Experiment dumbass.
get a bunch of projectiles, ideally half of them all the same shape and weight, but some can be of a standard weight but different sizes. Then fire them into objects of a standard weight at different speeds. You will need some sort of launch device that can ensure consistency of force and speed (since the same weight ensures the mass is identical). Then see if the effects are the same.
If there are discrepancies, see if angle or humidity or air temperature can account for it. If not, see if loss to other forms of energy like sound, heat, or even light can account for it. If you have absolute proof that this is not the case, that either mass has disappeared or force has increased, then you get to rewrite the laws of physics and thermodynamics.
then we would have figured this out long ago. fact: newton didnt know that p=1, and the language of the 2nd law in "principia" allows for it to be anything. of course, its obviously fricking 1 now that the law has been scrutinized for 300 years.
it isn’t. it might be 99.99999% or more but [math]F[/math] will never exactly equal [math]ma[/math] because of Einstein’s theory of general relativity. The only [math]mathit{truly}[/math] exact equation in physics is [math]e = mc^2[/math]… also due to Albert Einstein.
I'm not going to mock your lack of intelligence, bud. I think you've done this already. But F = ma is a definition and you're clearly mixing it up with another issue, that is that the gravitational pull is identical to F or that ma = mg
by the scientific method, which critically include experiment and observation
it appears to be a very good model.
never mistake a model for truth, though. it works within a range of validity, and if you exceed that range you exceed what the model is capable of describing.
refinements of the model should closely reproduce the original model under the original range of validity.
for example, F = ma works real well, but galaxies' motion is all fricky. dark matter seems to be the likely reason, but a less likely although conceivable reason is that Newton's 2nd law is really more complicated.
Of course it is true, you could list any number of SI units in combination and give it a letter and fancy name. The unit might be useless but there is nothing to prove. newtons are just a practical way to not add separate mass and acceleration individually.
F is respects you pay ma is your mom
respect your mother son it can only make you a better man
frick your dumb thread
look up the base units for newtons, it's shocking
It's made up. It's made up in a way that makes it true by definition. That's how.
Experiment dumbass.
get a bunch of projectiles, ideally half of them all the same shape and weight, but some can be of a standard weight but different sizes. Then fire them into objects of a standard weight at different speeds. You will need some sort of launch device that can ensure consistency of force and speed (since the same weight ensures the mass is identical). Then see if the effects are the same.
If there are discrepancies, see if angle or humidity or air temperature can account for it. If not, see if loss to other forms of energy like sound, heat, or even light can account for it. If you have absolute proof that this is not the case, that either mass has disappeared or force has increased, then you get to rewrite the laws of physics and thermodynamics.
>Experiment dumbass.
What if in fact F=map, where p is a constant close enough to one noone has identified it?
That's why you should experiment and find out
reminds me of this passage in Jackson electrodynamics.
then we would have figured this out long ago. fact: newton didnt know that p=1, and the language of the 2nd law in "principia" allows for it to be anything. of course, its obviously fricking 1 now that the law has been scrutinized for 300 years.
You're both brainlets for failing to notice that the mysterious p would be subsumed by the m in any case.
>how can we be sure a derived quantity is derived?
Go scream "I hate Black folk" in the middle of detroit and you'll find out
>make experiment
>hm it sure looks like f=ma
because a = F/m
it isn’t. it might be 99.99999% or more but [math]F[/math] will never exactly equal [math]ma[/math] because of Einstein’s theory of general relativity. The only [math]mathit{truly}[/math] exact equation in physics is [math]e = mc^2[/math]… also due to Albert Einstein.
I'm not going to mock your lack of intelligence, bud. I think you've done this already. But F = ma is a definition and you're clearly mixing it up with another issue, that is that the gravitational pull is identical to F or that ma = mg
by the scientific method, which critically include experiment and observation
it appears to be a very good model.
never mistake a model for truth, though. it works within a range of validity, and if you exceed that range you exceed what the model is capable of describing.
refinements of the model should closely reproduce the original model under the original range of validity.
for example, F = ma works real well, but galaxies' motion is all fricky. dark matter seems to be the likely reason, but a less likely although conceivable reason is that Newton's 2nd law is really more complicated.
this applies to all of physics
A better question is how can you know that "force" is even a real thing. Always seemed like a mathematical artifact to me.
Frick = My Ass
force isn't real.
Why do you think people who talk about ballistics use the term energy and not force?
It's an outdated model of things
Of course it is true, you could list any number of SI units in combination and give it a letter and fancy name. The unit might be useless but there is nothing to prove. newtons are just a practical way to not add separate mass and acceleration individually.