Does stick of dynamite contain force?why? why not?
544947
It contains energy, the ability to do work. The energy is released in the form of force doing work by moving. You could make a stick of dynamite "contain force" by compressing it, but that's not really safe!
250136
Glass can be very strong, but it's brittle.  So, it can support a lot of force without breaking provided it's not struck which causes small chips and fractures which rapidly expand, breaking the glass.\n\nSo, if you apply a downward blow on the middle of the stick, the stick is already stationary on the glass and if done right the force is applied through the glass with the stick constantly in contact, which reduces the chance that it'll strike and fracture the glass. \n\nIf you strike the stick with an upward motion, you lift the stick slightly off the glasses, and probably cause some rotation or bow in the stick, causing the ends to strike the glass in a way that will chip or fracture it.  Imagine the stick simultaneously rising up, and the ends curving back due to bending from the sharp strike, and you can understand how the ends of the stick could hit the glass like a whiplash.  Once this is started, the glass will likely break if there's enough follow through force from the stick.  \n\nYou'd have to have some pretty carefully selected sticks and glasses to make this work, plus use the right amount of force, put it could be done.
39571
As you know, Newton's Third Law of Motion states that for every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction. This is applicable only to an action originating from a mass. When you consider a rocket, gas is ejected out from the thrust nozzle with great acceleration. This is achieved when a force is applied on the gas.\nNow, when a force is applied on the gas by the rocket to thrust it out, the gas exerts an equal and opposite force on the rocket, thereby resulting in acceleration of the rocket in the direction of the net resultant force. Thus there is no need for any atmosphere or body which exerts a reaction force other than the gas ejected!! So there you are !!!
752852
Inertia\n\nInertia is not a force.\n\na property of matter\n\nThe following are a consequence of the property of matter known as inertia:\nresistance to change in velocity\nthe tendency to maintain constant velocity\nresistance to acceleration\n\nAssuming ideal conditions:\nThe net force on the cheese is zero.\nThe cheese:\naccelerates at a constant rate\nremains at rest\nmaintains constant velocity\n\nIn an actual situation, I doubt the cheese would survive such forces.  I believe the cheese would be rent in twain.
950388
It would be a waste of bombs. Couldn't we just get big sticks and push it away?
55202
The two best answers to this paradox are basically one of logic and one of semantics, and they each say that the question doesn't make sense.\n\nThe answer using logic is that if such a thing as an irresistible force exists, then no object is immovable, and vice versa. It is logically impossible to have these two entities (a force that cannot be resisted and an object that cannot be moved by any force) in the same universe. \n\nThe answer using semantics is that if there is such a thing as an irresistible force, then the phrase immovable object is meaningless in that context, and vice versa, and the issue amounts to the same thing as asking, e.g., for a triangle that has four sides.
556094
Friction is not a force... It just is... It only exists when two objects, or things are in contact with each other.\nIf a force is acting on an object to move it, friction acts in the opposite direction.. It's simple as that. Obviously if the force is not greater than the friction, the object will not move.\nSo the direction of friction is opposite to the direction of the bicycle's movement, so in the same "Direction" for both wheels.
518532
Hmmm......\n\nI don't know. I assume things can explode, as long as the essential ingrediants are stored within the object exploding..\n\nHowever, it may be more of an implosion. \n\nSo, yes, no, maybe. Give me my 10 points.
1133536
It's a shame that some scientists are not born with a visible sense of humour.\n\nThis is a rhetorical question - a philosophical question that cannot be answered.\n\nMind you, according to a copy of Metro last week, the egg came first ( apparently ) , so the immovable object/ unstoppable force question may eventually be answered by someone with too much funding
240119
Yes, they dont call it a Law for nothing.\n\nThink of any "action"....for example, Jumping.  Now think of the "reaction" involved...the Normal force.\nWhen you jump, your legs exert an "action" force down in the ground.  In reponce, the ground exerts a "reaction" force back on your legs called the "normal" force.  We know the ground exerts this force because otherwise, the ground would immediately begin to accelerate downward as soon as you tried to jump.\nBut the normal force is even exerted when you are just standing still.  Earth's gravity exerts a force on you downward (likewise you exert a force on the Earth upward) and if the ground did not push up, you would fall through the Earth.\n\nFor every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
718143
No, they actually don't come into contact with each other (unless electrons move, in which case you get shocked). In physics, this is why there are very few true contact forces. You see, stable atoms don't like being disturbed. When you press two neutral, happy molecules against each other they stay seperate and even force each other apart. The closer they get the more they push each other away. Its a very strong force. This is why you can't pass your hand through objects. :)
503213
Depends on how much force is transferred from who ever is striking it and the strength of who ever is striking it, i think.
94214
If nothing else, it is an interesting question.\n\nMost weapons wouldnt behave all that different, however, you may have to use them more carefully on Mars.\n\nMars only has about 1/3 the gravity on Earth and only about 1/100 th of the air pressure [I use the term "air" pressure to mean the atmospheric pressure, not necesarily air].\n\nBullets would be able to go farther due to the reduced gravity and reduced air pressure (less air resistance).  You would be able to shoot an arrow much further for the same reason.\nA sword would feel lighter in your hands, making it easier to wield.\n\n\nEDIT:\n-Rodri-, how so?  Why would the recoil be stronger?\nWhen firing a gun, the recoil is due to Newton's third law and the law of conservation of momentum.  How would less gravity effect the recoil?\nThe only thing I could think of would be that the acceleration of the bullet while in the chamber would be greater as the net force is greater since their is less air pressure for the bullet to be accelerated into.  I think this might be neglible though due to the extreamly short time the bullet in the barrel and the tiny mass the bullet has anyway.\n\n\njojo21,\nthe propellant used in most all guns and ammunition already has the Oxygen chemically added in the powder.  The classic example of this is gun powder, or gun powder-like propellants used today in amminition.  There is an oxidizer in the chemical (such as KNO3) that will supply all the Oxygen needed for the reaction.  Virtually nothing is needed from the surrounding "air".
572487
Distribution of force over area.
37677
its not really a type of force it's just a force that is balanced... like it's in equalibrium because it has another force of equal magnitude going in the opposite direction. such as if there was a 5N force pushing into a wall, it's a balanced force because the system is in equilibrium and the wall is pushing back with a force of 5N.  or if you were pulling on a rope with 8N and it was a balanced force, that would mean that someone else was also pulling with 8N and you aren't going anywhere.\n\nWhen the forces are balanced, that means that there is no net force. this means that whatever the forces are acting on is not experiencing any acceleration, so it's either at rest or moving with a constant velocity(no acceleration).
465216
Well if you had been paying attention, Mythbusters proved that there is not such thing as quick sand. They tried their best but it just doesn't exist.\n\nSeems like the principle of a body being lifted up by a force equal to the weight of the material displaced keeps getting in the way. Sand and water on a cubic foot basis weights much more than either the donkey's or mule's average weight per cubic foot.
903081
Oh boy, use a stick of dynamite.