0
What else can I help you with?
What is the differences between an object with no force and an object with zero net force acting on them?
There is nothing different about the two. They both have Notype of differences what so ever. So your question has been answered. Now, will you please, **** off
Can a net force cause an object to change its speed and direction?
Yes if a net force acts on a body then it may may change direction,speed,shape,etc. the body can also have all these effects simultaneously.a classic example of this can be seen when a ball is hit,the ball changes speed,directions and sometimes its shape.
Why is force needed to keep object moving in a circle?
Because if there's no force acting on an object, then the object continues moving with constant speed in a straight line. Newton made that simple statement a little over 300 years ago, and nothing in our everyday experience has ever disproved it.
Can you give an example where balanced forces are acting but the object is still in motion?
Consider a basketball rolling across the floor of the gym. Maybe that's not a great, impressive example. But it's important to jump in here and point out that nobody ever said that an object is motionless in the presence of balanced forces. The principle is that an object experiences no acceleration without a net force acting on it, and that without a net force ... with all forces 'balanced' and adding up to zero ... the object remains in constant, uniform motion, i.e. without acceleration.
What causes acceleration of an object?
Acceleration of an object is caused by the application of a force on the object in the direction of acceleration. This force can be due to factors such as gravity, friction, or propulsion. The greater the force applied, the greater the acceleration of the object.
What is the differences between an object with no force and an object with zero net force acting on them?
There is nothing different about the two. They both have Notype of differences what so ever. So your question has been answered. Now, will you please, **** off
What minimum downward force needed to lift the 120 Newtons weight?
No matter how much force you exert downward, it shall avail you naught. No downward force acting directly on the object can ever succeed in lifting it.
Why is force centripetal?
Centripetal force is not very difficult to understand, yet most people make it seem overly complex. Centripetal force is an inward force applied to an object that is in circular motion (uniform circular motion). This inward force is what centripetally accelerates an object, which means the object is accelerating around the circle. DO NOT EVER BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A CENTRIFUGAL FORCE. THIS FORCE IS FAKE, BECAUSE THERE IS NO FORCE THAT IS PUSHING OUT ON OBJECT TRAVELING IN UNIFORM CIRCULAR MOTION!!!!!!!!!!!!! All it means is that there is no centripetal force to stop an object from moving out of the circle. An example is a car. If you are sitting in a car, when you go around a bend at a pretty decent speed, you seem to lean in the opposite direction of the turn. this is actually false. you are travelling in a straight line due to your inertia. When the car turns, you continue in that straight line, obviously you don't fly out of the car, because the car applies an inward force on you when you hit the side to keep you centripetally accelerating. Friction is one of the few forces that can stop an object from centripetally accelerating. when i mentioned a straight line due to inertia, I am talking about the velocity of the centripetally accelerating object. This velocity vector is tangent to the circlular path of the object. So that means that if you wanted to whirl a rope over your head like a cowboy and throw a rock at something, you would have to let go of the rope when it was perpendicular to the target. target------------------{((()))}------------------ | | ------- | rock O
How can you use newtons first law to explain why centrifugal force does not exist?
Newton's first law states that an object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an external force. In the case of an object moving in a circular path, centripetal force is required to keep the object moving in that path, not centrifugal force. Centrifugal force is a perceived force that arises from the object's inertia, rather than a true force acting on the object itself.
What would happen if the gravitational pull on an object is greater than the buant force on a fluid?
As worded, the question doesn't mean much. I think you want to compare thegravitational force on an object with the buoyant force on the same object whenit's in a fluid.As long as the gravitational force is greater than the buoyant force, the objectmust keep accelerating downward ... sinking further and faster, and displacingmore fluid as it goes. If it ever displaces enough fluid for the buoyant force toequal the gravitational force on it (its 'weight'), then it stops sinking, and floatsright there.
Can the net force on an object ever equal zero?
Poorly phrased question as the correct answer is merely "Yes, you can." To answer the question probably intended: "How do you distinguish between one object experiencing zero net force and another experiencing non-zero net force?"The first object will be at rest or will have a constant velocity (i.e. speed and direction). The second will have a changing velocity (i.e. a changing speed and/or direction of motion) or, in other words, it will be accelerating (or decelerating).
Can a net force cause an object to change its speed and direction?
Yes if a net force acts on a body then it may may change direction,speed,shape,etc. the body can also have all these effects simultaneously.a classic example of this can be seen when a ball is hit,the ball changes speed,directions and sometimes its shape.
Why is force needed to keep object moving in a circle?
Because if there's no force acting on an object, then the object continues moving with constant speed in a straight line. Newton made that simple statement a little over 300 years ago, and nothing in our everyday experience has ever disproved it.
Can you give an example where balanced forces are acting but the object is still in motion?
Consider a basketball rolling across the floor of the gym. Maybe that's not a great, impressive example. But it's important to jump in here and point out that nobody ever said that an object is motionless in the presence of balanced forces. The principle is that an object experiences no acceleration without a net force acting on it, and that without a net force ... with all forces 'balanced' and adding up to zero ... the object remains in constant, uniform motion, i.e. without acceleration.
What are the visible effects of force?
They're all around you every day. If you ever see any object that is not moving in a straight line at constant speed, then you are witnessing the effects of force.
What is the measure of the gravitational force on an object called?
If the object is on or near the Earth's surface, then most people call that force the object's "weight". Nobody ever gives any attention to the gravitational force that the object exerts on the Earth, probably because it happens to be exactly the same as the object's weight on the Earth. The neat thing about it, however, is that the same force is also the Earth's weight on the object.
Is the net force acting on an object always zero?
No because if it was, nothing would ever accelerate. If you apply a net force to an object, it accelerates. The net force acting on an object is always zero if and only if it is in static equilibrium; that is, the object is not moving (rotation or translation) or moving with constant velocity. Given that an object is in static equilibrium, you can say that the net force and moments in all three cartesian directions are zero.
