- #1

- 343

- 1

## Main Question or Discussion Point

I don't understand how I can be at rest and then start walking or when a ball hits the wall it bounces back while the wall get no momentum at all?

- Thread starter glueball8
- Start date

- #1

- 343

- 1

I don't understand how I can be at rest and then start walking or when a ball hits the wall it bounces back while the wall get no momentum at all?

- #2

- 199

- 0

- #3

mathman

Science Advisor

- 7,760

- 415

- #4

- 139

- 1

I don't understand how I can be at rest and then start walking or when a ball hits the wall it bounces back while the wall get no momentum at all?

In either case, momentum is conserved. It's just that the wall is rigidly connected to the ground/Earth and likewise for your walking scenario. Remember that it's mass times velocity to get that momentum figure, so if you have such a large mass, the Earth, it'll have to have an insignificant velocity, essentially, when your tiny mass moves at the given velocity.

- #5

- 343

- 1

So what about that I can walk from rest? How is the momentum conserved here?

- #6

Doc Al

Mentor

- 44,882

- 1,129

As you move forward with momentum +P, the ground/Earth is pushed back with momentum -P. Since the ground/Earth is so massive, you won't notice its backward movement. (As mathman and aerospaceut10 already explained.)So what about that I can walk from rest? How is the momentum conserved here?

- #7

- 87

- 0

- #8

- 34

- 0

- #9

- 2,985

- 13

"Theoretically"?.......... "velocity in the opposite direction?" ..........."To small to be detected"...........? ............

Hint:

[tex]m_ev_{e,1}+m_pv_{p,1}=m_ev_{e,2}+m_pv_{p,2}[/tex]

Do some algebraic manipulation and get this"

[tex]v_{1,e}-\frac{m_pv_{p,2}}{M_e}=v_{e,2}[/tex]

Now, how did you deduce the earth moves "in the opposite direction?" Something should have yelled to you, wait a minute, that doesnt make sense by the sound of what I just wrote.

Last edited:

- #10

- 87

- 0

The OP phrased the question as starting from rest. Whenever I answer a question, I take the OP's conditions as implicitly given. I'm sorry if this confuses you."Theoretically"?.......... "velocity in the opposite direction?" ..........."To small to be detected"...........? ............

Hint:

[tex]m_ev_{e,1}+m_pv_{p,1}=m_ev_{e,2}+m_pv_{p,2}[/tex]

Do some algebraic manipulation and get this"

[tex]v_{1,e}-\frac{m_pv_{p,2}}{M_e}=v_{e,2}[/tex]

Now, how did you deduce the earth moves "in the opposite direction?" Something should have yelled to you, wait a minute, that doesnt make sense by the sound of what I just wrote.

Actually, I'm not sorry. You're just an annoying nitpicker.

And how do you propose to measure the motion of the earth due to a person walking around upon it?

- #11

- 2,985

- 13

Please explain how the earth goes in the 'opposite direction'.

- #12

- 87

- 0

Ah, I see your point now. I didn't see it at first. Your point is still stupid.

I have to specify that the earth is moving before I take a step? Why? What absolute reference frame are you using?

- #13

- 2,985

- 13

As long as you see my point, im happy. Statements like "very slight velocity in the opposite direction" sound very, very wrong.

Ah, I see your point now. I didn't see it at first. Your point is still stupid.

I have to specify that the earth is moving before I take a step? Why? What absolute reference frame are you using?

- #14

- 15,393

- 682

It's not nice to be rude."Theoretically"?.......... "velocity in the opposite direction?" ..........."To small to be detected"...........? ............

Particularly when you are wrong.

As you move forward with momentum +P, the ground/Earth is pushed back with momentum -P. Since the ground/Earth is so massive, you won't notice its backward movement. (As mathman and aerospaceut10 already explained.)

Remember that it's mass times velocity to get that momentum figure, so if you have such a large mass, the Earth, it'll have to have an insignificant velocity, essentially, when your tiny mass moves at the given velocity.

- #15

- 3,077

- 3

- #16

- 2,985

- 13

DH, I read what they wrote. They were using a reference frame of the earth being stationary, I did not. In the case where its not stationary, the earth does NOT move backwards.

I just showed this using the simple conservation of momentum equation. I have no problems with you stating im wrong, but then show me where my equation is incorrect.

- #17

- 15,393

- 682

Conservation of energy, linear momentum, and angular momentum are three distinct concepts. Suppose you take a drive in your car down the freeway, and wham, your car instantaneous reverses its velocity vector, throwing you against the steering column at 120 mph. The car's speed is 60 mph before and after the velocity reversal, so kinetic energy is conserved. Fortunately, that never happens because of conservation of momentum.As far as I know, conservation of energy underlies conservation of momentum

The three conservation laws are related through Noether's theorem. Some quantity is conserved for a system in which the Lagrangian exhibits a symmetry. Energy is conserved if the Lagrangian is temporally symmetric. Linear momentum is conserved if the Lagrangian is symmetric with respect to position. Angular momentum is conserved if the Lagrangian is rotationally symmetric.

- #18

Doc Al

Mentor

- 44,882

- 1,129

What's your point? You seem to relish giving out more heat than light.

DH, I read what they wrote. They were using a reference frame of the earth being stationary, I did not. In the case where its not stationary, the earth does NOT move backwards.

I just showed this using the simple conservation of momentum equation. I have no problems with you stating im wrong, but then show me where my equation is incorrect.

Of course, the Earth "moving backwards" is from the initial inertial frame in which everything started at rest. Duh! You do understand the concept of velocity and reference frames, don't you?

- #19

- 2,985

- 13

Ok, but it wasnt clear to me at all that was the reference frame you were using, so when I read the earth 'moves backwards an undetectable amount', I said to myself 'what the heck!, I dont think so!', thus my frustration.What's your point? You seem to relish giving out more heat than light.

Of course, the Earth "moving backwards" is from the initial inertial frame in which everything started at rest. Duh! You do understand the concept of velocity and reference frames, don't you?

My apologies, all.

- #20

- 794

- 1

If you were standing still on some marbles, and then decided to start walking forward---what would happen to the marbles you were standing on?So what about that I can walk from rest? How is the momentum conserved here?

- Last Post

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 551

- Last Post

- Replies
- 13

- Views
- 4K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 9

- Views
- 13K

- Replies
- 9

- Views
- 13K

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 3K

- Replies
- 27

- Views
- 3K

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 2K