This really helped me understand the intuition behind the Third Law. The 'don't include forces exerted by the body' was a really nice piece for the puzzle. Thank you so much for these videos!
The key thing to remember is... 3:11 *** DO NOT INCLUDE FORCES EXERTED BY (FROM) THE OBJECT IN FREE-BODY DIAGRAMS *** He is right. So many people get this wrong, and get confused. So, for a rocket, you can use equal and opposite arrows (i.e. Newton's Third Law) to show the gases pushing downwards onto the surrounding air and the surrounding air pushing back upwards on the rocket. This is NOT a Free-Body Diagram. However, when you do then construct a Free-Body Diagram, the first arrow (i.e. the one from the exhaust pushing downwards out of the rocket) IS NOT INCLUDED. This is because this downwards arrow is the object acting on its surroundings, and not the surroundings acting on the object. Huge difference. So, the Free-Body Diagram only includes the second arrow pushing back on the rocket, plus the other forces that are acting ON the rocket (i.e. the earth's gravity pulling it straight downwards as weight, and air resistance pushing back a little bit against its forward movement). In terms of a diagram in the video, at 1:23 the Free Body Diagram would only include the red "reaction" arrows, while the blue "action" arrows would not be included. Then, at 1:38, again only the red "reaction" is included in the FBD, but this time there is no red in the opposite direction to stop him from moving to the left. Once you get this one point clear (i.e. to not include forces FROM the object in the FBD), the whole subject suddenly makes sense. It is rocket science.
another mistake people make is to claim pressure within the rocket engine/combustion chamber is what makes it move. however, this is an INTERNAL force, so also cannot be included in a free body diagram. a rocket is, after all, an INTERNAL combustion engine by definition.
@@papalegba6759 you are the LAST person to be commenting on this thread. You REFUSE to acknowledge that rocket propulsion DOES WORK. You DO NOT understand Newton's laws, and you have proven this repeatedly. SO piss off imbeicle.
For the other (confused) readers, consider the following questions: 1 - When the rocket engine is running is the exhaust gas ACCELERATED from the nozzle? Does it change VELOCITY as it exits the nozzle? Yes or No? 2 - Does this exhaust gas have MASS? Yes or No? 3 - Can any MASS be ACCELERATED without a FORCE? Or does acceleration REQUIRE a force? Any high school physics student can answer these without looking anything up. Answer those and Ill get to the REAL questions. (Pappa Legba is AFRAID of my next questions so he refuses to answer)
Stuart Gray completely ignored the point about internal forces not being included in a free body diagram. He hates physics & wants people to be stupid.
@@papalegba6796 No a rocket PUSHES ON MASS and feels a RECOIL FORCE form doing so. You would KNOW this if you ever bothered to actually read a physics book. Tell me from WHERE does the FORCE originate that accelerates the mass of the exhaust gas into the vacuum. WHY do you always run away like a little pussy instead of answering? Oh THATS RIGHT - because answering PROVES YOU WRONG. Now run along child. I tire of constantly making you look like a fool.
Oh my goodness I've watched so many videos related to physics but your explanation is the best. It's very clear and easy to understand. Thanks for the hard work making the video. It did help a lot.
Holy guacamole I've been going through textbooks/articles/youtube videos for the past 4hrs and NOW I GET IT! more importantly how to apply it, THANK YOU!
It's fascinating that when you apply a force to the cannonball, the cannonball allegedly applies a force to the cannon! How does that work exactly? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the explosion inside the cannon's barrel applies the same amount of force to the cannon's barrel and to the cannonball?
How does the wall apply a force back on you? It doesn’t. His explanation is nonsense. You can throw or eject things off of something all day long and it won't cause it to move. Try their silly nonsense they show with a trailer full of bricks. They show a guy sitting on a trailer full of bricks throwing one at a time backwards. Every time he throws one, they declare that the trailer moves. Then as the trailer weighs less and less, they declare it moves easier and easier. The problem is that is a fallacy. Try it for yourself. A pile of bricks on your car. Start throwing bricks off of it as fast and far as you can. Your car will of course, go nowhere. The concept of movement based only throwing things off of the vessel is silliness that they have somehow convinced others to believe.
The bowling ball in space is something I just can't get my head around. How does the bowling ball deploy kinetic energy to push back against me when I push it? Where are its muscles? Where are its little rockets that activate when I push it? Isn't it more that the bowling ball has inertia and by pushing against it, I encounter resistance because of that inertia? And because of that resistance, I push myself away from it at the same time as I push it away from me? And given that energy is something that can be measured, are there sensors that can be attached to a brick wall to measure the pulse of kinetic energy that apparently manifests to push back when someone pushes against the bricks?
when you use your arm in space to push on the ball the arm act as a force transfer medium and means that if your arm movement was replaced by a gas, it would expand between you body and the ball to create motion. rockets dont have this in space so there is nothing that drives them forward. think of it this way, you stand in space, there is no ball but you try to push youself backward by trowing your hands forward, what happends is that your arms goes forward and your body bacward but you moved nowwhere. that is what happens to a rocket in the vacuum of space.
The forces aren't really an action and reaction pair as we understand by those words.Both occur simultaneously so basically it's not like reaction force acts after the action force.Anyone of the force can be called action or reaction.
2:18 Hi Prof, you mentioned that the man and bowling will accelerate away from each other. Why is there acceleration? There is no constant force acting on the man and bowling ball.
a constant force is not required to accelerate an object, just a force. a cricket ball only receives a force for a few thousands of a second when the bat hits it, but it accelerates, does it not? f=ma and acceleration =force divided by mass, mr. newton was a genius.
For eg: It's given nowhere that air neglects reaction forces. So if I punch in the air, nothing happens. I don't feel any opposite force acting on my fist. But if I try punching a wall, then my fist hurts and it also seems as if the wall if trying pushing my fist back. I have doubts. Help me, please.
For arguement sake .... in the examples the wall and ground are applying a "force" against a pressure or push. However, if the wall and ground are static then the "a" term in F = ma equals zero therefore there is no force. Isn't it better to say that the wall is a "resistance" caused by its weight due to the substantial downward pull on the wall due to gravity?
Ik this is old but if by the "body" you mean your body, then it's because the dot counts as all of you. Whether it's a box, a fridge, or a frisbee pushing against the wall, the dot in the center represents the whole object.
: good evening sir, I am stuck with a question would pls help me, when I jump and land on the surface I exerts a force on the surface and the surface should exert the same amount of force on me, therefore I should be jumping again according to the 3rd law of motion but I don't why is that : so, if I don't jump then where does the reaction go
I think the reaction is the one that gives u that pain on ur legs or the fact that a person can break there legs as a result of falling from a great height........though am not so sure
To be more precise when you push a bowling ball ( on earth) the ball moves or accelerates but you do move too in the opposite direction because the earth will accelerate too on the opposite direction even if it is so substancial !!!
My question is, why did the planes on 9/11 sliced right through steel and reinforced concrete flooring without breaking a piece? Not to mention, that plane is way weaker than the tower. The plane literally flew inside the tower without damaging itself, this is impossible according to the 3rd law, right? To this day I’m very confused about hollow aluminum planes slicing steel.
is everything in this newton 3rd law creates the karma-like reaction with same amount of forces applied?what about gun recoil?the speed of the bullet after firing is 240 mph but the gun recoils at 2mph
+iiDioxide If the cart was previously at an initial velocity of zero, a net force of 0 causes no acceleration of the cart, hence the cart stationary. This is because Newton's First Law states that "A body continues its state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line unless a force acts upon it". However, if the cart already has an initial velocity, the by the same law, it will continue moving, yet not accelerate. Resultant net force will only affect the acceleration of an object, but acceleration does not equate to velocity.
+iiDioxide When you push a cart with 60N, the cart pushes 60N back on you. Because of this, the cart accelerates. I think your problem is when you thought of a reaction force, you were thinking, I apply a force on the cart, and the cart opposes that force onto itself. But the cart doesn't oppose the 60N onto itself, it exerts that 60N reaction force onto you. Thus, you and the cart both get 60N of force, just in opposite directions.
The important thing to remember is that Newton's third law does not require that the forces cancel each other. It only requires that each force have another force which is equal and opposite. In most interactions, these two equal and opposite forces act on DIFFERENT bodies. In the case of you and a cart, one force of 60 N acts on YOU; the other on the cart. There is one force on you of 60 N and one force on the cart of 60 N. There is then a net force on both you and the cart - equal forces - opposite directions. The cart moves and you don't because there is a lot more friction between your feet and the ground resisting what would otherwise be acceleration.
Your explanation of cannon recall is incorrect. The cannon ball does not exert a force on the cannon. There is gun powder between the ball and the back of the cannon. When the powder burns, a hot, high pressure gas is formed. This gas expands in both the forward and reward directions. The gas going forward pushes the ball out of the cannon. The gas going backward pushes the cannon backwards. So, this is not an example of Newton's third law. As a matter of fact, if there was no gun powder in the cannon and the cannon was merely tilted down, the ball would just roll out of the cannon and the cannon would not move. (There might be a small motion of the cannon due to rolling friction between the ball and cannon. That WOULD be due to Newtown's third law.)
How come the outcomes are different for the bowling ball and the wall when their free body diagrams look completely identical? Is there something I'm missing?
Light can break Newton's third law: Wimmer, M., Regensburger, A., Bersch, C. et al. Optical diametric drive acceleration through action-reaction symmetry breaking. Nature Phys 9, 780-784 (2013). DOI: 10.1038/NPHYS2777
It's reacting against its thrust, or, to be more precise, part of the thrust pushes the rocket forward, because it's the only way it can change direction to escape the combustion chamber through the opening in the back.
You must firstly consider where the forces are acting. In the combustion chamber for one. You can find lots of examples of Newton's Laws in there. Also apply the laws of conservation of momentum. You eject a whole lot of high velocity gas in one direction. To conserve momentum the rocket which is heavier moves more slowly in the opposite direction.
@@Jan_Strzelecki here's a post from you elsewhere in these comments: "Rockets don't work that way. They ride a continuous shockwave from the explosive combination of fuel and oxidiser they carry." apart from the fact you seem to change your mind on how rockets work depending on who you reply to, a shockwave is impossible in a vacuum as a shockwave requires a fluid medium (such as the atmosphere) through which to propagate. so you lose yet again, as the laws of physics dictate you must.
@@njsmith1961 pressure in the combustion chamber is an internal force, and the exhaust is a force exerted by the body, so neither would be included in a free body diagram. watch the video before commenting plz..
@@papalegba6759 _apart from the fact you seem to change your mind on how rockets work_ No I don't. What I said above doesn't contradict what I said to you elsewhere in the slightest. _a shockwave is impossible in a vacuum as a shockwave requires a fluid medium_ No it doesn't. Whether a shockwave propagates through a medium (such as the atmosphere) or not (such as a vacuum) is irrelevant. On other words, you lose yet again, as the laws of physics dictate you must. _pressure in the combustion chamber is an internal force_ No it's not. Once the fuel has been released from the rocket (and ignited), it's no longer part of the rocket - much like the bowling ball you throw to move on a skateboard is not connected in any way to your body.
here is my question any one can answer this according to Newton third law every action has equal and opposite reaction the how can I displace a cupboard on the ground suppose I have to displace the cupboard I applied 10 N from left side than I should get 10N force from right side due to friction the more I apply force the more I get reaction force than how can the cupboard move
+Abhishek Khandare You apply a 10N force on the cupboard and the cupboard applies a 10N force back on you. However, because you are on the floor, you apply a force on the floor to the right side and the frictional force is applied back on you to the left side. You have a resultant force of zero because the force of friction negates the force of action, while the cupboard has a resultant force of 10N because of you pushing it. However if the force of friction of the cupboard on the floor is greater than your force of action on the cupboard, the cupboard does not move.
+Incognito Can you reply if what i conculded is right? okay so because the force exerted by the wall on the ground is greater than my force of action thats why the wall doesn't move??
action - reactio but also resistance. If no resistance You will not create any movement. Let try. Stay on the roller board near the wall. Push yourself away from the wall and scateboard will go back. Perfect. Now the same but keep hands 1 cm apart from a wall. Push as much as you can. Let me gues : no any movement from scateboard ?? No resistance no reaction.
Of we are supposed to be weightless in space how can mass make a difference. That translates into weight. Anyway, theee is no space, gravity. Just density.
Oh, that's simple: The *mass* is a measure of the object's inertial property, or the amount of matter it contains. The *weight* is a measure of the force exerted on the object by gravity, or the force needed to support it. If you don't know such basic concepts you really have no business criticizing any of this :)
Jan Strzelecki I was asking not criticising you ignorant uneducated dipstick. Talking shit again Mr nasa fúckstick using another one of your many aliases
_was asking not criticising you ignorant uneducated dipstick._ I was talking about your comments in general. I’m sorry if simple English baffles and confuses you :) _Talking shit again Mr nasa fúckstick using another one of your many aliases_ Steve, sunshine, you’re not nearly important enough to warrant the use of aliases :] _there is no gravity in space._ Sure there is (although not as strong as when one is close to Earth). _What the fuck aare ypu bringing gravity into it._ Hey, you’re the one that said “that translates into weight”. Hence, me explaining what weight is. Even if object was weightless, you’d still have to overcome its inertia to move it. Do you understand it now? _Without your fake gravity, mass is weightless._ As soon as you have some force applied to it, it’s start to weight something. _Because you can't answer it so ypu answer a question that wasn't answered._ Yes, I answer a question that wasn’t answered :D See? This is why one account alone is enough to deal with you inanities - you do half of the work yourself, continually tripping on words and sabotaging your own efforts. The inept insults don’t help, either :] _There is no gravity in the fake space of your fantasy model._ Wrong :) Again - if you don't understand how my "fantasy model" actually works, you *really* have no business criticizing any of this :)D _this time address th actual question asked,_ I did - I told you how mass relates to weight. Since you didn’t understand the answer, I made an effort to expand it above. Let me know if you still can’t understand it, and I shall make an effort to further dumb it down for you :)
Paul Anderson - 2 in the field; the 1 is taken...big flood commin'... F = -F A B Every action has an equal (2 in the field) and opposite reaction. All forces are interactions such that: the force with no equal (God) does not exist (the 1 is taken). --------------------------- Beyond motion law, Paul is teaching world peace. The third law precludes the "non-equalled force" of God. The third law is literally a "2 in the field; the 1 is taken." Learning the third law of motion becomes the full equivalent of learning that Jesus was a "2 in the field" atheist. Third law Paul wakes us up and we gather the wheat... ..."and the other left" is evolution... The kingdom of heaven IS: like to a grain of mustard seed, which a MAN took, and sowed in his field: Which indeed is the least of all SEEDS: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a TREE, so that the BIRDS of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof. -a seed became a tree so that a bird
This really helped me understand the intuition behind the Third Law. The 'don't include forces exerted by the body' was a really nice piece for the puzzle. Thank you so much for these videos!
The key thing to remember is... 3:11
*** DO NOT INCLUDE FORCES EXERTED BY (FROM) THE OBJECT IN FREE-BODY DIAGRAMS ***
He is right. So many people get this wrong, and get confused.
So, for a rocket, you can use equal and opposite arrows (i.e. Newton's Third Law) to show the gases pushing downwards onto the surrounding air and the surrounding air pushing back upwards on the rocket. This is NOT a Free-Body Diagram.
However, when you do then construct a Free-Body Diagram, the first arrow (i.e. the one from the exhaust pushing downwards out of the rocket) IS NOT INCLUDED. This is because this downwards arrow is the object acting on its surroundings, and not the surroundings acting on the object. Huge difference.
So, the Free-Body Diagram only includes the second arrow pushing back on the rocket, plus the other forces that are acting ON the rocket (i.e. the earth's gravity pulling it straight downwards as weight, and air resistance pushing back a little bit against its forward movement).
In terms of a diagram in the video, at 1:23 the Free Body Diagram would only include the red "reaction" arrows, while the blue "action" arrows would not be included. Then, at 1:38, again only the red "reaction" is included in the FBD, but this time there is no red in the opposite direction to stop him from moving to the left.
Once you get this one point clear (i.e. to not include forces FROM the object in the FBD), the whole subject suddenly makes sense.
It is rocket science.
another mistake people make is to claim pressure within the rocket engine/combustion chamber is what makes it move. however, this is an INTERNAL force, so also cannot be included in a free body diagram. a rocket is, after all, an INTERNAL combustion engine by definition.
@@papalegba6759 you are the LAST person to be commenting on this thread. You REFUSE to acknowledge that rocket propulsion DOES WORK.
You DO NOT understand Newton's laws, and you have proven this repeatedly.
SO piss off imbeicle.
For the other (confused) readers, consider the following questions:
1 - When the rocket engine is running is the exhaust gas ACCELERATED from the nozzle?
Does it change VELOCITY as it exits the nozzle?
Yes or No?
2 - Does this exhaust gas have MASS?
Yes or No?
3 - Can any MASS be ACCELERATED without a FORCE?
Or does acceleration REQUIRE a force?
Any high school physics student can answer these without looking anything up.
Answer those and Ill get to the REAL questions.
(Pappa Legba is AFRAID of my next questions so he refuses to answer)
Stuart Gray completely ignored the point about internal forces not being included in a free body diagram. He hates physics & wants people to be stupid.
@@papalegba6796 No a rocket PUSHES ON MASS and feels a RECOIL FORCE form doing so.
You would KNOW this if you ever bothered to actually read a physics book.
Tell me from WHERE does the FORCE originate that accelerates the mass of the exhaust gas into the vacuum.
WHY do you always run away like a little pussy instead of answering?
Oh THATS RIGHT - because answering PROVES YOU WRONG.
Now run along child. I tire of constantly making you look like a fool.
Oh my goodness I've watched so many videos related to physics but your explanation is the best. It's very clear and easy to understand. Thanks for the hard work making the video. It did help a lot.
Holy guacamole I've been going through textbooks/articles/youtube videos for the past 4hrs and NOW I GET IT! more importantly how to apply it, THANK YOU!
The guy made my day. Thanks Bozeman, you teach simple yet amazing :D
The best quality of explnation that can ever happen. I'm so glad that I found you,sir.
This was very helpful... My Physics teacher told me to watch this and I am glad she did. I understand them way more!!
Im grade 3 and i know algebra
Thanks! Prior to this vid, I had no idea on how to use the "Free Body Diagram".
Your videos have helped me with college level Phys and Anatomy/Physiology. Thank you
one of his best videos. very clear.
It's fascinating that when you apply a force to the cannonball, the cannonball allegedly applies a force to the cannon!
How does that work exactly?
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the explosion inside the cannon's barrel applies the same amount of force to the cannon's barrel and to the cannonball?
Have I ever told you the definition of awesomeness? Oh... Well science of course!
Thanks Sir... Now i have cleared my confusion aabot 3rd law .
"Give this man a cookie!"
You're awesome m8, helped a lot !
How does the wall apply a force back on you? It doesn’t. His explanation is nonsense. You can throw or eject things off of something all day long and it won't cause it to move. Try their silly nonsense they show with a trailer full of bricks. They show a guy sitting on a trailer full of bricks throwing one at a time backwards. Every time he throws one, they declare that the trailer moves. Then as the trailer weighs less and less, they declare it moves easier and easier. The problem is that is a fallacy. Try it for yourself. A pile of bricks on your car. Start throwing bricks off of it as fast and far as you can. Your car will of course, go nowhere. The concept of movement based only throwing things off of the vessel is silliness that they have somehow convinced others to believe.
@@nineeleven9455 and it works \^.^/
The bowling ball in space is something I just can't get my head around. How does the bowling ball deploy kinetic energy to push back against me when I push it?
Where are its muscles? Where are its little rockets that activate when I push it?
Isn't it more that the bowling ball has inertia and by pushing against it, I encounter resistance because of that inertia?
And because of that resistance, I push myself away from it at the same time as I push it away from me?
And given that energy is something that can be measured, are there sensors that can be attached to a brick wall to measure the pulse of kinetic energy that apparently manifests to push back when someone pushes against the bricks?
The best way to think about it: When one object pushes on another, BOTH feel the force.
when you use your arm in space to push on the ball the arm act as a force transfer medium and means that if your arm movement was replaced by a gas, it would expand between you body and the ball to create motion. rockets dont have this in space so there is nothing that drives them forward. think of it this way, you stand in space, there is no ball but you try to push youself backward by trowing your hands forward, what happends is that your arms goes forward and your body bacward but you moved nowwhere. that is what happens to a rocket in the vacuum of space.
except GAS HAS MASS. you morons keep thinking GAS IS MASSLESS. IT IS NOT.
Rockets have been PROVEN to work in a vacum.
Stuart Gray did not watch the video lol.
ur channel is awesome ! definitely the best experience i have ever had on RUclips !
great explanation.....well done
Great, Simple, Awesome, Explanation Thank you sir .
GIVE THIS MAN 10 MIL SUBS!!!!!!
The forces aren't really an action and reaction pair as we understand by those words.Both occur simultaneously so basically it's not like reaction force acts after the action force.Anyone of the force can be called action or reaction.
2:18 Hi Prof, you mentioned that the man and bowling will accelerate away from each other. Why is there acceleration? There is no constant force acting on the man and bowling ball.
a constant force is not required to accelerate an object, just a force.
a cricket ball only receives a force for a few thousands of a second when the bat hits it, but it accelerates, does it not?
f=ma and
acceleration =force divided by mass, mr. newton was a genius.
this video really made things clear,thank you so much
Thank you this helped me SO much!!! Give dis man 1,000,000 subs!
nearly!
Nearlyier!
He’s almost there my guy almost 800k subs which is pretty good
Truly appreciate your videos!
For eg: It's given nowhere that air neglects reaction forces. So if I punch in the air, nothing happens. I don't feel any opposite force acting on my fist. But if I try punching a wall, then my fist hurts and it also seems as if the wall if trying pushing my fist back. I have doubts. Help me, please.
Good Explanation!
For arguement sake .... in the examples the wall and ground are applying a "force" against a pressure or push. However, if the wall and ground are static then the "a" term in F = ma equals zero therefore there is no force. Isn't it better to say that the wall is a "resistance" caused by its weight due to the substantial downward pull on the wall due to gravity?
best teacher ever
Thank you soooooo much. This just helped me understand what was going on in science class
In the free body diagram please could someone explain why you don't include the force of the body pushing against the wall?
Ik this is old but if by the "body" you mean your body, then it's because the dot counts as all of you. Whether it's a box, a fridge, or a frisbee pushing against the wall, the dot in the center represents the whole object.
keep up the good work!
Mr. Anderson is the best!!!
Thank u Very much for ur nicest explanation
Yup, he explains very nicely.
Incredibly helpful !
Why didn’t you put out a video on Neuton’s First Law of Motion, like the Second & Third Laws of Motion?
: good evening sir, I am stuck with a question would pls help me, when I jump and land on the surface I exerts a force on the surface and the surface should exert the same amount of force on me, therefore I should be jumping again according to the 3rd law of motion but I don't why is that
: so, if I don't jump then where does the reaction go
I think the reaction is the one that gives u that pain on ur legs or the fact that a person can break there legs as a result of falling from a great height........though am not so sure
Very helpful video
To be more precise when you push a bowling ball ( on earth) the ball moves or accelerates but you do move too in the opposite direction because the earth will accelerate too on the opposite direction even if it is so substancial !!!
thank you from turkey my dear teacher your the best
Super explanation..... 😍😍😍
I love your explaination and way of presenfing the info I TOTTTAAAALLLLYYY DO thank you sir.....
how come the net force on my in the ball scenario isnt zero like in the wall scenario ?
What's the work done when I walk?
If I hit an object in the space, and the object does not move because of higher mass then where does the energy go ?
Amazing Video!
Thank you so much you cleared my concept:-)
My question is, why did the planes on 9/11 sliced right through steel and reinforced concrete flooring without breaking a piece? Not to mention, that plane is way weaker than the tower. The plane literally flew inside the tower without damaging itself, this is impossible according to the 3rd law, right? To this day I’m very confused about hollow aluminum planes slicing steel.
is everything in this newton 3rd law creates the karma-like reaction with same amount of forces applied?what about gun recoil?the speed of the bullet after firing is 240 mph but the gun recoils at 2mph
Charismatic Batman yes, because you hold the gun, keeping it from going any farther, and the gun has more mass than the bullet.
I don't get it, if I push a cart for example I use 60 N there is reactions 60 N but how does the cart move if the net force is 0?
+iiDioxide If the cart was previously at an initial velocity of zero, a net force of 0 causes no acceleration of the cart, hence the cart stationary. This is because Newton's First Law states that "A body continues its state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line unless a force acts upon it". However, if the cart already has an initial velocity, the by the same law, it will continue moving, yet not accelerate. Resultant net force will only affect the acceleration of an object, but acceleration does not equate to velocity.
+iiDioxide When you push a cart with 60N, the cart pushes 60N back on you. Because of this, the cart accelerates. I think your problem is when you thought of a reaction force, you were thinking, I apply a force on the cart, and the cart opposes that force onto itself. But the cart doesn't oppose the 60N onto itself, it exerts that 60N reaction force onto you. Thus, you and the cart both get 60N of force, just in opposite directions.
The important thing to remember is that Newton's third law does not require that the forces cancel each other. It only requires that each force have another force which is equal and opposite. In most interactions, these two equal and opposite forces act on DIFFERENT bodies. In the case of you and a cart, one force of 60 N acts on YOU; the other on the cart. There is one force on you of 60 N and one force on the cart of 60 N. There is then a net force on both you and the cart - equal forces - opposite directions.
The cart moves and you don't because there is a lot more friction between your feet and the ground resisting what would otherwise be acceleration.
how would u apply Newton’s Third Law to examples of equilibrium situations?
Your explanation of cannon recall is incorrect. The cannon ball does not exert a force on the cannon. There is gun powder between the ball and the back of the cannon. When the powder burns, a hot, high pressure gas is formed. This gas expands in both the forward and reward directions. The gas going forward pushes the ball out of the cannon. The gas going backward pushes the cannon backwards. So, this is not an example of Newton's third law. As a matter of fact, if there was no gun powder in the cannon and the cannon was merely tilted down, the ball would just roll out of the cannon and the cannon would not move. (There might be a small motion of the cannon due to rolling friction between the ball and cannon. That WOULD be due to Newtown's third law.)
Does a rubber pulled with equal force from both side an action reaction pair?
tnx really needed this writing a test later.
How come the outcomes are different for the bowling ball and the wall when their free body diagrams look completely identical? Is there something I'm missing?
So how can we break things if the things have an equal and opposite reaction?
Rocket propelled vessel vs the third law.. answers please
Light can break Newton's third law:
Wimmer, M., Regensburger, A., Bersch, C. et al. Optical diametric drive acceleration through action-reaction symmetry breaking. Nature Phys 9, 780-784 (2013). DOI: 10.1038/NPHYS2777
Except it still doesnt. Light carries momentum even though it is "massless"
Momentum = mass x velocity lol. Stuart understands no physics.
thanks very much sir
How is there a Action-Reaction force in space? The spacecraft is not acting against anything! LMFAO.
It's reacting against its thrust, or, to be more precise, part of the thrust pushes the rocket forward, because it's the only way it can change direction to escape the combustion chamber through the opening in the back.
You must firstly consider where the forces are acting. In the combustion chamber for one. You can find lots of examples of Newton's Laws in there.
Also apply the laws of conservation of momentum. You eject a whole lot of high velocity gas in one direction. To conserve momentum the rocket which is heavier moves more slowly in the opposite direction.
@@Jan_Strzelecki here's a post from you elsewhere in these comments:
"Rockets don't work that way. They ride a continuous shockwave from the explosive combination of fuel and oxidiser they carry."
apart from the fact you seem to change your mind on how rockets work depending on who you reply to, a shockwave is impossible in a vacuum as a shockwave requires a fluid medium (such as the atmosphere) through which to propagate. so you lose yet again, as the laws of physics dictate you must.
@@njsmith1961 pressure in the combustion chamber is an internal force, and the exhaust is a force exerted by the body, so neither would be included in a free body diagram. watch the video before commenting plz..
@@papalegba6759 _apart from the fact you seem to change your mind on how rockets work_
No I don't. What I said above doesn't contradict what I said to you elsewhere in the slightest.
_a shockwave is impossible in a vacuum as a shockwave requires a fluid medium_
No it doesn't. Whether a shockwave propagates through a medium (such as the atmosphere) or not (such as a vacuum) is irrelevant.
On other words, you lose yet again, as the laws of physics dictate you must.
_pressure in the combustion chamber is an internal force_
No it's not. Once the fuel has been released from the rocket (and ignited), it's no longer part of the rocket - much like the bowling ball you throw to move on a skateboard is not connected in any way to your body.
5:53 of course it was
How it is different from elasticity..?
Didnt understand it so well from any other video around here.
Thanks a lot
Now explain why that guy would sink if placed on mud not concrete. Does mud not have an equal and opposite force?
This „law“ is least convincing.
It was on John F Kennedy
@@gazza2933 damn kid
What is the Newton's third law
Why wasnt it applied to the movie "gravity"... The man could push his jetpack weighing almost 20 kg n he could have been saved......
here is my question any one can answer this according to Newton third law every action has equal and opposite reaction the how can I displace a cupboard on the ground suppose I have to displace the cupboard I applied 10 N from left side than I should get 10N force from right side due to friction the more I apply force the more I get reaction force than how can the cupboard move
+Abhishek Khandare You apply a 10N force on the cupboard and the cupboard applies a 10N force back on you. However, because you are on the floor, you apply a force on the floor to the right side and the frictional force is applied back on you to the left side. You have a resultant force of zero because the force of friction negates the force of action, while the cupboard has a resultant force of 10N because of you pushing it. However if the force of friction of the cupboard on the floor is greater than your force of action on the cupboard, the cupboard does not move.
+Incognito Can you reply if what i conculded is right?
okay so because the force exerted by the wall on the ground is greater than my force of action thats why the wall doesn't move??
+Neha Karna because my force of action is nullified by force of friction but the wall is still getting my force so why doesnt it move?
action - reactio but also resistance. If no resistance You will not create any movement. Let try. Stay on the roller board near the wall. Push yourself away from the wall and scateboard will go back. Perfect. Now the same but keep hands 1 cm apart from a wall. Push as much as you can. Let me gues : no any movement from scateboard ?? No resistance no reaction.
dude be out here looking like CallMeCarson ordered off Wish
Mr Anderson (i'll never get used to that)
What use is a phone call, if you haven't got a, mouth?
What use is texting if you haven't got any fingers?
What use is the internet if you haven't got genitals?
What use are books if you haven't got any eyes?
Nice sir
good video upvoted +1
Did he just say that pushing a bowling ball in a frictionless atmosphere will move faster away then you from you?! "Because you have a greater mass?
Afterallllllll thank youuu
How does gravity know the bowling ball is heavy, and the wall is sturdy?
best expaination.
thanks man
wish my science teacher didn't make me be here
There is gravity in space, just not much. We need to be careful about such things, people often make this mistake, and I see it repeated often.
If the ISS were real we wouldn't be subjected to green screen fails from NASA.
Of we are supposed to be weightless in space how can mass make a difference. That translates into weight. Anyway, theee is no space, gravity. Just density.
Oh, that's simple: The *mass* is a measure of the object's inertial property, or the amount of matter it contains. The *weight* is a measure of the force exerted on the object by gravity, or the force needed to support it. If you don't know such basic concepts you really have no business criticizing any of this :)
Jan Strzelecki I was asking not criticising you ignorant uneducated dipstick. Talking shit again Mr nasa fúckstick using another one of your many aliases
_was asking not criticising you ignorant uneducated dipstick._
I was talking about your comments in general. I’m sorry if simple English baffles and confuses you :)
_Talking shit again Mr nasa fúckstick using another one of your many aliases_
Steve, sunshine, you’re not nearly important enough to warrant the use of aliases :]
_there is no gravity in space._
Sure there is (although not as strong as when one is close to Earth).
_What the fuck aare ypu bringing gravity into it._
Hey, you’re the one that said “that translates into weight”. Hence, me explaining what weight is. Even if object was weightless, you’d still have to overcome its inertia to move it. Do you understand it now?
_Without your fake gravity, mass is weightless._
As soon as you have some force applied to it, it’s start to weight something.
_Because you can't answer it so ypu answer a question that wasn't answered._
Yes, I answer a question that wasn’t answered :D
See? This is why one account alone is enough to deal with you inanities - you do half of the work yourself, continually tripping on words and sabotaging your own efforts. The inept insults don’t help, either :]
_There is no gravity in the fake space of your fantasy model._
Wrong :) Again - if you don't understand how my "fantasy model" actually works, you *really* have no business criticizing any of this :)D
_this time address th actual question asked,_
I did - I told you how mass relates to weight. Since you didn’t understand the answer, I made an effort to expand it above. Let me know if you still can’t understand it, and I shall make an effort to further dumb it down for you :)
you are awesome :)
thanks
Plz tell slowly ...! Sir
why doesnt earth's gravity have an equal and oppsite force, it only pulls shit from space?
I know this has no relation to the video but i think a good question do you believe in god or are in sciencific
Why not both?
Mano ya cobraste
thankyou!
Nicee
this doesn't apply for unbalanced forces
Celaena S what ?
Cool
need help translating ?
mano ya cobraste x2
love
Paul Anderson - 2 in the field; the 1 is taken...big flood commin'...
F = -F
A B
Every action has an equal (2 in the field)
and opposite reaction.
All forces are interactions such that:
the force with no equal (God)
does not exist (the 1 is taken).
---------------------------
Beyond motion law, Paul is teaching world peace. The third law precludes the "non-equalled force" of God. The third law is literally a "2 in the field; the 1 is taken." Learning the third law of motion becomes the full equivalent of learning that Jesus was a "2 in the field" atheist. Third law Paul wakes us up and we gather the wheat...
..."and the other left" is evolution...
The kingdom of heaven IS:
like to a grain of mustard seed,
which a MAN took,
and sowed in his field:
Which indeed is the least of all SEEDS:
but when it is grown,
it is the greatest among herbs,
and becometh a TREE,
so that the BIRDS of the air come and lodge
in the branches thereof.
-a seed became a tree so that a bird
What did u just say
FIRST COMMENT
Well done, Ms Reyes. You are an inspiration to all of us :)
+Herr Hansen lol
yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees
hi