physio said:
But Newton's 3'rd Law says that action=-reaction, then shouldn't it necessarily cancel out the force.
But then acceleration would be impossible and how would anything come to be in motion? Clearly this idea is not consistent with reality and must be discarded.
Aside: Try the following http://tap.iop.org/mechanics/Newton/212/file_46379.pdf:
If the force on the carriage is equal and opposite to the force on the horse how can the horse
pull the carriage? Is the answer:
(a) The horse cannot pull the carriage because the carriage pulls as hard on the horse as
the horse pulls on the carriage.
(b) The carriage moves because the horse pulls slightly harder on the carriage
(c) The horse pulls the carriage before it has time to react.
(d) The horse can pull the carriage only if the horse is heavier than the carriage.
(e) Another explanation. What might it be?
I'll give you an example - a box sits on a table. It has weight due to the force of gravity. There is an equal and opposite force of the box on the Earth - it acts at the center of the Earth and points towards the box.
There is also a force from the table, pointing upwards, balancing the force of the Earth on the box. There is an equal and opposite force of the table on the Earth also - at the feet. These are not reaction forces to actions but separate (from electromagnetic repulsion of electrons in the objects). This is where you get the idea of opposite reactions cancelling out - since, as the box presses the table, so the table presses the box back. The trick is identifying the pairing for action and reaction.[1]
Remove the table and the box accelerates towards the Earth and the Earth accelerates towards the box. The force and the reaction force are the same but now they are no balanced by other forces.
If I put a parachute on the box, I can arrange for the box to fall at a constant speed. Here the drag force of the chute is equal and opposite the gravity from the Earth. There is no such additional drag on the Earth so the Earth still accelerates towards the box the same as before (more correctly - towards their common center of mass).
If you have ever driven an automobile at a constant speed, maintaining a constant direction, then you are in a situation where there are clearly forces on the object and yet it is not accelerating and it is not stationary... how did you think this happens?
Newtons laws work in concert ... they are often misquoted:
1. a body continues at constant velocity until it is acted upon by an unbalanced force
2. the net force on an object is equal to the rate of change of it's momentum
3. the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts.
The third law is easy to misunderstand - even
Newton needed a lengthy passage to get the idea across.
I have always understood ...
What you have always understood is, in this case, incorrect. It happens a lot - you'll get used to it.
----------------------------
[1] I think misspoke myself earlier. You push the wall, the wall pushes back equally but if the wall were on low friction ground it would slide under your force ... so the ground must push back on the wall. You are also pushing the ground with your feet. The ground is being pushed in opposite directions by your feet and the wall so nothing moves.
Note: if there is zero force on the wall from your pushing, how come you get tired? How come the pushing gets easier if the wall can slide?