- #1
donaldparida
- 146
- 10
Standing within a field, should the force required to move an object in the opposite direction of the field without acceleration be equal to the force exerted by the field on it or a little more than that?
Then your intuition is wrong .donaldparida said:I know that but by intuition it seems to me that if an equal force is applied then the object will not move.
if there is no acceleration, then an object that was not moving cannot start moving.donaldparida said:the force required to move an object in the opposite direction of the field without acceleration
Yes.donaldparida said:Is this true for the Earth's gravitational field also?
donaldparida said:Is this true for the Earth's gravitational field also?
The word "move" usually refers to velocity. Force is proportional to acceleration. You can have velocity without acceleration (movement without force) and acceleration without velocity (force without velocity, at least momentarily). So they are fairly separate concepts that you should not try to mix inappropriately.donaldparida said:Standing within a field, should the force required to move an object in the opposite direction of the field without acceleration be equal to the force exerted by the field on it or a little more than that?
Please review what @russ_waters just said in #9. "move" and "accelerate" are different things.donaldparida said:@CWatters, in your example the helicopter rose up to a certain height due to unbalanced forces and then the forces which act on it get balanced. So should not the helicopter rise up with constant velocity according to Newton's first law?
Yes, if the net vertical force is zero, the helicopter will hover or climb with constant velocity.donaldparida said:So should not the helicopter rise up with constant velocity according to Newton's first law?
CWatters did not say anything at all about what happens when the helicopter is moving up. But yes, if it is moving up (or in any direction) at constant velocity, the net force is zero.donaldparida said:@CWatters, in your example the helicopter rose up to a certain height due to unbalanced forces and then the forces which act on it get balanced. So should not the helicopter rise up with constant velocity according to Newton's first law?
When a ball is thrown vertically it will go up and then fall back down. It accelerates at -g the entire time, but at the top it is momentarily at rest. So it has a non zero acceleration and a zero velocity at that point.donaldparida said:@Dale, please clarify what you mean by "acceleration without velocity (force without velocity, at least momentarily)"
CWatters said:Yes. When a helicopter is hovering the lift force created by the rotor is exactly equal to the weight of the aircraft. In order to accelerate up or down one of the forces (lift or weight) must be greater than the other so that there is a net force. See also Newtons first and second laws in Wikipedia.
donaldparida said:@CWatters, in your example the helicopter rose up to a certain height due to unbalanced forces and then the forces which act on it get balanced. So should not the helicopter rise up with constant velocity according to Newton's first law?
@russ_watters, i said that the helicopter must have moved up with acceleration caused due unbalanced forces and then when balanced forces act on it shouldn't it move up without acceleration instead of hovering?russ_watters said:CWatters did not say anything at all about what happens when the helicopter is moving up. But yes, if it is moving up (or in any direction) at constant velocity, the net force is zero.
I didn't say anything about how the helicopter got into the hover, just that in the hover lift equals weight.donaldparida said:@A.T., but initially the helicopter was moving up with acceleration and was not at rest.
In addition to all these we can also have acceleration without motion.donaldparida said:i know that "move and accelerate are different things".
To move means to change position with time while to accelerate mean to change the velocity with time.
To move without acceleration means to move with constant velocity which require a zero net force and to move with acceleration means to move with a changing velocity which requires a non-zero net force.
Only instantaneously, though, I think.donaldparida said:In addition to all these we can also have acceleration without motion.
Yes, otherwise you couldn't start moving from rest.donaldparida said:In addition to all these we can also have acceleration without motion.
The force required to move an object upwards is known as the upward force or the lifting force. It is the force that acts against the force of gravity and allows the object to move upwards.
The force required to move an object upwards can be calculated using the formula F = m x g, where F is the upward force, m is the mass of the object, and g is the acceleration due to gravity (9.8 m/s² on Earth).
Yes, the force required to move an object upwards is directly proportional to the weight of the object. The heavier the object, the more force is needed to lift it upwards.
Apart from the weight of the object, the force required to move an object upwards also depends on the surface it is being moved on, the angle at which it is being lifted, and any additional forces acting on the object, such as friction or air resistance.
The force required to move an object upwards can be reduced by using a ramp or an inclined plane, which decreases the angle at which the object is being lifted. It can also be reduced by using a pulley system, which distributes the weight of the object among multiple ropes or cables, making it easier to lift.