Re: Is F=ma a definition or not?

From: Franz Heymann (notfranz.heymann_at_btopenworld.com)
Date: 01/12/05 

Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 21:53:12 +0000 (UTC)

"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:1105549810.435530.92250@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> > Newton "discovered" a relationship that approximated physical
> > behavior in our macro world. Nature tends to obey F = ma
> >
>
> How so?
>
> I think the oroginal poster lacks understanding and knowledge but
you
> lack everythng inlcuding that.

On the contrary, it was a sensible reply that Sam gave.

> Why don't you explain what you mean by:
>
> 1. "Physical behavior" (hmmmmmm... smells cranky to me)
>
> 2. "Macro world" (hmmmmmmm... partiles do not "obey" F =ma?)

I don'tknow what a "partile" is. I assume you meant "particle". In
that case a suitable rejoinder would be that Newton was essentially
restricted to making assertions about the "macro" world, since atomic
and sub-atomic objects had not yet been discovered.
>
> 3. "Nature tends to obey" (hmmmmm... crank alert) I especially like
the
> "tends". HAHAHAHAHAHA

I does indeed "tend" to obey f = ma. It fails to do so in the case of
atomic and sub-atomic prscesses, as well as large scale processes such
as planetary orbits.

It is my opinion that Sam has a much sounder view of classical physics
than you have, and is able to express his views with considerably
better manners than you do.

[snip]

Franz