The discussion revolves around the interpretation and foundational aspects of Newton's first two laws of motion, particularly focusing on the definitions of force and inertial reference frames. Participants explore the implications of these laws, their definitions, and the conceptual challenges they present, with a mix of theoretical and philosophical considerations.
Participants do not reach a consensus on whether Newton's first law is purely definitional or if all three laws are necessary for a complete understanding of force and inertial frames. Multiple competing views remain regarding the nature of these laws and the definitions involved.
Participants highlight the ambiguity in defining force and inertial frames, as well as the historical context of Newton's laws, which may not align with modern interpretations. There is also mention of the limitations of Newtonian mechanics in light of contemporary physics.
This discussion may be of interest to students and enthusiasts of physics, particularly those grappling with the foundational concepts of Newtonian mechanics and the philosophical implications of scientific definitions.
Jano L. said:When you put many heavy books on a plastic table, you will see that the table deforms. There is force between the table and the books, but no acceleration.
Delta² said:yes but the deformation happened because some of the points of the plastic table (the points under the books where the deformation happened) were accelerated abit and then they stop abit lower.
stevendaryl said:In the case of balancing forces, the TOTAL force is zero. But gravity still exerts a downward force, and the desk still exerts an upward force.
stevendaryl said:So force is not defined in terms of accelerations.
DrStupid said:According to the second law there are corresponding changes of momentum that are balanced too.