Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.research > #11711
| From | Luigi Fortunati <fortunati.luigi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.research |
| Subject | Re: Newton e Hooke |
| Date | 2025-02-04 23:47 -0800 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <vnttl2$20mb1$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <vn34df$2to44$1@dont-email.me> <vne5fv$2i6se$1@dont-email.me> |
Without a doubt, Newton relates force to acceleration and Hooke relates it to elastic deformation. If I push the end A of a spring, do I compress it or accelerate it? Obviously I compress it and accelerate it at the same time, because I am not pushing the elastic body of the spring but only its point A. I ask myself: how much of my force is dedicated to compression and how much to acceleration? Here too the answer is simple: it depends on the mass of the spring. If the mass of the spring is small enough to tend to zero (ideal spring), the compression tends to zero and the acceleration tends to 100%. If the mass is large enough to tend to infinity, the compression tends to 100% and the acceleration tends to zero. The difference between the force that compresses and the force that accelerates depends exclusively on the force opposite to ours. In the first case, our force is opposed by an increasingly smaller opposing force (which tends to disappear) and then all our force becomes a net force that accelerates according to the second law. In the second case, the opposing force becomes increasingly larger until it equals our force which becomes entirely Hooke's compressive force where there is no longer any net accelerating force. Well, what is this opposing force that opposes our force? Obviously it is the inertia of the elastic body that we are pushing. This inertia is a force that opposes our real force and, therefore, this force must also be *real*, exactly as the force of friction is real, because they have the same function: friction is a real force because it opposes our real force and inertia is a real force because it opposes our real force. There are two inertias: there is the inertia of the body that persists in its rectilinear and uniform motion and this is not a real force and there is the inertia of the body that opposes the external force and this is a real force. Luigi Fortunati
Back to sci.physics.research | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Newton e Hooke Luigi Fortunati <fortunati.luigi@gmail.com> - 2025-01-26 08:51 -0800
Re: Newton e Hooke Luigi Fortunati <fortunati.luigi@gmail.com> - 2025-01-30 08:42 +0000
Re: Newton e Hooke Luigi Fortunati <fortunati.luigi@gmail.com> - 2025-02-04 23:47 -0800
Re: Newton e Hooke Luigi Fortunati <fortunati.luigi@gmail.com> - 2025-02-10 22:25 -0800
Re: Newton e Hooke "Jonathan Thornburg [remove color- to reply]" <dr.j.thornburg@pink-gmail.com> - 2025-02-12 08:02 +0000
Re: Newton e Hooke Luigi Fortunati <fortunati.luigi@gmail.com> - 2025-02-14 08:09 +0000
Re: Newton e Hooke "Jonathan Thornburg [remove -color to reply]" <dr.j.thornburg@gmail-pink.com> - 2025-02-16 08:55 +0000
Re: Newton e Hooke Luigi Fortunati <fortunati.luigi@gmail.com> - 2025-02-16 10:42 -0800
Re: Newton e Hooke "Jonathan Thornburg [remove -color to reply]" <dr.j.thornburg@gmail-pink.com> - 2025-02-17 08:19 +0000
Re: Newton e Hooke Luigi Fortunati <fortunati.luigi@gmail.com> - 2025-02-17 22:45 -0800
Re: Newton e Hooke Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2025-02-18 08:23 +0000
Re: Newton e Hooke Luigi Fortunati <fortunati.luigi@gmail.com> - 2025-02-16 10:42 -0800
Re: Newton e Hooke "Jonathan Thornburg [remove -color to reply]" <dr.j.thornburg@gmail-pink.com> - 2025-02-17 08:19 +0000
Re: Newton e Hooke "Jonathan Thornburg [remove -color to reply]" <dr.j.thornburg@gmail-pink.com> - 2025-02-18 08:23 +0000
Re: Newton e Hooke Luigi Fortunati <fortunati.luigi@gmail.com> - 2025-02-20 07:56 +0100
Re: Newton e Hooke Luigi Fortunati <fortunati.luigi@gmail.com> - 2025-02-22 18:13 +0100
inelastic collision (was: Re: Newton e Hooke) "Jonathan Thornburg [remove -color to reply]" <dr.j.thornburg@gmail-red.com> - 2025-02-26 08:02 +0000
Re: inelastic collision (was: Re: Newton e Hooke) Luigi Fortunati <fortunati.luigi@gmail.com> - 2025-02-28 14:44 -0800
Re: inelastic collision (was: Re: Newton e Hooke) "Jonathan Thornburg [remove -color to reply]" <dr.j.thornburg@gmail-pink.com> - 2025-03-01 09:18 +0000
Re: inelastic collision (was: Re: Newton e Hooke) Luigi Fortunati <fortunati.luigi@gmail.com> - 2025-03-03 08:09 +0000
Re: inelastic collision (was: Re: Newton e Hooke) Luigi Fortunati <fortunati.luigi@gmail.com> - 2025-03-12 12:37 +0000
Re: inelastic collision (was: Re: Newton e Hooke) Luigi Fortunati <fortunati.luigi@gmail.com> - 2025-03-16 09:28 +0000
Re: inelastic collision (was: Re: Newton e Hooke) Luigi Fortunati <fortunati.luigi@gmail.com> - 2025-03-16 21:28 -0700
Re: inelastic collision (was: Re: Newton e Hooke) "Jonathan Thornburg [remove -color to reply]" <dr.j.thornburg@gmail-pink.com> - 2025-03-02 09:14 +0000
csiph-web