Why Does a Car Move at Constant Velocity Despite Equal Opposing Forces?

AI Thread Summary
A car can move at a constant velocity even when opposing forces are equal due to the principles of Newton's laws of motion. When the driving force matches the drag force, there is no net force acting on the car, resulting in zero acceleration. This means the car can maintain its current velocity without changing speed. The example of a spacecraft traveling through space illustrates that movement can occur without continuous force application, as it can coast once initial thrust is achieved. Therefore, balanced forces allow for constant velocity, but do not imply a lack of movement.
chembloke
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
I was wondering, if the force that causes a car to move in one direction is matched by the drag force opposing in the other direction, why does the car move at a constant velocity rather than moving at zero velocity. I thought that when one force opposes the other equally, there is no net movement. Please help, thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Ah, I understand what you mean. I was quite confused by this very same thing when I first encountered it. Enough chatter, I'll get straight to an answer.

You seem to be confusing equal and opposite forces, and acceleration. This is a classical matter of physics that fits well within the framework of Newtons laws, namely Newtons first law. which states: (loosely)

That a body in motion will stay in motion, and a body at rest will stay at rest, unless acted on by an outside force.

If you look at the second law now which is simply the mathematical statement

F = ma (we'll stick with the simplest form here)

It simply states that a force is felt when there is acceleration.

Newton's third law which states,

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

What you are missing is here in Newton's third law.

There is a force and a reaction force which cancel each other out.
Therefore, by the first law, the body should continue in it's same direction without any change because there is no acceleration present to enact a force.

Assuming there are no relativistic effects, i.e. velocities appreciable to the speed of light, that's the description you are looking for. I figure this is about what you are asking for correct?
 
chembloke said:
I thought that when one force opposes the other equally, there is no net movement.

No that's not correct. When the forces balance there is no acceleration but there can be movement.

For example a spacecraft traveling to Mars does not have to burn it's engine all the way there. During the cruise part of the flight it speeds along with the rocket switched off so the force acting on the rocket is zero...yet it's still moving through space.

Consider your car starting from a standstill. Initially the force due to air drag is zero (it's not moving through the air). As the car accelerates the drag forces increase until they match the thrust provided by the engine. At that point the forces balance and the car cannot accelerate any more...but it can still continue at a constant velocity.

As rethipher says the relevant equation is F=m.a

If the total Force F=0 then the acceleration a=0 but velocity doesn't figure in the equation so can be anything. What the velocity can't do is change because changing velocity is acceleration.
 
Last edited:
Thank you guys for all your help!
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top