Formulating Aristotle's first and third laws if F=mV

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter lhrhzm
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Classical mechanics
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
Sign up Log in
2 replies · 1K views
lhrhzm
Messages
1
Reaction score
1
TL;DR
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

Discussion

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   Reactions: 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   Reactions: lhrhzm