Timeline for Are Newton's "laws" of motion laws or definitions of force and mass?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 24 at 15:42 | comment | added | Saral | They are fundamental laws physicskey.com/12/newton-s-laws-of-motion | |
| Nov 22, 2022 at 7:33 | comment | added | D.R | Many answers take as axiom that acceleration is indeed the "correct"/"natural" quantity to study. As for why, see the linked questions of physics.stackexchange.com/questions/90190/…, in particular physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4102/…, and also an information-theoretic remark physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4102/… | |
| Jun 4, 2022 at 14:09 | comment | added | Quillo | Related: physics.stackexchange.com/a/697000/226902 | |
| Feb 8, 2018 at 21:55 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ |
edited tags
|
|
| S Jun 29, 2017 at 16:11 | history | bounty ended | Emilio Pisanty | ||
| S Jun 29, 2017 at 16:11 | history | notice removed | Emilio Pisanty | ||
| Jun 22, 2017 at 22:57 | comment | added | J.G. | Conservative forces satisfy $m\ddot{\vec{x}}=-\vec{\nabla}V\left( x\right) $, so even in this special case an equation quantifying force isn't true by definition. A Lagrangian formulation makes this clearer with the on-shell concept. | |
| Jun 22, 2017 at 22:22 | answer | added | tparker | timeline score: 28 | |
| S Jun 22, 2017 at 16:01 | history | bounty started | Emilio Pisanty | ||
| S Jun 22, 2017 at 16:01 | history | notice added | Emilio Pisanty | Reward existing answer | |
| Jun 15, 2017 at 17:10 | answer | added | Mihailo_Serbia | timeline score: 12 | |
| Dec 29, 2014 at 0:57 | answer | added | Timaeus | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jul 7, 2013 at 17:30 | history | protected | Qmechanic♦ | ||
| Jul 7, 2013 at 17:25 | answer | added | Constantine | timeline score: 11 | |
| Jul 7, 2013 at 12:48 | answer | added | Cleonis | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jul 6, 2013 at 21:23 | comment | added | Peter Shor | Just think of the laws as saying "one can assign a 'mass' to each object and a 'force' to each interaction so that ...". It is quite possible that with some laws of physics there would be no consistent assignments of 'masses' and 'forces' making Newton's laws hold. This means that Newton's laws are more than just definitions. For example, Newton's laws imply that an astronaut floating in space can't propel himself without throwing something. Can a definition imply anything? | |
| Jul 6, 2013 at 20:59 | comment | added | user5402 | @BenCrowell I wish life is that simple. | |
| Jul 6, 2013 at 20:47 | comment | added | user4552 | there must be independent definitions of force and mass but I don't think there's such definitions. Suppose I define force as what I measure with a spring scale, and I define mass as what I measure with a balance (which has been calibrated in the same location with a standard mass). | |
| Jul 6, 2013 at 20:09 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/353606726299299840 | ||
| Jul 6, 2013 at 17:24 | answer | added | joshphysics | timeline score: 120 | |
| Jul 6, 2013 at 17:09 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited tags
|
| Jul 6, 2013 at 16:38 | history | asked | user5402 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |