Is there any way to prove Newton's law

  • Thread starter Thread starter vi vu
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Law Newton's law
AI Thread Summary
Newton's law, expressed as F=m.a, is not provable in the same way as mathematical proofs, but it can be supported by valid evidence. The stability of structures and the successful prediction of celestial movements serve as practical validations of these laws. Discussions highlight the distinction between rigorous proof and empirical evidence in science, emphasizing that definitions like force cannot be proven but can be measured. The conversation also critiques common fallacies in reasoning, such as proof by authority or precedent. Overall, the validity of Newton's laws is reinforced through observable phenomena rather than strict proofs.
vi vu
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
a Newton's law states that : F=m.a , but I realize that it belongs to our sense , but may be someone know more about this . if you have any explanation or proof , let me know :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
vi vu said:
a Newton's law states that : F=m.a , but I realize that it belongs to our sense , but may be someone know more about this . if you have any explanation or proof , let me know :)

Forget about Newton's laws. Think about how you "prove" anything in science!

There is no such thing as "proof" as rigorous as that in mathematics, i.e. a logical proof. There are such a thing as "valid" evidence! The fact that your house still stands is an evidence for the validity of Newton's laws. The fact that we can actually map and predict the location of celestical bodies (i.e. we shoot a space capsule here on earth, and months and years later, actually reach a planet that wasn't at that location months and years earlier) is another evidence for the validity of Newton's laws.

Zz.
 
Ofcourse you can. Just say that gravity is entropic.
 
ZapperZ said:
Forget about Newton's laws. Think about how you "prove" anything in science!

There is no such thing as "proof" as rigorous as that in mathematics, i.e. a logical proof. There are such a thing as "valid" evidence! The fact that your house still stands is an evidence for the validity of Newton's laws. The fact that we can actually map and predict the location of celestical bodies (i.e. we shoot a space capsule here on earth, and months and years later, actually reach a planet that wasn't at that location months and years earlier) is another evidence for the validity of Newton's laws.

Zz.

What this guy said.

In logic,
there are direct proofs (if a goes to b and b goes to c then a goes to c),
proofs by contradiction (you assume the opposite of what you want to prove, then work to find the contradiction in that),
and proofs by induction (Tricky to explain in a single line. look this one up.)
You can look those up.

The types of proof that are not valid that are constantly used are:

Proof by superiority = "The King said the sun is blue.. so the sun is blue." The story of "the emporer has no clothes" is a story that attempts to explain to children that this is not proof.

Proof by Precident.
"We have been doing this for 25 years this way... "
It could have been wrong for 25 years... or incomplete, but if that is all you knew, then that's all you knew.
 
Tell me if I’m wrong. The formula f=ma is a definition of force. You can’t prove a definition. You can ask, is it meaningful? I think it is not. Can you measure force? Well, if you can measure mass and if you can measure the acceleration then you can measure the force. Otherwise I don’t think you can. So I don’t understand Milgrom and I don’t understand Verlinde. What are they doing?
 
H.B. said:
Can you measure force? Well, if you can measure mass and if you can measure the acceleration then you can measure the force. Otherwise I don’t think you can.

Ever seen a spring scale?
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top