Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Edmiston [mailto:edmiston@BLUFFTON.EDU]
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 5:25 PM
To: PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu
Subject: Re: operational F, m, and a
Yes, the difference between defining units and defining
concepts is clouding
the issue. I didn't intend to do that. I went to NIST and
IUPAP etc. to
see if these people ever tried to define the concept of
force; I already
knew they define the unit of force. But I think some of
these organizations
attempt to describe the concept of force also.
Yes, it is possible to develop a concept of force that does
not involve
acceleration. Jack described a concept development using gravity and
equilibrium measurements. I might quibble with the idea this does not
involve acceleration by mentioning general relativity, but I
won't go there
anymore than I already did.
I guess what I don't understand it why some think development
of the concept
of force via F=ma is so bonkers. I have a concept of mass. I have a
concept of acceleration. Why can't I develop a concept of
force as that
thing necessary to make a mass have acceleration? I say...A
net force is
necessary to make a mass have acceleration. You say... Oh,
what's a force?
I say... That thing you did to the mass to make it accelerate.