Re: Force and mass
- From: Gan <sganesh88@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 21:17:11 -0800 (PST)
On Dec 21, 7:53 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Gan" <sganes...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:7b7b8192-750a-4d37-8b28-f74bb7bf08bc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Dec 21, 12:55 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Gan" <sganes...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5c8ec8cc-a506-4c60-9d5b-ba360ebd4b87@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Which is fundamental?forceormass?
Which is a colour? red or blue?
You mean to say that both are equally fundamental? by "more
fundamental", what i mean is that if x cannot be defined without
defining y, then y is "more fundamental" than x. Length and time are,
by that definition equally fundamental.
Go ahead and definemasswithout reference toforceorforce
without reference tomass.
From the sarcasm in your post, i get that they are inter-dependent.Meaning, force cannot exist without defining mass and vice-versa.
(maybe you meant something else which im ignorant about as yet) But
wouldn't the definition get circular that way? This reminds me of the
similar doubt i had a few years back regarding inertial frames. I was
confronted with a definition that inertial frames are those that have
uniform motion; that are not acted upon by external forces. W.r.t?
wouldnt it get circular that way? i questioned. There was a big
discussion regarding this in the orkut physics community too. Then i
was clarified with a more appropriate form-from that thread as well by
some other books like the one by A.P.French- that inertial frames are
those frames in which newton's laws are valid and that newton's first
law is an assertion that inertial frames exist. So no circularity
here. But your definition seems to have one.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Force and mass
- From: Androcles
- Re: Force and mass
- References:
- Force and mass
- From: Gan
- Re: Force and mass
- From: Androcles
- Re: Force and mass
- From: Gan
- Re: Force and mass
- From: Androcles
- Force and mass
- Prev by Date: Re: Quality of articles on theoritical physics.
- Next by Date: Re: 35 below
- Previous by thread: Re: Force and mass
- Next by thread: Re: Force and mass
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
