Originally Posted By: finiter

I think you have slightly misread my post. I meant that the 'physical world' is to be defined physically, not 'Newtons laws'. For example, you have to define matter, energy and force physically. I have my own definitions for these. I think this forum does not impose much restrictions to such alternate views (unlike some other forums). I will give the definitions in the next post.

That is what I was trying to say. You must somehow relate your definition of the physical world to how it works. That means you have to supply Finiter laws that are your equivalent of Newtons laws.

Originally Posted By: finiter
F=ma is a mathematical relation, not a physical law (in my opinion). However, at present this is used as a definition for force, and so it is held that force imparts energy. But, being a mathematical relation, when we apply it to physical systems, we have to mention from which source the energy comes. If enough energy is not supplied, the acceleration will not be proportional to the force. That is the difference that I propose

Unfortunately that is just not so. The acceleration will always be proportional to the force. The energy difference between the state of an object before a force is applied and the state after the force has been applied will be the integral of the mass times the acceleration. What that amounts to is the energy gained by the object, which is the mass of the object multiplied by the velocity gained by the object, e = m(v2-v1)^2. There is no way that f = ma will be violated.

Bill Gill

C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.