I An interesting question about another view of baisc mechanics'laws

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter lhrhzm
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Classical mechanics
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the implications of Aristotle's mechanics, particularly focusing on the expression of his first and third laws in a universe governed by the second law, F=mV. Participants argue that defining force as momentum complicates the understanding of motion, especially in kinematics like circular motion, where acceleration becomes crucial. There is a consensus that simply using momentum as a basis for the second law is insufficient for a comprehensive theory. Additionally, the forum rules discourage speculative discussions, emphasizing the importance of established scientific principles over hypothetical scenarios. The thread concludes with a reminder of these guidelines and is subsequently closed.
lhrhzm
Messages
1
Reaction score
1
TL;DR Summary
Imagine a new 'second law'→F=mV(different from F=ma,the idea from Aristotelian),and find the corresponding first,third, fourth etc laws to make this imaginary theory self-contained.
Assuming that a universe operates according to Aristotle's mechanics, that is to say, the second law of Aristotle in this universe

F=mV (V is the velocity of the object's motion)True. (Note that 'm' here does not have a dimension of mass.)

In order to obtain a logically consistent Aristotle's mechanics, how should Aristotle's first and third laws be expressed? If you feel that more laws are needed to make the entire theory self consistent, please list these laws and explain the reasons. Of course, it is also possible that only two laws are needed, such as Aristotle's first law and second law. The third law is not needed. If so, please explain the reasons

Im gratefully welcome to all kinds of ideas and hope get a complete answer:bow:🌹🌹
 
Physics news on Phys.org
lhrhzm said:
Assuming that a universe operates according to Aristotle's mechanics, that is to say, the second law of Aristotle in this universe

F=mV (V is the velocity of the object's motion)True. (Note that 'm' here does not have a dimension of mass.)
I'm not sure there is much you could do with that as a starting point. Velocity is frame dependent, so you require a special reference frame in which this law holds. That quantity ##F## as you've defined it is simply momentum, so what is the quantity ##ma## in this theory?

As soon as you start analysing kinematics like circular motion, it's clear that ##ma## becomes an important quantity. You can't make progress simply with a definition of momentum. You need more than that.

I'd say you cannot make any progress with that as the second law.
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50, lhrhzm and fresh_42
PeroK said:
I'd say you cannot make any progress with that as the second law.
With that, the question can be considered as answered.

Also, please have a look at our rules. What-if questions are almost forbidden by our rules (only mainstream science, no speculations, or personal theories, no philosophy). This is because we understand ourselves as teachers who try to help students understand what is, not what could be; maybe with a bit more leash in our sci-fi forum. It is difficult enough to understand the consequences of ##F=ma## and even more difficult to understand its limits!

This thread is closed.
 
  • Like
Likes lhrhzm
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Hello! Let's say I have a cavity resonant at 10 GHz with a Q factor of 1000. Given the Lorentzian shape of the cavity, I can also drive the cavity at, say 100 MHz. Of course the response will be very very weak, but non-zero given that the Loretzian shape never really reaches zero. I am trying to understand how are the magnetic and electric field distributions of the field at 100 MHz relative to the ones at 10 GHz? In particular, if inside the cavity I have some structure, such as 2 plates...

Similar threads

Back
Top