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 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...

Similar threads

Back
Top