One of my friends and I had an argument over this topic. He stressed the fact that in real life many forces exist, whereas in physics we deal only with ideal situations. He put the following arguments:-
- Newton's First Law is invalid because friction exists in real life.
- Newton's second law is invalid due to the same reasons.
- Newton's third law is invalid because in a trampoline, there is excessive reaction.
In defence, I put forward the following arguments:-
Newton's laws are true but the equations have to be modified to take into account the other forces in real life.
For example, if a force $F$ is applied on a body of mass $m$, and $f_s$ is the force of friction, then, the equation becomes $F - f_s = ma$. Thus, we have just modified the equation $F = ma$.
So basically I mean to say that we have to adjust the laws to suit our purpose.
In the end, there was a stalemate between us. Even now I am confused after this argument. Please clarify my doubt.
Answer
Regardless of relativistic effects:
- Newton's First Law is invalid because friction exists in real life.
False, the first law talks about the case when no forces are present, if forces are present go to the second law.
- Newton's second law is invalid due to the same reasons.
False, you add friction to the total force.
- Newton's third law is invalid because in a trampolin, there is excessive reaction.
False, why do you think there is excessive reaction?
No comments:
Post a Comment