What happens when the centripetal force is equal and opposite to the centrifugal force?What provides the centrifugal force for planets orbiting a star?Intuitive understanding of centripetal vs. centrifugal forceDo centripetal and reactive centrifugal forces cancel each other out?What is the cause of centripetal/centrifugal force?Why is centrifugal 'force' perpendicular to line of inertiaReference frame and centrifugal forceIs centrifugal force equal in magnitude to the centripetal force in the frame of a body undergoing circular motion?Centripetal and centrifugal forceThe athlete feels a centrifugal force when whirling the hammer - is there always a centrifugal force associated with a centripetal force?Why is centrifugal force considered fictitious, when it's the one that feels real to us when we are moving in a circle?
What happens when the centripetal force is equal and opposite to the centrifugal force?
Worshiping one God at a time?
If I cast the Enlarge/Reduce spell on an arrow, what weapon could it count as?
Should I be concerned about student access to a test bank?
How are passwords stolen from companies if they only store hashes?
is this saw blade faulty?
Would mining huge amounts of resources on the Moon change its orbit?
Writing in a Christian voice
Pre-Employment Background Check With Consent For Future Checks
The English Debate
How old is Nick Fury?
How to test the sharpness of a knife?
Which partition to make active?
label a part of commutative diagram
Output visual diagram of picture
Animating wave motion in water
Asserting that Atheism and Theism are both faith based positions
Emojional cryptic crossword
How to balance a monster modification (zombie)?
Why is indicated airspeed rather than ground speed used during the takeoff roll?
Why doesn't the fusion process of the sun speed up?
Help with identifying unique aircraft over NE Pennsylvania
Should a narrator ever describe things based on a characters view instead of fact?
Gauss brackets with double vertical lines
What happens when the centripetal force is equal and opposite to the centrifugal force?
What provides the centrifugal force for planets orbiting a star?Intuitive understanding of centripetal vs. centrifugal forceDo centripetal and reactive centrifugal forces cancel each other out?What is the cause of centripetal/centrifugal force?Why is centrifugal 'force' perpendicular to line of inertiaReference frame and centrifugal forceIs centrifugal force equal in magnitude to the centripetal force in the frame of a body undergoing circular motion?Centripetal and centrifugal forceThe athlete feels a centrifugal force when whirling the hammer - is there always a centrifugal force associated with a centripetal force?Why is centrifugal force considered fictitious, when it's the one that feels real to us when we are moving in a circle?
$begingroup$
We say that centrifugal force is fictitious, yet we still use it in some problems. If the centrifugal force is equal and opposite to the centripetal force wouldn't that make the net force zero?
newtonian-mechanics rotational-dynamics reference-frames centripetal-force centrifugal-force
edited 1 hour ago
Qmechanic♦
106k121961222
asked 5 hours ago
Santosh KhatriSantosh Khatri
122
New contributor
Santosh Khatri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
We say that centrifugal force is fictitious, yet we still use it in some problems. If the centrifugal force is equal and opposite to the centripetal force wouldn't that make the net force zero?
newtonian-mechanics rotational-dynamics reference-frames centripetal-force centrifugal-force
edited 1 hour ago
Qmechanic♦
106k121961222
asked 5 hours ago
Santosh KhatriSantosh Khatri
122
New contributor
Santosh Khatri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
It would make the net force zero. Which is the problem. Because the body in question is accelerating.
$endgroup$
– dmckee♦
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
But that will be for the st. Line only isn't it
$endgroup$
– Santosh Khatri
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Newton's 2nd law is not restricted to straight lines (if that is what "st. Line" is meant to convey). I know that the experience of interaction when riding a merry-go-round or carnival ride is visceral and intense, but you have to frame your thinking about it carefully. When you are going around in a circle you are not in equilibrium: you are accelerating toward the center of that circle. Believe that—really take it into account—and you can make sense of it all. The force that is applied to you is always toward the center.
$endgroup$
– dmckee♦
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
The title of the question should serve as a title to the whole question and one should probably avoid writing the text of the question in literal continuation of the phrase/sentence in the title. In other words, the body of the question should be such that it can convey some meaning on its own and need not be read in literal continuation of the title.
$endgroup$
– Dvij Mankad
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
We say that centrifugal force is fictitious, yet we still use it in some problems. If the centrifugal force is equal and opposite to the centripetal force wouldn't that make the net force zero?
newtonian-mechanics rotational-dynamics reference-frames centripetal-force centrifugal-force
edited 1 hour ago
Qmechanic♦
106k121961222
asked 5 hours ago
Santosh KhatriSantosh Khatri
122
New contributor
Santosh Khatri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
We say that centrifugal force is fictitious, yet we still use it in some problems. If the centrifugal force is equal and opposite to the centripetal force wouldn't that make the net force zero?
newtonian-mechanics rotational-dynamics reference-frames centripetal-force centrifugal-force
newtonian-mechanics rotational-dynamics reference-frames centripetal-force centrifugal-force
edited 1 hour ago
Qmechanic♦
106k121961222
asked 5 hours ago
Santosh KhatriSantosh Khatri
122
New contributor
Santosh Khatri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 1 hour ago
Qmechanic♦
106k121961222
asked 5 hours ago
Santosh KhatriSantosh Khatri
122
New contributor
Santosh Khatri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 1 hour ago
Qmechanic♦
106k121961222
edited 1 hour ago
Qmechanic♦
106k121961222
edited 1 hour ago
Qmechanic♦
106k121961222
106k121961222
asked 5 hours ago
Santosh KhatriSantosh Khatri
122
New contributor
Santosh Khatri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 5 hours ago
Santosh KhatriSantosh Khatri
122
asked 5 hours ago
Santosh KhatriSantosh Khatri
122
122
New contributor
Santosh Khatri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Santosh Khatri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Santosh Khatri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
$begingroup$
It would make the net force zero. Which is the problem. Because the body in question is accelerating.
$endgroup$
– dmckee♦
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
But that will be for the st. Line only isn't it
$endgroup$
– Santosh Khatri
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Newton's 2nd law is not restricted to straight lines (if that is what "st. Line" is meant to convey). I know that the experience of interaction when riding a merry-go-round or carnival ride is visceral and intense, but you have to frame your thinking about it carefully. When you are going around in a circle you are not in equilibrium: you are accelerating toward the center of that circle. Believe that—really take it into account—and you can make sense of it all. The force that is applied to you is always toward the center.
$endgroup$
– dmckee♦
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
The title of the question should serve as a title to the whole question and one should probably avoid writing the text of the question in literal continuation of the phrase/sentence in the title. In other words, the body of the question should be such that it can convey some meaning on its own and need not be read in literal continuation of the title.
$endgroup$
– Dvij Mankad
4 hours ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
It would make the net force zero. Which is the problem. Because the body in question is accelerating.
$endgroup$
– dmckee♦
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
But that will be for the st. Line only isn't it
$endgroup$
– Santosh Khatri
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Newton's 2nd law is not restricted to straight lines (if that is what "st. Line" is meant to convey). I know that the experience of interaction when riding a merry-go-round or carnival ride is visceral and intense, but you have to frame your thinking about it carefully. When you are going around in a circle you are not in equilibrium: you are accelerating toward the center of that circle. Believe that—really take it into account—and you can make sense of it all. The force that is applied to you is always toward the center.
$endgroup$
– dmckee♦
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
The title of the question should serve as a title to the whole question and one should probably avoid writing the text of the question in literal continuation of the phrase/sentence in the title. In other words, the body of the question should be such that it can convey some meaning on its own and need not be read in literal continuation of the title.
$endgroup$
– Dvij Mankad
4 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
It would make the net force zero. Which is the problem. Because the body in question is accelerating.
$endgroup$
– dmckee♦
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
It would make the net force zero. Which is the problem. Because the body in question is accelerating.
$endgroup$
– dmckee♦
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
But that will be for the st. Line only isn't it
$endgroup$
– Santosh Khatri
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
But that will be for the st. Line only isn't it
$endgroup$
– Santosh Khatri
5 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Newton's 2nd law is not restricted to straight lines (if that is what "st. Line" is meant to convey). I know that the experience of interaction when riding a merry-go-round or carnival ride is visceral and intense, but you have to frame your thinking about it carefully. When you are going around in a circle you are not in equilibrium: you are accelerating toward the center of that circle. Believe that—really take it into account—and you can make sense of it all. The force that is applied to you is always toward the center.
$endgroup$
– dmckee♦
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Newton's 2nd law is not restricted to straight lines (if that is what "st. Line" is meant to convey). I know that the experience of interaction when riding a merry-go-round or carnival ride is visceral and intense, but you have to frame your thinking about it carefully. When you are going around in a circle you are not in equilibrium: you are accelerating toward the center of that circle. Believe that—really take it into account—and you can make sense of it all. The force that is applied to you is always toward the center.
$endgroup$
– dmckee♦
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
The title of the question should serve as a title to the whole question and one should probably avoid writing the text of the question in literal continuation of the phrase/sentence in the title. In other words, the body of the question should be such that it can convey some meaning on its own and need not be read in literal continuation of the title.
$endgroup$
– Dvij Mankad
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
The title of the question should serve as a title to the whole question and one should probably avoid writing the text of the question in literal continuation of the phrase/sentence in the title. In other words, the body of the question should be such that it can convey some meaning on its own and need not be read in literal continuation of the title.
$endgroup$
– Dvij Mankad
4 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
First, it must be stated that Newton's laws only hold in inertial frames. What this means is that accelerations must arise from forces (Second Law), and these forces arise from interactions (Third Law). The issue with rotating frames is that accelerations arise when forces of interactions are not present, so Newton's laws do not hold in rotating frames.
However, the second law ($mathbf F=mmathbf a$) is nice to use since it tells us how to determine the position and velocity of a body given initial conditions. Therefore, we define "fictitious" centrifugal and Coriolis forces in order to keep this framework. They are "fictitious" because they are an artifact of the rotating reference frame rather than interactions, but they are not fake (for example, they are very real for anyone going around a sharp turn in a car). Essentially we have opted to abandon the third law in order to keep the second law.
Now, onto your specific inquiry: If you are in a rotating frame, and there is a force equally opposing the centrifugal force, then yes the net force is zero (assuming no Coriolis force either). Therefore in the rotating frame there is no acceleration of the object in question.
Of course, if you looked at the scenario from an inertial frame you would have a non-zero acceleration of the object as there is now a non-zero net force that is the centripetal force.
answered 5 hours ago
Aaron StevensAaron Stevens
13.1k42248
$endgroup$
4
$begingroup$
You should emphasize that Newton's laws are defined for inertial frames and that the treatment of non-inertial frame by applying inertial pseudo-forces is a lash-up to lets us apply the machinery of Newtonian mechanics to situations other than those for which in which the subject finds its natural expression. Otherwise you invite misunderstanding.
$endgroup$
– dmckee♦
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@dmckee I agree those are good points to make. I have added information pertaining to this. Thanks for the suggestion.
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Santosh Khatri is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f467294%2fwhat-happens-when-the-centripetal-force-is-equal-and-opposite-to-the-centrifugal%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
First, it must be stated that Newton's laws only hold in inertial frames. What this means is that accelerations must arise from forces (Second Law), and these forces arise from interactions (Third Law). The issue with rotating frames is that accelerations arise when forces of interactions are not present, so Newton's laws do not hold in rotating frames.
However, the second law ($mathbf F=mmathbf a$) is nice to use since it tells us how to determine the position and velocity of a body given initial conditions. Therefore, we define "fictitious" centrifugal and Coriolis forces in order to keep this framework. They are "fictitious" because they are an artifact of the rotating reference frame rather than interactions, but they are not fake (for example, they are very real for anyone going around a sharp turn in a car). Essentially we have opted to abandon the third law in order to keep the second law.
Now, onto your specific inquiry: If you are in a rotating frame, and there is a force equally opposing the centrifugal force, then yes the net force is zero (assuming no Coriolis force either). Therefore in the rotating frame there is no acceleration of the object in question.
Of course, if you looked at the scenario from an inertial frame you would have a non-zero acceleration of the object as there is now a non-zero net force that is the centripetal force.
answered 5 hours ago
Aaron StevensAaron Stevens
13.1k42248
$endgroup$
4
$begingroup$
You should emphasize that Newton's laws are defined for inertial frames and that the treatment of non-inertial frame by applying inertial pseudo-forces is a lash-up to lets us apply the machinery of Newtonian mechanics to situations other than those for which in which the subject finds its natural expression. Otherwise you invite misunderstanding.
$endgroup$
– dmckee♦
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@dmckee I agree those are good points to make. I have added information pertaining to this. Thanks for the suggestion.
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
First, it must be stated that Newton's laws only hold in inertial frames. What this means is that accelerations must arise from forces (Second Law), and these forces arise from interactions (Third Law). The issue with rotating frames is that accelerations arise when forces of interactions are not present, so Newton's laws do not hold in rotating frames.
However, the second law ($mathbf F=mmathbf a$) is nice to use since it tells us how to determine the position and velocity of a body given initial conditions. Therefore, we define "fictitious" centrifugal and Coriolis forces in order to keep this framework. They are "fictitious" because they are an artifact of the rotating reference frame rather than interactions, but they are not fake (for example, they are very real for anyone going around a sharp turn in a car). Essentially we have opted to abandon the third law in order to keep the second law.
Now, onto your specific inquiry: If you are in a rotating frame, and there is a force equally opposing the centrifugal force, then yes the net force is zero (assuming no Coriolis force either). Therefore in the rotating frame there is no acceleration of the object in question.
Of course, if you looked at the scenario from an inertial frame you would have a non-zero acceleration of the object as there is now a non-zero net force that is the centripetal force.
answered 5 hours ago
Aaron StevensAaron Stevens
13.1k42248
$endgroup$
4
$begingroup$
You should emphasize that Newton's laws are defined for inertial frames and that the treatment of non-inertial frame by applying inertial pseudo-forces is a lash-up to lets us apply the machinery of Newtonian mechanics to situations other than those for which in which the subject finds its natural expression. Otherwise you invite misunderstanding.
$endgroup$
– dmckee♦
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@dmckee I agree those are good points to make. I have added information pertaining to this. Thanks for the suggestion.
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
First, it must be stated that Newton's laws only hold in inertial frames. What this means is that accelerations must arise from forces (Second Law), and these forces arise from interactions (Third Law). The issue with rotating frames is that accelerations arise when forces of interactions are not present, so Newton's laws do not hold in rotating frames.
However, the second law ($mathbf F=mmathbf a$) is nice to use since it tells us how to determine the position and velocity of a body given initial conditions. Therefore, we define "fictitious" centrifugal and Coriolis forces in order to keep this framework. They are "fictitious" because they are an artifact of the rotating reference frame rather than interactions, but they are not fake (for example, they are very real for anyone going around a sharp turn in a car). Essentially we have opted to abandon the third law in order to keep the second law.
Now, onto your specific inquiry: If you are in a rotating frame, and there is a force equally opposing the centrifugal force, then yes the net force is zero (assuming no Coriolis force either). Therefore in the rotating frame there is no acceleration of the object in question.
Of course, if you looked at the scenario from an inertial frame you would have a non-zero acceleration of the object as there is now a non-zero net force that is the centripetal force.
answered 5 hours ago
Aaron StevensAaron Stevens
13.1k42248
$endgroup$
First, it must be stated that Newton's laws only hold in inertial frames. What this means is that accelerations must arise from forces (Second Law), and these forces arise from interactions (Third Law). The issue with rotating frames is that accelerations arise when forces of interactions are not present, so Newton's laws do not hold in rotating frames.
However, the second law ($mathbf F=mmathbf a$) is nice to use since it tells us how to determine the position and velocity of a body given initial conditions. Therefore, we define "fictitious" centrifugal and Coriolis forces in order to keep this framework. They are "fictitious" because they are an artifact of the rotating reference frame rather than interactions, but they are not fake (for example, they are very real for anyone going around a sharp turn in a car). Essentially we have opted to abandon the third law in order to keep the second law.
Now, onto your specific inquiry: If you are in a rotating frame, and there is a force equally opposing the centrifugal force, then yes the net force is zero (assuming no Coriolis force either). Therefore in the rotating frame there is no acceleration of the object in question.
Of course, if you looked at the scenario from an inertial frame you would have a non-zero acceleration of the object as there is now a non-zero net force that is the centripetal force.
answered 5 hours ago
Aaron StevensAaron Stevens
13.1k42248
edited 3 hours ago
answered 5 hours ago
Aaron StevensAaron Stevens
13.1k42248
answered 5 hours ago
Aaron StevensAaron Stevens
13.1k42248
answered 5 hours ago
Aaron StevensAaron Stevens
13.1k42248
13.1k42248
4
$begingroup$
You should emphasize that Newton's laws are defined for inertial frames and that the treatment of non-inertial frame by applying inertial pseudo-forces is a lash-up to lets us apply the machinery of Newtonian mechanics to situations other than those for which in which the subject finds its natural expression. Otherwise you invite misunderstanding.
$endgroup$
– dmckee♦
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@dmckee I agree those are good points to make. I have added information pertaining to this. Thanks for the suggestion.
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
3 hours ago
add a comment |
4
$begingroup$
You should emphasize that Newton's laws are defined for inertial frames and that the treatment of non-inertial frame by applying inertial pseudo-forces is a lash-up to lets us apply the machinery of Newtonian mechanics to situations other than those for which in which the subject finds its natural expression. Otherwise you invite misunderstanding.
$endgroup$
– dmckee♦
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@dmckee I agree those are good points to make. I have added information pertaining to this. Thanks for the suggestion.
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
3 hours ago
4
4
$begingroup$
You should emphasize that Newton's laws are defined for inertial frames and that the treatment of non-inertial frame by applying inertial pseudo-forces is a lash-up to lets us apply the machinery of Newtonian mechanics to situations other than those for which in which the subject finds its natural expression. Otherwise you invite misunderstanding.
$endgroup$
– dmckee♦
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
You should emphasize that Newton's laws are defined for inertial frames and that the treatment of non-inertial frame by applying inertial pseudo-forces is a lash-up to lets us apply the machinery of Newtonian mechanics to situations other than those for which in which the subject finds its natural expression. Otherwise you invite misunderstanding.
$endgroup$
– dmckee♦
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@dmckee I agree those are good points to make. I have added information pertaining to this. Thanks for the suggestion.
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@dmckee I agree those are good points to make. I have added information pertaining to this. Thanks for the suggestion.
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Santosh Khatri is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Santosh Khatri is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Santosh Khatri is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Santosh Khatri is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f467294%2fwhat-happens-when-the-centripetal-force-is-equal-and-opposite-to-the-centrifugal%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
It would make the net force zero. Which is the problem. Because the body in question is accelerating.
$endgroup$
– dmckee♦
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
But that will be for the st. Line only isn't it
$endgroup$
– Santosh Khatri
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Newton's 2nd law is not restricted to straight lines (if that is what "st. Line" is meant to convey). I know that the experience of interaction when riding a merry-go-round or carnival ride is visceral and intense, but you have to frame your thinking about it carefully. When you are going around in a circle you are not in equilibrium: you are accelerating toward the center of that circle. Believe that—really take it into account—and you can make sense of it all. The force that is applied to you is always toward the center.
$endgroup$
– dmckee♦
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
The title of the question should serve as a title to the whole question and one should probably avoid writing the text of the question in literal continuation of the phrase/sentence in the title. In other words, the body of the question should be such that it can convey some meaning on its own and need not be read in literal continuation of the title.
$endgroup$
– Dvij Mankad
4 hours ago