Jiman
- 28
- 6
I feel that force is also function of time.
The discussion revolves around the relationship between time and force in the context of particle motion. Participants explore how force may depend on time, particularly in relation to position and the nature of forces such as gravity and electromagnetism. The conversation touches on theoretical implications and practical considerations in physics.
Participants express multiple competing views regarding the dependence of force on time versus position, and the discussion remains unresolved with no consensus reached.
The discussion includes references to specific forces and their mathematical definitions, but lacks consensus on how these definitions apply in the context of time dependence. Some participants also mention the need for clearer communication, indicating potential misunderstandings in the exchange.
This discussion may be of interest to those studying physics, particularly in the areas of mechanics and force interactions, as well as individuals interested in the nuances of scientific communication.
A body is a collection of particles.Jiman said:This is only true for particle but not for extensive body?
Thank you so much!PeroK said:A body is a collection of particles.
Jiman said:I feel that force is also function of time.
ZapperZ said:I am sure that you are citing this out of context, which is a nasty thing to do to any author. You should at least make an effort at (i) citing the exact phrase that led you to conclude this and (ii) citing the location of the source, i.e. where in the book did you get this.
Force can be defined as the gradient of the potential energy field, i.e.
F = -∇U
By that alone, I can claim that force depends only on position, since it is a function of the gradient (i.e. d/dx) of the potential energy field.
So how is that not correct in this context?
Thank you for reminding me. I'll correct it.
Zz.
Jiman said:Thank you for reminding me. I'll correct it.
Sorry, English is not my native language. I hardly use English in my life. But I can understand what you're replying to.ZapperZ said:You need to learn how to communicate in a clearer manner here. In the 4 posts that you have made in this thread, all of them were one-sentence responses. In this post alone, I've typed more than what you had written, combined!
It is difficult to know what it is really that you are going to "correct". Furthermore, I don't see any indication that you've understood the answer that you were given, since you did not indicate that one way or another.
If you wish that members responding to your questions provide detailed and thoughtful answers, you should at least put in the same level of effort in your questions and posts.
Zz.
PF is tolerable for this. It is one of the reasons I like itJiman said:Sorry, English is not my native language.
Kleppner said:"At first glance there seems to be no problem in finding the motion
of a particle if we know the force. Newton’s second law tells us the acceleration,
which we can integrate to find the velocity, and we can then
integrate the velocity to find the position. This sounds simple but there
is a problem: to carry out these calculations we need to know the force
as a function of time, but force is usually known as a function of position
as, for example, the spring force or the gravitational force. The
problem is serious because physicists are generally interested in interactions
between systems, which means knowing how the force varies with
position, not how it varies with time."