Would the following factual saying be a perfect example for the....?

Question

theory that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

"The strong will stand and the weak will fall"

Answer 1

Haha....
The stong would have to push the small, in order to fall.
Or else the small would be standing just like the strong.

Answer 2

I don't know that I would consider the statement factual anyway, but assuming it is...I wouldn't consider it a perfect example. There's not really any action in the statement, there is reaction. Reacting to its strength, the strong will stand and vice versa. I can only separate the two b/c to me the weak have no consequence for the strong. Only because they are weak, they will fall, having no effect on the strong really whether they fall or not.

Answer 3

No, because it's not strictly speaking, true, many a mighty oak is left broken after a storm while the weak little reeds are still thriving....and that cuts ALL across the board. Sometimes it is those people that can adapt to situations rather than those who stand steadfast that survive.
Besides the statement is NOT an example of action/reaction...it's more of a motto. A statement of action/reaction would be- If you play with fire, you will be burned.

Answer 4

Physical sciences and human social systems should be kept in their own separate contexts. I am more than a molecule or even a planet. Consider the abuse made of Darwin's 'survival of the fittest' to justify similar abuses.
The 'strong' seem to always be fewer in number, having had wealthy parents, opportunities and benefits not available to the 'weak'. But the majority always seems to get the upper hand eventually.
The rock is strong, the stream that flows to either side is weak. But the rock is worn away.
And here is a far more lasting truth:
"The meek will inherit the earth."

Answer 5

Ok hope i understood your question correctly. No it is not a perfect example, because the strong will stand....is equal but wheres the opposite. The weak will fall........ is equal but where is the opposite. and your therory says for every action there is an equal AND opposite reaction.

Answer 6

With every day pass, our country is getting into more and more trouble. The inflation, unemployment and falling value of dollar are the main concern for our Government but authorities are just sleeping, they don’t want to face the fact. Media is also involve in it, they are force to stop showing the real economic situation to the people. I start getting more concern about my future as well as my family after watching the response of our Government for the people that affected by hurricane Katrina.

According to recent studies made by World Bank, the coming crisis will be far worse than initially predicted. So if you're already preparing for the crisis (or haven't started yet) make sure you watch this video at http://www.familysurvival.tv and discover the 4 BIG issues you'll have to deal with when the crisis hits, and how to solve them fast (before the disaster strikes your town!) without spending $1,000s on overrated items and useless survival books.

Answer 7

My answer to that would be no. One is an irrefutable law of physics and the other is a vague aphorism that does not universally apply. To give examples; Judo "The way of giving way" has nothing to do with strength but the manipulation of another's energy against them. Britain's survival during WWII was as much to do with geographical location than any other factor despite their relative weakness against the German war machine. I'm sure there are millions of other examples but I've got other things to do.

Answer 8

Well, to begin with, it's not a "theory"; it's a "Law."
But to answer: not necessarily since in your example, there doesn't have to be any cause and effect relationship.
The strong could be in any place at any time and the same can be said of the weak.
A better way to put it might be:
When the weak come into conflict with the strong, the weak will fall. The strong push (action) and the weak
collapse (reaction.)
But you're the victim of a common misunderstanding about Newton's Third Law of Motion:

"The reaction is one of the least understood of the basic physical concepts, perhaps because it is often poorly taught or incorrectly described in many publications (including in textbooks), or because Newton's laws of motion may appear counter-intuitive (see that article for a historical perspective or a statement of all three laws). Here is a modern statement (in words only) of the Third Law of motion:
If a force acts on a body, then an equal and opposite force must act upon another body
It is essential to understand that the reaction applies to another body than the one on which the action itself applies. For instance, in the context of gravitation, when object A attracts object B (action), then object B simultaneously attracts object A (with the same intensity and an opposite direction).
Another important point to keep in mind is that the physical nature of the reaction force is identical to that of the action itself: if the action is due to gravity, the reaction is also due to gravity. Hence, any discussion of this topic that amounts to a claim that an action results in a reaction of a different type (gravitational, electromagnetic, friction, spring, or whatever) is obviously wrong and should be discarded.

Examples of correct interpretations

The Earth orbits around the Sun because the gravitational force exerted by the Sun on the Earth (action) serves as the centripetal force that maintains the planet in the neighborhood of the Sun. Simultaneously, the Earth exerts a gravitational attraction on the Sun (reaction), which has the same amplitude as the action and an opposite direction (in this case, pulling the Sun towards the Earth). Since the Sun's mass is very much larger than the Earth's, it does not appear to be reacting to the pull of the Earth, but in fact it does. A correct way of describing the combined motion of both objects (ignoring all other celestial bodies for the moment) is to say that they both orbit around the center of mass of the combined system.
Consider a mass hanging at the end of a (non-stretchable) steel cable attached to the ceiling of the laboratory. The mass is pulled towards the Earth (action) by its weight. The corresponding reaction is the gravitational force that mass exerts on the planet: this has nothing to do with the steel cable; in fact, the reaction exists even in the absence of the cable. On the other hand, if the tension in the cable is pulling the mass upwards and preventing it from falling, then the mass is simultaneously pulling on the cable, with equal intensity and opposite direction. If this simple system is observed to be at rest (in particular not accelerated) with respect to the ceiling, Newton's first law implies that no net force is applied to the mass. Since we have just seen that two distinct forces do apply to the mass (the gravitational pull from the Earth and the tension from the cable), we conclude that these two forces are themselves equal and opposite, i.e., that they compensate each other. However, these latter two forces are not the action and the reaction of each other.
To verify the correct interpretation of these concepts, let's replace the cable by a spring, and consider the same system initially at rest (again with respect to the ceiling of the laboratory): the same considerations apply. However, if this system is then perturbed (e.g., the mass is given a slight kick upwards or downwards, say), the mass starts to oscillate up and down. Because of these accelerations (and subsequent decelerations), we conclude from Newton's first law that a net force is responsible for the observed change in velocity. Yet, the gravitational action and reaction remain the same, since the masses involved have not changed, and the distance between the center of mass of the object and the center of mass of the Earth is modified so slightly that any variation in the gravitational force is immeasurably small. What has occurred is that we now have a dynamic system where the (constant) gravitational force on the mass is temporarily out of balance with the (variable) tension in the spring. The latter changes intensity and direction in time (at a frequency that is related to the strength of the spring), depending (in first approximation, and for small perturbations) on the deviation of the length of the spring with respect to its 'natural' length (i.e., in the absence of a mass).

Examples of common misunderstandings

Newton's third law is frequently stated in a simplistic but incomplete or incorrect manner through statements such as
Action and reaction are equal and opposite
To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction
These statements fail to make it clear that the action and reaction apply to different bodies. Also, it is not because two forces happen to be equal in magnitude and opposite in direction that they automatically form an action-reaction pair in the sense of Newton's Thirs Law.
Action and reaction are often confused with the issue of equilibrium. For example, consider the following statement:
A book standing still on a table is at rest because its weight, a force pulling it downwards, is balanced by the equal and opposite reaction of the table, a force pushing it upwards.
As stated, this is not an instance of the Third Law, nor an example of a reaction, since both forces invoked are applied to the book: one cannot be the reaction to the other, since they must apply to different bodies. In any case, the table and the book are not at rest (in any inertial frame of reference), and being at rest is irrelevant in the context of the Third Law. Note also that the concept of weight itself is often misunderstood.
Another very common mistake is to state that
The centrifugal force is the reaction to the centripetal force.
Clearly, if an object were simultaneously subject to both a centripetal and an equal and opposite centrifugal force, the resultant force would vanish and the object could not experience a circular motion. The centrifugal force is sometimes called a pseudo force, to underscore the fact that such a force only appears when calculations or measurements are taking place in non-inertial reference frames."

Answer 9

No, not even close. I do not understand how you think you can apply a Newtonian finding to such an unsupported statement. You do not even say what the statement refers to. So, I could reply, " the strong statements will stand and the weak ones will fall ". Think!!

Answer 10

There is a difference between response and action/reaction. If you learn to respond properly to anything then it does not create reaction., for respond in its essence is not an action. If you grasp an idea , then you've done your life perfectly.