HW questions about Forces with ball examples

AI Thread Summary
The discussion addresses two physics questions regarding forces during interactions between a tennis ball and a racquet, and a rubber ball and a wall. The first question highlights that both the ball and racquet exert equal forces on each other, but the ball's smaller mass allows it to reverse direction more noticeably. The second question clarifies that while the wall appears stationary, it does experience forces; its large mass results in negligible acceleration compared to the ball. Participants emphasize the importance of Newton's laws of motion, particularly action and reaction forces, in understanding these interactions. Overall, the conversation reinforces key physics principles related to force, mass, and acceleration.
Avram Bourdeau
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Poster has been reminded to use the HH Template and show their work
Hey all, I'm don't have the firmest grasp on physics and a little help would be much appreciated!

So two questions:
1)a physics student watching a tennis match states, "while the ball is in contact with the racquet, the racquet exerts a larger force on the ball than the ball does on the racquet because the racquet has to stop the ball and then reverse its motion"

What if anything is wrong with this statement?

2) a student observes a rubber ball hitting a wall and rebounding states, "The wall exerts a larger force on the ball than the ball exerts on the wall, because the ball undergoes an acceleration but the wall doesn't move. That is, the ball goes from an initial speed to zero, and then from zero to the rebound speed but the wall does not accelerate since it is stationary the whole time".

What if anything is wrong with this statement?

Thanks in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Merely transcribing the problems are insufficient.
You need to show some attempt at the problems.
 
Not super sure bout this answer but here goes...

1) The ball and the racquet are exerting the same amount of force, but because the tennis ball has a smaller mass (and is not held) it rebounds; ball hits the racquet=racquet hits the ball.

2) Something to do with inertia? Like, they exert the same force on one another but the wall has more inertia than the ball, and thus does not move?
 
Avram Bourdeau said:
Not super sure bout this answer but here goes...

1) The ball and the racquet are exerting the same amount of force, but because the tennis ball has a smaller mass (and is not held) it rebounds; ball hits the racquet=racquet hits the ball.

2) Something to do with inertia? Like, they exert the same force on one another but the wall has more inertia than the ball, and thus does not move?

For (1), even the tennis ball has a larger mass, the ball and the racquet are exerting the same amount of force, this is simply by action and reaction,
m1(v1-u1)=m2(v2-u2)
. While the ball stops and reverse its motion, the speed of the motion of racquet decreases too.

For (2), ''the wall does not accelerate since it is stationary the whole time'' is wrong. The wall has been moved. By action and reaction again, m1(v1-u1)=m2(v2-u2), Let m2 be the mass of the wall, as the wall is connected to the earth, its mass (m2) is immense. Therefore(v2-u2) is very small and it seems like stationary.
 
Avram Bourdeau said:
2) Something to do with inertia? Like, they exert the same force on one another but the wall has more inertia than the ball, and thus does not move?
What do you mean by "inertia", exactly? Where does the "inertia" come into Newton's laws of motion?

Did the ball in (2) experience any forces? Did the wall experience any forces? Is Newton's second law relevant at all?
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top