Timeline for A force opposing Gravity
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 21, 2015 at 11:29 | history | protected | CommunityBot | ||
| May 14, 2015 at 16:07 | answer | added | Horus | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jan 26, 2015 at 2:29 | vote | accept | Harry David | ||
| Jan 26, 2015 at 2:29 | vote | accept | Harry David | ||
| Jan 26, 2015 at 2:29 | |||||
| Oct 25, 2014 at 3:24 | comment | added | David Z | @HarryDavid perhaps you could accept an answer, if you feel your question has been sufficiently addressed? Click the green checkmark next to any answer to accept that one. | |
| Aug 28, 2014 at 17:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/505037210710990849 | ||
| Aug 28, 2014 at 9:51 | comment | added | Harry David | I guess so, I thought prior that the same force which is preventing further compression of objects by gravity may have been the same force which opposed it, anyway thanks for telling me. | |
| Aug 28, 2014 at 0:48 | comment | added | Sophie Swett | You seem to be asking two different questions here. The first question is what gravity's "equal and opposite" force is, and the second question is which force prevents gravity from compressing masses more than it already does. These questions have two different answers. | |
| Aug 28, 2014 at 0:15 | answer | added | David Hammen | timeline score: 1 | |
| Aug 27, 2014 at 20:34 | comment | added | Void | Consider a spring you hook up to a wall and pull it towards yourself with a force $10N$. We would say the wall reciprocates $10N$ back. So what force will the spring feel? $20N$? No, $10N$, because there is really just a $10N$ between them. You can verify this with a spring scale, it makes total sense. Decomposing the force "in between" into two opposite forces is actually just a useful tool to analyse effects on separate bodies under it's influence. | |
| Aug 27, 2014 at 20:32 | comment | added | Void | Both the posts of Emilio and John provide excellent descriptions, so I am just going to leave a short comment. The important point is that when you observe say mechanical objects in nature, you cannot even say there was a force acting "there and there" - you always have a force in between two objects and it is nonsensical to event talk about an unreciprocated force. | |
| Aug 27, 2014 at 15:57 | answer | added | Curiosity | timeline score: 3 | |
| S Aug 27, 2014 at 14:21 | history | edited | user1247 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Error fixed.
|
| S Aug 27, 2014 at 14:21 | history | suggested | Sensebe | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Error fixed.
|
| Aug 27, 2014 at 14:19 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Aug 27, 2014 at 14:21 | |||||
| Aug 27, 2014 at 11:48 | answer | added | John Rennie | timeline score: 20 | |
| Aug 27, 2014 at 11:35 | answer | added | Emilio Pisanty | timeline score: 34 | |
| Aug 27, 2014 at 11:23 | history | edited | Emilio Pisanty | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Punctuation fixes. Removed tagline - your username acts as a signature.
|
| S Aug 27, 2014 at 11:21 | history | suggested | bobie | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fixed the title
|
| Aug 27, 2014 at 11:14 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Aug 27, 2014 at 11:21 | |||||
| Aug 27, 2014 at 10:35 | history | asked | Harry David | CC BY-SA 3.0 |