The discussion revolves around Newton's Third Law of Motion, specifically addressing the implications of equal forces acting on a stationary object. Participants explore the relationship between action and reaction forces and how these relate to motion and equilibrium in different scenarios.
Participants express differing views on the implications of Newton's Third Law regarding motion and equilibrium. There is no consensus on whether equal forces necessarily imply that an object must be stationary.
Some statements rely on assumptions about the absence of other forces acting on the bodies in question, and the discussion does not resolve the complexities surrounding the application of Newton's laws in various contexts.
Lim Y K said:The Newton's third law states that the force exerted by body A on body B is equal to the force exerted by Body B on Body A . In this case, isn't the object supposed to be stationary because equal forces are acting on both sides?
Can someone please explain to me . Thanks
Lim Y K said:In this case, isn't the object supposed to be stationary because equal forces are acting on both sides?
Newton's Third Law applies to the interaction between one body and another and not the sum of Forces on a single Body, which says that you need a net unbalanced force for acceleration to take place. That's Newton 1. Each of the forces acting on a body (say the strings pulling it and the table it rests on) will have equal and opposite reaction forces - the mass pushes down on the table with the same force as the table keeping the mass up (N3). The tension in the string is the same in both directions (N3) - whether or not the string is causing the mass to accelerate (N1).Lim Y K said:The Newton's third law states that the force exerted by body A on body B is equal to the force exerted by Body B on Body A . In this case, isn't the object supposed to be stationary because equal forces are acting on both sides?
Can someone please explain to me . Thanks