclusion that the difference between Newton's first law and second law is acceleration:

Newton's first law:
absence of acceleration

Newton's second law:
presence of acceleration

I was wondering if it would be safe to say:

"A particle not accelerating in an inertial frame of reference implies that the net force acting on the particle is zero"

(after all, if it is not accelerating, wouldn't that automatically imply that the particle is a rest or moving at a constant velocity?)

Instead of what the book more or less says:
"A particle at rest or moving at a constant velocity in an inertial frame of reference implies that the sum of the forces acting on the particle is zero"
That's right, both statements are correct. Newton's first law is just a special case of his 2nd, when a=0. A particle at rest or moving with constant velocity, will remain at rest or moving with constant velocity, unless acted on by a net unbalanced force (Newton 1). If a net unbalnced force acts on a particle,it will accelerate in the direction of the unbalanced force (Newton2: Net Force = rate of change of momentum, or f=ma for constant mass).
 
PhanthomJay said:
That's right, both statements are correct. Newton's first law is just a special case of his 2nd, when a=0. A particle at rest or moving with constant velocity, will remain at rest or moving with constant velocity, unless acted on by a net unbalanced force (Newton 1). If a net unbalnced force acts on a particle,it will accelerate in the direction of the unbalanced force (Newton2: Net Force = rate of change of momentum, or f=ma for constant mass).

Thank you. I like how you pointed out that Net Force = rate of change of momentum, or f=ma for constant mass, I didn't know about the "Net Force = rate of change of momentum" equation.
 
oh, it has been awhile since I've been in a calc class.

Does, "rate of change of momentum" mean the derivative of momentum?
 
alpha372 said:
oh, it has been awhile since I've been in a calc class.

Does, "rate of change of momentum" mean the derivative of momentum?
It's been awhile for me, too! Yes, it's the first derivative of the momentum with respect to time. Newton 2 may be written as F_{net} = d(mv)/dt. When mass is constant, this boils down to F_{net} = m(dv/dt), and since dv/dt =a, then F_{net} = ma. When mass is not constant (like in rocket propulsion problems where the rocket is burning off fuel), you've got to use the more general equation.
 
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Back
Top