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] |
At 12:39 PM 10/16/01 -0500, RAUBER, JOEL wrote:
without reference
To say it in more positive terms: We have an
operational definition of force.
Agreed.
And here is the operation. Measure a, something we can do
to F=ma (see kinematics chapters of most introductorytexts); measure m,
something we can do without reference to F=ma (see Eisenbud,Am. J. Phys.,
26,144,(1958); or Mach, "Science of Mechanics", Open Court, NY,1942).
then use F=ma to calculate F.
That's not what I'd recommend.
Consider a rather more direct
operational
definition: Take a spring scale, like they sell at the fishing store.
When the spring is extended a certain amount, it indicates a
certain force.
Two fish scales give a resultant force according to a vector sum law.
Blah blah et cetera et cetera.
We have an operational definition of
mass.
We do?
Take a chunk of stuff. Two chunks stuck together have a larger mass
according to a scalar sum law. Blah blah you get the idea.
We have
an operational definition of acceleration.
We do?
(d/dt)(dx/dt). Vector. Blah Blah.......