Hello everyone, it's been a while since I've been introduced to Newton's laws for the first time. Yesterday I've been reading the Feynman lectures vol 1, where Feynman makes a remark about Newton's laws not really containing any physics. This got me thinking and I'm really confused right now. English is not my first language so I'll do my best to get my confusion along to you. I'm talking about the first two laws only: The problem arises when I start looking at Newtons first law without any pre conceived idea of what a force is. I have read that this is one way of approaching them. So let me look at the following statement: ''In inertial reference frames, the velocity vector of an object remains constant only and only if no force is acting on it.'' Two new concepts introduced: A) Inertial reference frames B) Force. To counter pre conceived notions sneaking into my reasoning I'll rename the things as A) Special frame B) Wobble. So basically I have ''In special frames, the velocity vector of an object remains constant if there is no Wobble'' As you see this doesn't make sense. Let's say I'm looking at an object A moving with a constant velocity vector. If I knew that I was in a special frame I could conclude that there was no Wobble. However, I can't know if I'm in a special frame or not because they were not defined before this moment. Other way, if I knew that there was no Wobble I could say that I'm in a special frame, but again I can't know if there is a Wobble or not. So the first law doesn't introduce anything, even not a definition. It could be viewed as: 1) The definition of a special frame in function of this other unknown thing 'Wobble' 2) The definition of a Wobble, using another unknown thing ''special frame''.