Direction of an object when the net force is 0

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of Newton's first law of motion, particularly focusing on the scenario when the net force acting on an object is zero. Participants explore how this principle applies to various situations, including airplanes and spaceships, and the concept of equilibrium.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that when the net force is zero, an object will maintain its current state of motion, whether that be at rest or moving at a constant velocity.
  • Others clarify that if an airplane is moving at a constant speed, it will continue in that direction as long as the net force remains zero.
  • A participant introduces the concept of Lagrange points, discussing how gravitational forces can create points of unstable equilibrium for a spaceship.
  • There is a debate about the relevance of time in relation to the net force being zero, with some participants questioning the connection.
  • Some participants express confusion about determining the direction of an object when the net force is zero, leading to discussions about the necessity of knowing the object's original direction.
  • It is noted that just knowing the net force does not provide information about the direction of motion unless the original direction is known.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that a net force of zero means an object will not change its direction of motion. However, there is disagreement regarding the implications of time and the determination of direction when the net force is zero.

Contextual Notes

Some statements about the relationship between net force and direction are contingent on the initial conditions of motion, which are not fully explored in the discussion.

albert1993
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Hello, I'm self studying physics right now and have learned about Newton's laws.
However, I am confused by the first law.
I understand that when the net force is 0, an object will continue its original motion at the same velocity. But how does this work for an airplane which is moving at a constant speed? Since it is going at a constant speed, the net force on the airplane is 0, right? Well, how do we then conclude that the airplane is moving forward, though logically that makes sense?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Newton's laws tell us that as long as the net force on an object is zero, the object will keep moving at a constant speed in a straight line. This applies to an airplane, just like any other object. When the net force on the airplane is zero, it will keep moving in whatever direction it was going. If the plane was moving backward when the net force became zero, it will keep moving backward.
 
oh yea! there's still time before they all cancel each other out. thanks :D
 
time?? no. a body in equilibrium (dynamic or static) will ALWAYS remain in equilibrium PROVIDED no external net force acts on the body.

i.e. Total momentum of a system is constant, provided no external net force acts on a system.
 
unscientific said:
time?? no. a body in equilibrium (dynamic or static) will ALWAYS remain in equilibrium PROVIDED no external net force acts on the body.

i.e. Total momentum of a system is constant, provided no external net force acts on a system.

i'm sorry.. i don't understand what you mean... but i think i got my question answered..
 
Your second post implies you didn't understand. What do you think time has to do with the issue?
 
Albert1993 said:
Hello, I'm self studying physics right now and have learned about Newton's laws.
However, I am confused by the first law.
I understand that when the net force is 0, an object will continue its original motion at the same velocity.
Consider a spaceship between the Earth and the Moon. There are several points, called Langrange points, where the Earth gravity, Moon gravity, and centripetal forces cancel out. The spaceship is in unstable equilibrium, because any motion away from these points would cause one force to be stronger than the other two. See
http://plus.maths.org/issue36/features/dartnell/index.html
 
russ_watters said:
Your second post implies you didn't understand. What do you think time has to do with the issue?

i meant time as, that there was a moment of time that the the net force was not 0 before they all became equal
 
Albert1993 said:
i meant time as, that there was a moment of time that the the net force was not 0 before they all became equal
That isn't necessarily true and certainly isn't relevant. Newton's 1st law doesn't care how two objects got into their current situation, all it does is say that they'll stay in that situation if there is no outside/unbalanced force.
 
  • #10
russ_watters said:
That isn't necessarily true and certainly isn't relevant. Newton's 1st law doesn't care how two objects got into their current situation, all it does is say that they'll stay in that situation if there is no outside/unbalanced force.

ahh so you're saying that there is no direction of an object when the net force is 0?
 
  • #11
Albert1993 said:
ahh so you're saying that there is no direction of an object when the net force is 0?
The fact that the net force is zero has nothing to do with the direction an object is moving in. It just means that it won't change direction.
 
  • #12
Doc Al said:
The fact that the net force is zero has nothing to do with the direction an object is moving in. It just means that it won't change direction.

kk, so is it impossible to determine the direction of an object when the net force is 0, unless we know what its original direction was (that is if it was moving in the first place), right?
 
  • #13
Albert1993 said:
kk, so is it impossible to determine the direction of an object when the net force is 0, unless we know what its original direction was (that is if it was moving in the first place), right?
Correct.

Just knowing the net force (even if it's not zero) will not tell you the direction of motion.
 
  • #14
Doc Al said:
Correct.

Just knowing the net force (even if it's not zero) will not tell you the direction of motion.

ok, thank you :biggrin:
 

Similar threads

High School Understanding Newton's Third Law and the Net Force on Objects
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
High School Zero acceleration = zero net force?
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
High School Conceptually understanding change in potential energy with 0 net work
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Undergrad Origin of Centripetal force when the net force toward the center is 0?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Undergrad Why normal force is not equal to gravity?
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
5K
High School Equivalence of Frictional and Applied Force
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
High School How does an object gain potential energy?
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
7K
Graduate Work-KE theorem and net force....
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
Graduate Internal forces converting kinetic into potential energy (vice versa)
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
High School The application of Newton's laws to fluid equilibrium
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K