SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Rick Julian who wrote (11173)4/28/2002 12:40:33 PM
From: Lazarus_Long   of 21057
 
Let's try a new approach to beating the BS out of you. Remember this?
Message 17394162

Now let's say your definitions of F, m, and a are correct and quantifiable (highly speculative, I'd say). How do you know the relationship between them is F=ma and not F=m^a or F=-m*cos(a) or F=cosh(ma) or F=a*e^m or .......

For that matter, how do you F is a function of only of m and a instead of them plus 30 other variables? Or just 30 other variables and not dependent on m and a at all? Proof?

And if the relationship does not take the form F=ma, what do the laws of physics have to do with this anyway?
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News