A janitor mistakenly deleted a thread that was about explaining

>>8078646
Wasn't here for that thread, how does this work? Do laypeople come in and ask questions?

>>8078659
The OP had an image of girls sitting at a dinner table, and the post read something like "you're into physics right, anon? Tell us something about physics".

>>8078675
That was a pure shitposting thread.

>>8078675

>he does it for free

>>8078679
You know it wasn't.

>>8078646

Here, let's start with an easy one:

Following Newton's third law of motion, how can anything happen? If i push the laptop on my desk, and it pushes back equally and opposite, how does it end up moving?

>>8078764
it's just not as strong as you anon

>>8078764
Youre assuning that the two forces act of the same body making the net force zero but he fact is the action force acts on the book while the reaction force acts on you.

>>8078764
The reaction force in the opposite direction acts on you, not the laptop. So the laptop experiences a net force, and hence accelerates.

Do you think this was done by a recently "hired" janitor? Because it's a pretty tone-deaf move.

>>8078675
Thanks anon, so I was actually there but apparently I didn't think that the thread was worth staying for.

What are some handy formulae for Kerbal Space Program?

how does anything begin moving at all? Like the motor in your microwave that turns the platter to better warm things up. The torque required to start that up must be huuge. I'm imagining a small motor cause a microwave is a cheap appliance generally. Am I incorrect in assuming a body at rest needs a huge amount of force to initialize movement, and then less and less? cause that just seems intuitive to my brain.

>>8078646
Why do particles have charm

>>8078646
How many shit posting gorillas does it take to satisfy a cock garbling engineer?

>>8078764
You guys have different masses. Yours being much larger, you'll feel the same force but with an acceleration that is much less (a=F/m)

Could anybody explain/show me how to do free-body diagrams? My professor couldn't help me much, she's pretty much female Borat.

>>8078954
She also wants us to know how to "decompose" them into x and y axes, but for some reason they aren't always in reference to the ground/direction of gravity. I saw a few of the diagrams she made, where she made the y-axis perpendicular to the sloped surface an object was moving down (???).

>>8078954
First draw a dot that represents your object. List all of the forces acting ON the object. Ignore forces that the object itself exerts. Make sure you are clear about the directions of each force.

Draw the force vectors with the tails starting on the dot representing your object.

>>8078962
Are there forces I'm meant to omit? Like if two equal forces pull in opposite directions (negating each other) do I ignore them?

>>8078958
That's just a matter of preference. It doesn't actually change the magnitude of any vector, but the magnitude may be expressed differently. This is to simplify the equation of motion.

So if your object is a slippery dildo that can be approximated by a point mass that rests on an incline, you don't have to describe its motion as a combination of x and y. You can just call the axis parallel to the incline the x-axis or y-axis.

>>8078971
You should include them in the free body diagram. If you're looking for just a diagram that represents the net force on the object, then just add up the forces vectorially, which would end up canceling those forces that are equal and opposite.

>>8078958
>>8078979
So if the only force acting on a mass on an incline is the gravitational force and you took the x axis to be down the incline, you would have to find the component of the gravitational force in the x direction and in the y direction (which is normal to the incline and is equal and opposite to the normal force exerted by the incline)

>>8078897
Because physicists are terrible at naming things, cf. for instance type A and B string theory.