What if Newton's laws were shifted by one time derivative?

AI Thread Summary
In a universe where Force equals Mass times Jerk, objects would experience constant acceleration until influenced by a net force, diverging from classical mechanics. The discussion posits that, while objects would approach the speed of light, they would not actually reach it. However, the validity of the question is challenged, as it suggests a scenario where established physical laws do not apply, leading to speculative and ungrounded conclusions. The thread concludes with the assertion that such hypothetical discussions lack meaningful scientific basis. As a result, the thread has been locked.
Agrasin
Messages
69
Reaction score
2
What would be some important properties of a universe where Force = Mass * Jerk and objects stay in constant acceleration until acted upon by a net force? (if we ignore the fact that objects would reach the speed of light, and just deal with classical mechanics)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
First, objects would NOT reach the speed of light, although they would get close.

Your question basically is asking "if the laws of physics did not apply to A then what would the laws of physics say about A?". You can pretty much make up your own answers since they are not meaningful ini current science.
 
The question is not valid. Thread locked.
 

Thread '1:1 versus 2:1 Mechanical Advantage debate'

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...
View full post »

Thread 'Newton's first law?'

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?
View full post »
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

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...
View full post »

Similar threads

I Extending Newton's laws -- Is the concept of force still defined?
Replies
35
Views
4K
B Newton's Third Law in space
Replies
20
Views
2K
I 1st law of Newton as a special case of the 2nd law (historical aspect)
Replies
10
Views
3K
Empirical and Definitional Content of Newton's Laws
3
Replies
117
Views
9K
I Acceleration in Newton's second law
Replies
5
Views
2K
What Do Newton's Laws Say When Carefully Analysed
5
Replies
240
Views
19K
What Is The Meaning Of Newton's Laws
Replies
10
Views
2K
I Meaning of the terms in the formula of the net external force
Replies
17
Views
2K
Additivity of mass: provable from Newton's laws?
Replies
10
Views
3K
Relationship between mass and acceleration
Replies
9
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top