Newton's Thrid Law of Motion?

Question

Couldn't Newton's third law of motion, "for every action an equal and opposite reaction", somewhere down the line eventually be translated to..."for every action, a reason"? Think about it for awhile before answering.

reason or cause*

I already know what it means, I'm just asking you to infer it further.

I'm just trying to make a philosophical point.

Answer 1

I know the point you're trying to get at, but using newton's laws will not help. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction has to do with reactionary forces. That is, if i push on an object, it must push back (no daisy chaining of forces there, just one pair of forces equally acting against each other).

The point you're trying to get to, however, is one of the a posteriori proofs of the existance of God... that is to say that any object which is in action must be that way because some cause external to it must have forced it to behave in that pattern. That cause, then, must likewise have a cause and so on and so forth ad infinitum unless one presumes that there was a time when the universe did not exist and a God concept was the first "uncaused cause." Unfortunately, as I already said, this doesn't tie into Newton at all, since the law you reference only deals with reactionary force pairs.

Answer 2

Newton's Third Law could be thought of as a cause and effect rule, but it is written the way it is so there isn't any ambiguity over what he means. If you wrote it, "For every action, a reason," some might choose to interpret that as a philosophical statement about God's plan or whatever, or others might think of it in terms of cause and effect, and it might not be true (something like, "I jumped out of my chair, and my cat, who was sitting across the room, jumped up and ran out of the room," which has nothing to do with physical forces, and might not always be true) rather than a measure of physical forces. All Newton is really saying in the 3rd Law is that every force that is applied to matter is met by another force in the opposite direction. If I push down on the table with my hand, the table will always push back with the same amount of force, and in turn it pushes down on the floor and the floor pushes back, again with the same amount of force.

Answer 3

Reaction and Reason , you cannot really differentiate on very clear lines .

A reason must cause an action and the action must cause a reaction.

Here action will be the reason for the reaction produced .

refining your statement for technical correctness ,

"For every action there must be a reason, while for a reaction the action is the reason !"

Answer 4

The obvious answer is, "Yes." When you do this, though, you are changing your focus from the immediate motion of the object in question to that of something else - a past event, instead of the present.

Answer 5

The obvious answer is, "Yes." When you do this, though, you are changing your focus from the immediate motion of the object in question to that of something else - a past event, instead of the present.

Answer 6

Newton's regulations of action for products shifting in definable in the present day-line guidelines have been the inspiration for many of what all of us know related to the character and strikes of forces. In an somewhat analogous way, we can define equivalent ideas related to the character of rotating products, relative to 3 familiar rotation axis. as quickly as we cope with rotation, we talk approximately issues like rotation attitude rather of distance and angular velocity in selection to (in the present day-line) velocity. in reality, we can set out a table of equivalent innovations between in the present day-line action and rotation:

Answer 7

On my opinion the 3rd Newton’s law is stupid in any formal way. The Great Newton blurted it, now we recite it like parrots. It should be excluded from studying of school physics.

Answer 8

I think its more like for every action a consequence, good or bad. You know, you reap what you sow.

Answer 9

Example:
like if u apply the force on the wall an opposite force is applied by the wall (may be this is correct)