Support NeoGAF

[cvxfreak]

Anyone got an answer? kthxbye.

 

[Deku Tree]

That depends on what you mean by "moving".

 

[cvxfreak]

As in displacement (I think). It doesn't necessarily have to accelerate, it just can't stay in the same place. But equilibrium must be maintained.

So, is it possible?

 

[Deku Tree]

I'd say an object can be in equilibrium and still be moving then... but to be sure, what is your precise definition of "equilibrium"?

 

[Hitman]

Doe Equilibrium mean Potential Energy = Kinetic Engery?

 

[cvxfreak]

I'd say an object can be in equilibrium and still be moving then... but to be sure, what is your precise definition of "equilibrium"?

Equilibrium is when the sum of all net forces acting on an object is zero. Thanks for all the help, too.

 

[Deku Tree]

Equilibrium is when the sum of all net forces acting on an object is zero. Thanks for all the help, too.

In a Vacuum, then, an object can be moving and be in equilibrium. An object in motion tends to stay in motion and all that Newtonian jazz.

 

[Hitokage]

First, there's inertia. If it weren't for the fact that any object moving in our atmosphere has to push air out of the way and respond to gravity, it'd move with respect to the earth at a constant rate. Second, motion is relative anyway. What you call moving I could call stationary.

 

[sc0la]

You can always go relativity and argue that the body is motionless

edit: two minutes, thats relatively late.

 

[nitewulf]

"(Physics) Can an object in equilibrium be moving?"
yes.

 

[ghostface]

Depends on the point of view considered. Are we talking about internal or external forces?

 

[Dilbert]

As already said several times...yes.

If the sum of the applied forces (both rotational and translational) is zero, then the acceleration (both angular and linear) is zero: a = dv/dt = 0

However, notice that when you integrate to get the velocity equation, the answer is an arbitrary constant...which means that the object can have any constant velocity and still be in equilibrium.

 

[Future Trunks]

As 345,587 members before me said: yes.

 

[Wellington]

Heh.

Are you taking physics 1, statics, or dynamics? It actually does make a difference. :|

 

[cvxfreak]

Regular physics.

I gotta present the problem to class tomorrow, so I thought I'd make sure. Looks like it can.

 

[Ironclad]

As already said several times...yes.

If the sum of the applied forces (both rotational and translational) is zero, then the acceleration (both angular and linear) is zero: a = dv/dt = 0

However, notice that when you integrate to get the velocity equation, the answer is an arbitrary constant...which means that the object can have any constant velocity and still be in equilibrium.

Hit the nail right on the head. An example would be if an object is sliding down the ramp, and it's downward force = force of friction, then the object is not accelerating but moving at a constant velocity.