Physics is bullshit

You can google all of this, bad bait baka

>Then, why don´t the forces cancel each other and both remain static??
Why would anything cancel? force 1 is the one exerted from the hand on the wall, and force 2 is the one exerting back on the hand. How much the object move depends on the mass and inertial.
If you throw a billiard ball against the wall, then the wall doesn't move much because it's so heavy, but the returning force is strong enough to push back the light ball.

>2) If protons have the same positive charge, then why don´t they repel each other in the atom?
You got nuclear physics to describe the small scale potentials

>3) If entropy is always increasing, how come complex life forms exist? Even after billions of years since the big bang?
Why not? And what makes you think "billions of years" is a significant number with respect to global entropy rise

>>8724827
It´s all lies and you know it

>>8724837
This

I once opened a theoretical physics book and it outright admitted that the Galiliean transformations that form the basics of classical mechanics are a lie group.

The net force is 0 yes, but that only means momentum ia conserved after thr process. Conservation of momentum can happen by many such means.

>>8724866
Sorry, could you elaborate more?

> According to Newton's third law states that whenever one body exerts a force on another body, the second body exerts an oppositely directed force of equal magnitude on the first object.

You're conflating opposing forces and net forces. If a semi truck hits a small car the amount of force the truck applies to the car will be exactly the same as the car imparts on the truck. But the net force is not zero, therefore the semi will push the car a distance after hitting it.

Imagine another scenario of breaking a board with your fist. Assume the board breaks with 100N of force. You apply 200N with your fist. The first 100N of your punch cancels out with the 100N of force the board exerts back as it breaks. The left over 100N is what causes your fist to continue to move past the board instead of staying static.

In both cases the third law is upheld, also see newtons second law.

>>8724806
>2) If protons have the same positive charge, then why don´t they repel each other in the atom?

"The protons in a nucleus have two forces to contend with, the electromagnetic force which is repulsive as you suggest, and also the strong nucleon-nucleon force which is not only attractive but also much stronger than the other. These two forces involve the exchange of photons in the former and exchange of gluons in the latter. In most cases the strong force wins out.
As far as proton-electron attraction goes, they do indeed attract each other and form a stable element, the hydrogen atom."

https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=18412


Strong force is stronger, pun intended, than the electromagnetic force on small scales.

>>8724893
Not really, the net force is still 0 in those cases... It's a misconception generally held because many problemsin classical mechanics assume there are unmovable objects in the physical world, but that is only an aproximation. In reality (and assuming a closee finite universe) the net force of the universe is 0. But the point is that the nrt force is 0 only means that momentum is conserved. Conserving momentum doesn't imply in any way a static process neither it violates the first law.

>>8724806
>3) If entropy is always increasing, how come complex life forms exist? Even after billions of years since the big bang?


Missing one caveat:

The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an ISOLATED SYSTEM always increases over time,
An isolated system is:

1)a physical system so far removed from other systems that it does not interact with them.
2)a thermodynamic system enclosed by rigid immovable walls through which neither matter nor energy can pass.

The earth is not an isolated system, thus the second law does not apply to earth. Energy is regularly given to us by the sun. Thus we can get complex life. The universe on the other hand is and ISOLATED SYSTEM, and that is where the idea of heat death comes into play. Though we are more than a billion years away from that, probably more.

>>8724907
Yeah, sorry, my mistake. They are examples of the second law, not the third.

>>8724907
>>8724907
>Conserving momentum doesn't imply in any way a static process neither it violates the first law.

Conserving momentum violates the first law?

> In reality (and assuming a closee finite universe) the net force of the universe is 0.

Do you have some source or context? Not that i dont believe you in any way, but i am really having a hard time understanding what you are trying to describe.

>>8724940
>Conservation of momentum violates first law
No, I was just clearing that the net force being 0 isn't the same as no force at all and that they are two different concepts. So the first law doesn't come into pñay here.
>Do you have any source or context
It's just a consequence of the third law and assuming that all forces in the universe comes from interactions within the universe. I'm not staying this as a fact, but as a way to consider a Newtonian universe. If all forces arise from interactions, there will always be oposite forces of equal magnitude so the vector sum of these forces will be 0.

>>8724963
Gotcha, thank you for clearing that up.

>>8724806
>Physics is bullshit
No, your misapprehension of Physics is bullshit.

>>8724836
how is it that electromagnetic waves break newton's laws?

>>8724806
1 you don't understand fundamental mechanics
2 strong atomic force
3 you don't understand thermodynamics

>>8724806
>Then, why don´t the forces cancel each other and both remain static??
Because "static" depends entirely on the frame of reference. All that this force cancellation means is that if you hit something and change its momentum, you will receive an equivalent change in momentum back. It's harder to intuitively visualize when you are close to what is for practical purposes an object of infinite mass and infinite momentum (earth), which imposes its frame of reference to human observers. So imagine just a couple of objects of similar size in a weightless environment.