You are not logged in.
Thanks, Bob.
Suppose the lift cable breaks and the lift tumbles down with only gravity acting. The man is now in free fall, effectively weightless and he could float off the floor so the reaction of the floor on him is zero.
Thanks, Bob. When you say ‘effectively weightless’ are you referring to his apparent weight as opposed to his true weight (terms I’ve just come across)?
So if the cable breaks his apparent weight, the weight he ‘feels’(?), the weight he ‘seems’ to be(?); but his true weight his what it always is regardless of other factors, like acceleration, i.e, the gfs of 10N/kg times his mass of 90kg?
If we compare with a parachute drop, the wind rush tells us we're falling.
I’m told this isn’t actually freefall because of the force of friction involved; is that correct?
In our imaginary lift drop the air moves with the man so he'd have no way of telling that he wasn't able to float.
So the air, being matter, stuff with mass, accelerates too, at -10m/s/s?
You said he’d have no way of telling that he wasn’t able to float; so he isn’t able to float?
Now if we imagine a lift that is so powerful it can accelerate downwards at 20 m/s/s.
Do you mean 20m/s/s on top of the 10m/s/s due to gravity? Or 20m/s/s in total (10 due to gravity, 10 due to it’s motor/whatever)?
The lift would drop faster than the man because he's already floating up, until he bangs his head on the ceiling. The reaction of the ceiling on him is definitely downwards.
Ah, so he is floating, floating up. Why? Why isn’t he being pulled down at 10m/s/s due to the gfs?
But how much? He is trying to fall at 10 m/s/s but the lift is pushing him at 20.
10 due to the gfs, 10 due to the motor/whatever?
Effectively the force on him is 90 x (20-10) downwards. So you need to subtract the lift's acceleration from gravity to determine the effective acceleration in the frame of reference.
The force on him from the ceiling is 90(20-10)?
It's like the moving train frames of reference. If you 'bring the lift to rest' by applying an upwards acceleration of 2 m/s/s the gravity is similarly given that upwards acceleration so -10 + 2 = -8 m/s/s.
I think I’m partly getting that, but I’ll need to try harder to grasp it better.
So I think the reaction (upwards) is ( 10 - 2 ) x 90 N
I’m not quite sure I’ve followed the above to get here but 10-2(90)=720 which I think was the correct answer to my original question.
In really fast lifts you will notice the effect as your internal organs rise up inside your body.
Rise up in the reference frame of your body? From the reference frame of a viewing platform would your organs remain stationary for a moment while you plummet, like a gory episode of The Road Runner?
90kg man in a lift
Assigned signs; DOWN is MINUS; UP is POSITIVE
Acc. due to g = 10m/s/s DOWNWARDS
Acc. due to g = -10m/s/s
Fg=ma
Fg=90(-10)
Fg=-900
*
acc. due to lift’s motor =2m/s/s DOWNWARDS
a=-2m/s/s
F=ma
F=90(-2)
F=-180
Fnet=-180
*
What is the normal force?
Fn-Fg=Fnet
Fn-(-900)=Fnet
Fn+900=-180
Fn=-180-900
Fn=-1080?
But the normal force is always is in the UPWARDS direction, which given the assigned +/- in this example, is +; The Fn should be POSITIVE.
Where have I gone wrong?
Thanks, Bob.
I asked chatgpt about it.
I said,
"If inertia is 'an object's tendency to resist acceleration', and increasing velocity alters that tendency, then inertia must depend, at least partially, on velocity."
It replied with,
"And you're not wrong — if we use that broad, intuitive definition of inertia.
And then it got complicated, with how Newton actually defined things like mass, and acceleration, in terms of F=ma, etc.
I think I'll leave it for now, let it brew, and come back to it later. Thanks for your help with this one.
Thanks, Bob.
Returning to,
"“If you set up a frame of reference that travels at 6 m/s in the second case, then the trolley is only travelling at 6 m/s relative to that frame and so can be 'brought to rest' in the frame with the same effort as the first case.”
What if we then look at a trolley travelling at 9m/s in the ground reference frame, and therefore travelling at 3m/s in the train reference frame?
Now, to stop the respective trolleys in 2s, we have;
Trolley A (6m/s in the train reference frame)
F=ma
F=100kg(-3m/s/s)
F=-300N
Trolley B (3m/s in the train reference frame)
F=ma
F=100kg(-1.5m/s/s)
F=-150N
So, in the train reference frame, we have two trolleys OF THE SAME MASS, (100kg), but more force is required to stop one than is required to stop the other, due to their different velocities.
Fascinating. And mind-bending. For me at least.
So you, Bob, are driving a train, east at 6m/s.
And I’m driving a trolley east at 6m/s, parallel to you.
From the reference frame of your train I’m at rest.
And in your reference frame no force is required to stop me, because I’m already at rest? Even though we both know a force would be required to stop me in the reference frame of the ground beneath me?
I just found out what BB stands for in BBcode
Bulletin Board
Thanks, Bob
So now we view the trolley in the second example in the reference frame of the train moving at 6m/s in the same direction as the trolley.
To stop the trolley in 2s;
F=ma
F=100kg(-3m/s/s)
F=-300N
But if we view the trolley in the second example in the reference frame of the train why not view the trolly in the first example from that reference frame?
It was moving at 6m/s with reference to the ground. Now it’s moving at 0m/s with reference to the train.
But we still want to stop it in 2s.
So,
F=ma
F=100kg(a)
What do we put for ‘a’?
A=(v-u)/t
A=(0-0)/2
A=0/2
A=0
So,
F=100kg(0)
F=0N
But we know that a force of >0N would be required to stop the trolley, don’t we?
Have I told you where to look for a long list of these?
Go to help and you'll find it in the third thread.
Thanks, Bob
Do I know them all? Certainly not! I don't fill my head with stuff like that
So do you just get to know by heart the ones that you use frequently, without trying to memorise them; and consult the list when there's one you've either forgotten or didn't know by heart in the first place?
“I just used those as examples. There's no limit to the number of possible frames.”
Thanks, Bob. I thought that might be the case, but wanted to be sure.
“If you set up a frame of reference that travels at 6 m/s in the second case, then the trolley is only travelling at 6 m/s relative to that frame”
Do you mean something like;
Train heading west at 6m/s relative to ground.
Trolley on platform heading west at 12/ms relative to ground.
Trolley in reference frame of train = 6m/s west
(12m/s – 6m/s)?
Thanks, ktesla39.
Bob, you said,
“The Earth rotates on its axis, and around the Sun, which in turn, rotates around the centre of the Galaxy, which is moving relative to other galaxies. That's why we have the concept of frames of reference.”
Wouldn’t we have reference frames without all of that? Wouldn’t we have reference frames if the Universe consisted solely of a static Earth?
On a static Earth you could still, for example, be seated on a railway platform, at rest with reference to the person sharing the bench with you; while a person on a moving train, at rest with reference to the person sharing the seat with her, would be moving with reference to you; and they could see themselves as at rest with you moving away from them. And someone could be running along the aisle of the train to catch the buffet car before it closed, etc, etc. Wouldn’t that amount to several reference frames?
Thanks, Bob, for going above (literally; to the loft) and beyond.
Yes, there does seem to be a lack of consensus regards the concept of inertia.
I've heard more than one person say that it's not a well-defined technical term in physics. And others saying it tend to come up early on for students and
then they hear of it less and less.
As for a unit (for inertia regards linear motion) most seem to be saying there isn't a unit, with a few saying that it's kg, as inertia is equivalent to mass.
Hello, ktesla39. Yes, it is fun, especially for me, as I've often never used any kind of code before.
Question for you, and Bob, and anyone else reading this. Have you memorised all the commands/tags/whatever it is you call the bracketed thingys, and now when you use it is as simple as typing any kind of text?
P.S. Why is this block of yellow text called 'inserted text'?
This is what I as after.
(I'll abbreviate Gm1m2 to simply 'G'. And I’ll abbreviate the denominators to simply 'o' and 'e'.
I think this will work just as well)
(G/o)/(G/e)
= (G/o)*(e/G)
simplify by crossing out the G's;
(1/o)*(e/1)
= e/o
And, replacing the original terms, gives us;
numerator; (re)^2
denominator; (ro)^2
Is that correct?
Thanks, Bob
Thanks, Phil
(You are in bold and italics respectively because I'm practicing my BBcode)
Cheers, Bob.
And lol
**
You said emphasis is bold; I got sloping lines (same as italics) when I used the 'em' brackets etc
Also, is heading text just the same as bold?
Writing my first BBcode sentence, hopefully in bold
Post preview suggests that it worked; now let's hope this sentence is in italics
Result. Bold, and italics seem straightforward enough; now for 'emphasis'
Interesting. What's the difference between italics and emphasis?
Now for strikethrough
This is fun. I'm using code. Next stop; Rule the Universe! Bob, you've created a MONSTER! Mwhahahahahahaha!
Thanks, ktesla39, thanks, Bob, really helpful, as ever.
“To divide by a fraction, invert it and multiply.”
Ah, of course. Thanks, Bob. KFC (the mnemonic).
Keep. Flip. Change.
Keep the first fraction as it is.
Flip the second fraction.
Change the sign.
“Do you know why this works?”
I think I’m getting there.
Example.
(10/1)/(2/1) = (10/1)(1/2)
(10/1)(1/2) = 10/2
10/2=5
In words;
Ten divided by two...
...is the same as...
...a half of ten.
(To half something is to divide it by two)
Is that the basic idea?
Key;
o=radius when in orbit
E=radius when on surface of Earth
**
Simplify the following fraction to the point where the ‘Gm1m2’ part is simplified to ‘1’.
Numerator; (Gm1m2)/(ro)^2
Denominator; (Gm1m2/(rE)^2
Sorry for the unorthodox way of stating this but I haven’t yet mastered BBcode (I haven’t even started with it yet).
**
The only way I can think of simplifying Gm1m2 to 1 is to divide it by Gm1m2. But then I would also have to divide the denominators by Gm1m2 and that doesn’t look possible.
Is inertia solely dependent on mass?
This is what I’m hearing, and I pretty much accept it, but I’m wondering why it isn’t also dependent on velocity.
Example.
We want to stop a 100kg trolley with a constant v of 6m/s in 2s;
F=ma
F=100kg(-3m/s/s)
F=-300N
Compared with the same trolley with a constant v of 12m/s (again, stopping it in 2s);
F=ma
F=100kg(-6m/s/s)
F=-600N
**
So it takes more F to stop the trolley when it’s moving faster. Why doesn’t this translate to; the trolley’s tendency to resist acceleration depends on, among other things, the trolley’s velocity?
Thanks, Bob.
5.25x10^5 + 6.37x10^6
If it was 5.25x10^5 TIMES 6.37x10^6 I could rearrange it to;
5.25x6.37x10^5x10^6
And then add the powers;
5.25x6.37x10^5+^6
To give;
33.4425x10^11=3.34425x10^12
But it’s PLUS not TIMES
Can we manipulate the powers when it’s PLUS?
Or (ignoring using a calculator) do we have to do it the long way;
5.25x10^5=525,000
6.37x10^6=6,370,000
And then add the two.
?
Acceleration; Freefall v Car on a road etc
Is there anything fundamentally different about a man in freefall compared with objects accelerating horizontally, for example a car on a road (other than the rate of acc. due to g being around 10m/s/s near or on the surface of the Earth; and acc. for a car on a road, or box on a floor, etc, varies according to the context)?
If a car was accelerating at a constant 10m/s/s would the following values be the same for both the man in freefall and the car on the road (ignoring friction of any kind)?
0-1s; 0m/s-10m/s; average v = 5m/s; distance = 5m; total distance=5m
1-2s; 10m/s-20m/2; average v= 15m/s; distance = 15m; total distance=20m
2-3s; 20m/s-30m/s; average v= 25m/s; distance = 25m; total distance=45m
Ah, Ns, of course.
Thanks, Bob.