Resultant Force vs. Net Force: Clarifying the Difference

  • Thread starter Thread starter iurod
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Force Motion
AI Thread Summary
The discussion clarifies that while resultant force and net force are often considered synonymous, the statement "the motion of a body is always in the direction of the resultant force" is incorrect. In scenarios such as circular motion, the velocity of the body is perpendicular to the net force, demonstrating that motion does not always align with the direction of the resultant force. Replacing "motion" with "acceleration" in the statement maintains its validity in circular motion. Participants acknowledged the distinction and the importance of understanding these concepts in physics. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the nuanced relationship between force, motion, and acceleration.
iurod
Messages
51
Reaction score
0
the motion of a body is always in the direction of the resultant force. Why wouldn't this be a correct statement?

I thought all the forces on a body were added up and the resultant force was the direction in which the body moved. Am I confusing net force with resultant force? I was under the impression that they meant the same thing..
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'd probably replace the word "motion" with "acceleration" in the first post.
 
Hey Russ,
Thanks for the reply. I just checked out your website, and its really cool!
 
iurod said:
the motion of a body is always in the direction of the resultant force. Why wouldn't this be a correct statement?

I thought all the forces on a body were added up and the resultant force was the direction in which the body moved. Am I confusing net force with resultant force? I was under the impression that they meant the same thing..

They are the same.
But the statement "the motion of a body is always in the direction of the resultant force" is wrong. In circular motion with constant speed, velocity is perpendicular to net force.
 
hikaru1221 said:
They are the same.
But the statement "the motion of a body is always in the direction of the resultant force" is wrong. In circular motion with constant speed, velocity is perpendicular to net force.

I didn't think of that until now. I guess circular motion totally proved this statement to be incorrect. Thanks for clarifying this for me hikaru
 
If you replace "velocity" with "acceleration" the statement still holds in the case of circular motion.

Thanks for the compliment on my website.
 
Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'
Here are two fragments from Banach's monograph in Mechanics I have never seen the term <<velocity of transport>> in English texts. Actually I have never seen this term being named somehow in English. This term has a name in Russian books. I looked through the original Banach's text in Polish and there is a Polish name for this term. It is a little bit surprising that the Polish name differs from the Russian one and also differs from this English translation. My question is: Is there...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top