If it was me on the earth you could say I'm at rest, relative to the earth, but relative to the sun or to the center of the galaxy ,no
Is my foot in deep enough yet?
[xeno]Julios wrote:if those are the only two forces on it, then it's just not accelerating.
Could be moving at terminal velocity, with air resistance pushing up, and gravity pushing down at equilibrium.
DING! Jules wins.
Then the diagram is screwed up because air resistance doesnt pull a force it upwards, it resists it, hence the arrow for it should be on the opposite side of the box. Also since the box is a box, the air cavity associated with movement across a non-aerodynamic object would create a vacumn and as such a the air pressure on the top side would be lower resulting in a flux of the moving air around it. Because of the flux, the object would destabalise and horizontal forces would occur increasing the destabalisation of the object meaning that acceleration and deceleraton can and would occur.
So yeah, in lamons terms that diagram is shit, your question and answer is retarded and I am a genious and god like...
the terminal velocity example was just ONE example of how a body can have no unbalanced forces yet still be in motion.
The rest of your comments shows that you have problems with abstraction
losCHUNK wrote:i think its because when your standing still you have only 1 force acting on you (gravity)
so, your stationary
@ cand
no - you're forgetting the opposite force of the earth upon your feet.
If you're in space and gravity acts upon you, you will accelerate.
aye i actually thought that but couldnt think of the 'force pushing you up because the grounds there' force... so i just pretended it didnt exist and kept it simple
[color=red] . : [/color][size=85] You knows you knows [/size]
Canidae wrote:If it was me on the earth you could say I'm at rest, relative to the earth, but relative to the sun or to the center of the galaxy ,no
Is my foot in deep enough yet?