Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum F=m0 not F=ma

F=ma

force = mass x acceleration

several of the members on this forum seem to think that a force
does not require acceleration.

are they correct or is physics correct.

can we toss the old faithfull formula in the trash can.
or
should we just ignore them.

my problem with their thinking is that in order to have any force
the object that is placing the force must have motion.

and I am used to a force being the product of mass x acceleration

am I wrong about this , because if I am wrong about this
then physics is also wrong.

is physics wrong about this?

is F=ma wrong?

I personally know that those who claim that a force does not
require motion are wrong , but I would like the opinion of others
on the forum who think that F=ma means that in order for there to be a force there must be motion ( acceleration ).

these are the people on the forum who seem to think that F=ma
is wrong.

orac
bill gill

they seem to just toss physics in the trash can in order to
appear as if they are winning their discussion , as if they're accomplishing a goal and physics means nothing to them as long as they are seen as the victor in the discussion.

their attitude in a discussion is

It's all about winning the science discussion

nothing else including science matters.


I think that they think this is just something like
facebook or some other social web site.

and I think that a science forum should allow some social
activity , but a line should be drawn when things like this occur.

and here's proof.

I am suspending myself for lack of interest on my part.
there is no scientific discussion available on this want to be science discussion forum.

if at a later date , I decide that the forum has matured into a science discussion forum , I might return.

bu bye

Oh had to start a new thread .... back to kiddies school for you

http://www.zephyrus.co.uk/forcetypes.html

Thats science for 10 year olds there are nine types of force they show genius so perhaps you can show me F=MA in each of the nine types of force.


Funky Paul God Force = Made Up Garbage x Absolutely No Understanding

we simply that to F=MA perhaps we can add that as your byline.

As a grown up with interest in science I did a quick count and I can name 18 forces without trying want to guess how many of them involve the formula F=MA ????????

I know way too hard for you but guess.

Paul, Here is a link to Amazon's listing of a good elementary physics book that should be at your stage of understanding. If you will get a copy and study it, stopping to think about what it is saying, you may begin to understand the basics of physics.

Physics For Dummies

Be sure to think about what the book is saying because at the elementary level physics is about observing how things work and using logical thinking to evaluate the lessons you can learn.

Bill Gill

I just realized that you are getting fixated on F=MA. Well, can you explain this one?

F= G* (M1 * M2)/(d*d)

Where:
M1 is the mass of object number 1
M2 is the mass of object number 2
d is the distance between the centers of the 2 masses
G is the universal gravitational constant

This formula was developed by Isaac Newton, who also developed F = MA. It also doesn't have any movement in it.

Can you please explain this discrepancy?

Bill Gill

I don't see a discrepancy Bill.

the formula is not correct.

if you were thinking about newtons law of universal gravitation then you have the formula wrong.

your d*d should be r^2

ie...

F= G* (M1 * M2)/r^2

suppose the actual distance were 93 million miles.

using your formula would give
93 million x 93 million = 8649 million

using r^2 would give
r means radius bill , not distance.

93 million / 2 = 46.5 million

46.5 million would be the radius , Bill

46.5 million ^ 2 ( BTW " ^2 " means squared ) = 2148.3 million

quite a large difference there , Mr Bill.


its easy to do these days because people ( not science ) are focusing on the fake stuff that includes math the way they want it.

is this what you were meaning to post?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation

heres your suggested physics aid , perhaps you should re-read it , this time focus on what the meanings are , instead of what you want it to mean.

http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Dummies-Ma...ics+for+dummies




well , the formula only shows the gravitational attraction between two bodies.

if the two bodies were motionless , meaning that they do not
have any momentum , then they would most definitely
be moving toward each other pretty soon
if m1 and m2 have any mass.

and the above formula would be used to determine just how fast they would move toward each other.

to answer your question

there is no discrepancy , Mr Bill
your usage of the formula is in error.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation

by simply reading the article you will notice that the
word (( click here -->)) force (( <-- click here )) is a link to another page where force is defined.



and heres a visual aid for you



notice the little arrow above the F and a in the above.
the arrow depicts motion in a direction.

force requires motion

I had removed one of the names of the people who I
had listed as the people on the forum who seem to think that F=ma
is wrong.



that name was Bill S
however he has since confirmed that he also thinks along the
same lines.

so the 3 names are as follows

orac
bill gill
bill s

its really sad how 3 of the main posters on the forum dont even understand basic physics.

even when they are shown there errors they still blindly
follow their beliefs , and therefore throw science and physics in the trash can.

so that they can pacify their social acquaintances.



anyway , I know physics is right and I am right.

and I know that they arent right, so I suppose that as long as none of them are engineers of any type then they cannot harm mankind through there ignorance.

one ( claims to be ) a k12 teacher , maybe the children he
teaches will someday be correctly taught , and the damages will be undone.

Paul, do you know what r^2 is? r^2 = r*r
That's right I said exactly the same thing, except I used a different form and I used d instead of r, because I was looking at the distance between the 2 objects, instead of a radius, such as the radius of an orbit. For 2 objects the attraction between them is exactly the same.

One of your problems is that you are trying to make F=MA be the definition of force. It isn't. F=MA is the statement of how force, mass, and acceleration are related. Each of the components of the formula has its own definition. Keep in mind that I could say M = F/A, this is a perfectly valid mathematical manipulation of the formula, and properly applied will give a correct result. Would you now say that M=F/A defines mass? Based on your arguments you would have to do that.

Please do a little study on basic physics and realize that all of your arguments are completely wrong. They do not in any way accord with the way the world works. And the only thing that counts in science is if something works every time.

Bill Gill

As Bill Gill is pointing out everything you have tried to troll on is wrong it's so trivially wrong noone really cares anymore TROLL.


You know your GOD doesn't exist under your own rules because he can't exert a force unless he is moving and being infinitely big there is nothing he can move in.


PROOF YOUR GOD DOESN'T EXIST BECAUSE YOUR GOD CAN'T MOVE AND HENCE HE CAN'T DO ANYTHING.


HAHA ... GOTCHA WITH YOUR OWN PHYSICS ... WE HAVE PROVED THERE IS NO GOD.

that tells me that you thought you were doing it right.
the formula requires (radius squared) not (distance squared).

you know you were wrong , otherwise being as smart as you
pretend to be you would have used the correct letter.
I noticed you didnt use the wrong letters in the rest of
the formula.

LOL



this proves you were wrong.



d is the distance
between the centers

I was completely right , even though you will try and squirm
around your mistake rather than admit that you were wrong.

but thats ok , Im used to that type of behaviour on this wanabe science forum.

you have only proven that you are a dillweed.

and thats most likely all you will ever prove.

being a dillweed will probably be your highest accomplishment.

no Im not , Mr Bill.

I have posted this same thing several times.



I dont see the formula F=ma in the above.
I have used F=ma to demonstrate to you and others
that the a in the formula means acceleration.
you cant have acceleration without motion.

force requires motion

Your GOD doesn't move so he can't exhibit any force hence he can't exist.


QED ... Your GOD is a falacy and doesn't exist.

Think the threads dead Fred along with your GOD :-)

Now, that could come back to bite you!

I have always heard that God is everywhere.

I didnt know that dillweed knew that also , so
there's proof that he has learned something , at
some point in time , since he was hatched , but
I would like to propose that he looked it up on
the internet as his brain cant even comprehend
a simple paragraph.

and his k-cells have most likely been depleted by a
combination of all the fantasy he is so occupied with , along with his drinking habit.

Paul,

In your quote from Wiki on "Newton's law of universal gravitation", "r" is defined thusly; "r is the distance between the centers of the masses".

Yet you now typed:"the formula requires (radius squared) not (distance squared)".

In the post of Bill G, "d" is defined thusly; "d" is the distance between the centers of the 2 masses".

Therefore r=d by definition, so r^2=d*d. They are equivalent formulas.

Just guessing, but by you dividing "d" by 2 to get "r" in your example, you seem to think "d" is diameter and "r" is radius?

Perhaps a reread is in order?

Well pokey, if you have been here since 07 and have followed any of Pauls posts you should know that he isn't really interested in learning facts, he just wants to have his say and claim that he knows better than all the people in the world who have actually studied physics.

I keep getting sucked into his threads because I am trying to let other people know just how wrong Paul is.

Bill Gill

your right , I have looked at at least 20 different web sites
that contain newtons law of universal gravitation and
about half use r and the other half use d

I have never seen r used to represent distance before.

it's really strange that someone would use a r for distance.

this disturbs me , so I looked in a few text books that I
keep in my filling cabinet.

1) conceptual physics , matter in motion 1969
pg 124 fig 4-1
for gravitational constant
d is used
d^2

2) elements of physics 1972
pg 111 fig 9.5
r^2 is used

3) college physics 1974
pg 72

this one uses a small s^2

three books , and 3 different symbols used.

and all three different symbols represent the distance
between the centers of two objects.


I'm not going to say that I was wrong , simply because
I don't feel as if this was my fault.

I find that this is an error and the fault lies within
the scientific community for not establishing a set of standardized symbols to use in this formula and it
seem's perhaps all gravitational formulas.

I will also add that judging from what I have found
Bill was not in error either.

I think we need to do some clarification here. I just looked up the definition of force in several different places. You are using the definition found in Wikipedia, but in some respects that definitions is lacking. I just looked it up in my copy of the Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary. They say that Force is "7. Physics. A vector quantity that tends to produce an acceleration of a body in the direction of its application." Now this definition does not say that it does produce an acceleration, it says that it tends to produce an acceleration. This does make a difference. If something tends to do something it will do it frequently, but not always. When we start studying physics we usually look at forces that do cause a change in velocity. But at slightly more advanced levels we start learning about balanced forces. These occur in cases where 2 equal forces are acting in opposite directions and therefore cancel each other out.

I am now looking at the Schaum's Outline of Theoretical Mechanics. I look through it and find a paragraph on Statics of a Particle. In the paragraph it shows a vector diagram of how to determine the force needed to prevent a Particle P from moving. The vector shows the amplitude and direction of the effective force R acting on a particle based on a number of forces which are applied to the partice The paragraph contains the following sentence. "The force needed to prevent P from moving is -R which is a vector equal in magnitude to R but opposite in direction and sometimes called the equilibrant.

So physics does indeed allow for forces which do not cause a change in motion of an object, you just have to have an equal and opposite force.

Bill Gill

There is also the fact that when discussing the implications of Newton's second law, it is easy to overlook the third law, which contains force but not necessarily motion.

this does bring us back to the formula.

F=ma

we can safely say now that we have found that our usage of
the word ( force ) in physics has several opposing definitions.
depending on which dictionary we happen to be looking in.

heres the definition found in britannica online which
agrees with your post.

http://www.britannica.com/search?query=force



several other dictionaries also tend to oppose each other.

this brings us to the only real problem remaining
which is the usage of acceleration in the formula F=ma
that is the reason that I say that (force requires motion).
F=ma is the mathematical definition of force.
it can not be defiled by different people's ideas on its
definition as it is a well established mathematics formula.

we have already confirmed that our definition of force
does not require motion , movement , velocity thus acceleration.


in order for us to confirm the validity of ( F=ma ) we must also confirm that
(acceleration does not require motion).

this is after all the basis of this discussion.

F=m0 not F=ma

that said , I hold that (force requires motion) I wouldn't
want to confuse anyone who might be reading this.

if we cannot agree on a new formula to replace F=ma then
we should agree on a definition of force that defines
a force as a influence with magnitude in a direction that causes a change in the rate of the velocity of an object with time.

F2=-F1

that will have to be my next topic.
clearly there's been some error.

ie...

1000 kg-m/s^2 vs .000000001 kg-m/s^2

I choose 1000 kg-m/s^2 as the victor in a head on confrontation.

why do I say that?
because if the two forces are equal and opposite
then nothing in mechanics would ever work.

in fact you could never walk down the street or get out of bed.
nothing could ever move.




what happened to the equal and opposite reaction in the above?
if the forces are always the same then the equal but opposite force that the ice is placing on the skaters skates would prevent their skates from moving.

so the skaters would not even move.

but Im always going against science anyway right?

ever wonder why?

maybe its because I find so many errors in science.



must be an error in the translation.
or it was taken out of context.
or newton was wrong!

We don't need anything to replace F=ma because it works just fine in its area of application, which is in a dynamic situation. In a static situation where there is no acceleration force still exists, it just doesn't meet the relationship, not the actual definition expressed by F=ma.

And that brings us back to my old Schaums Outline. The following is the discussion of the laws of motion.



Notice that in the second law the phrase "as a consequence is moving with velocity v" occurs. Now then if the force is acting on a particle which isn't moving, then F=ma no longer applies. We can develop a working method of measuring force by applying F=ma to a known mass with a known acceleration. Or we can develop a working method of measuring mass by applying a known force and measuring the acceleration. But the really basic definitions of force and mass are still the same ones that are in the last paragraph of the quote from Schaum's. Basically they are intuitive concepts that don't lend themselves to exact definition. Force is something that looks like a push or a pull. Mass is something that goes with objects. Actually I like to think of Mass as a quality of matter that resists a change in motion. And I like to think of force as something that tries to change the motion of matter.

Bill Gill

The forces will be equal and opposite. But according to F=mA which can be rearranged to say A = F/m then the acceleration of the 2 bodies will be much different. And your numbers are wrong. You are showing 2 different forces. But the 2 bodies will have the same force exerted on them, just in opposite directions. 2 bodies experiencing a force of the same magnitude but with different masses will experience different accelerations.

Bill Gill

but suppose
mass 1 = 1 kg
mass 2 = 2 kg

and they both have an acceleration of 1 m/s^2

magnitude of f1 = m1*1m/s^2 = 1 kg-m/s^2
magnitude of f2 = m2*1m/s^2 = 2 kg-m/s^2

f1 and f2 are not equal in magnitude!




force is the product of mass x acceleration

it doesn't say that the two bodies have equal mass
or equal velocity.
that's why I used two different forces.



that's impossible.
unless you plan ahead of time and adjust the accelerations
of the two masses or the mass of the two masses or both to achieve the same force.



I can agree to that.

Gentle readers: Once again we are subjected to Paul's refusal to actually think about what he is writing down so that he can see that it is completely wrong. Occasionally he makes a correct statement, then uses it in a totally inappropriate way to make a completely wrong point. He has been doing this as long as I have been following SAGG, so it shouldn't come as a surprise, but I am still amazed at his persistence in refusing to make any attempt to figure out how things really work.

As an example he is currently claiming that Newton's Laws of Motion are wrong. He completely ignores the fact that these laws have been used successfully by scientists and engineers for over 300 years, with no significant changes until Einstein developed the theory of Relativity. If they are wrong then the whole of the modern world is working under a serious delusion, since most of the developments up until the invention of Quantum Mechanics depended on the correct working of Newton's laws. Since the development of QM development of modern technology still uses Newtonian mechanics with a dose of QM on top to get into the modern digital age. So his claims are totally without foundation.

Bill Gill

your appeal for help never seems to attract any help
from the gentle readers.



I know how things really work , that's why I have issues
with this.

and I'm right.



I think that the laws have been misconstrued to fit in.



I dont see it that way.

first we have discrepancies with the symbols in physics.

then

we have discrepancies with the definitions in physics.

how hard is it to contemplate that sometime in the past
newtons words were misconstrued to fit into a slot.

F=ma is the issue , the a is the focus.

lets consider momentum.

P=mv

mass x velocity , requires motion.



you say that a force does not need acceleration.
so
do you also say that momentum also does not require velocity?

where will it end?

if you use a force to stretch a spring.

then clasp the extended spring to hold it in its expanded shape.

does the spring exert a force , or does the spring have tension? like potential energy Ep=mgh

you used a force to extend the spring.
and the spring will supply that force when you unclasp it.

but does the spring supply a force indefinitely while it is clasped in the extended shape.

I believe that is an example of why force requires motion.

lift a 10 lb brick and place it on top of a 10 ft ladder.

it now has potential energy. Ep=mgh

it can supply a 10 lbf for a distance of 10 feet = 100 ft-lbf.
but you had to put that much energy into the brick to lift it.
and the brick must move in order for you to use the potential energy you stored by elevating the brick.

does the brick exert energy sitting on top of the ladder?
No, it has potential energy but it exerts no energy.
those are reality situations.

they all require motion.

F=ma requires motion acceleration is the motion
P=mv requires motion velocity is the motion

there is no force without motion.

force requires motion

But Paul, I wasn't looking for help. I was just trying to let other people know to ignore your meaningless posts.

Bill Gill

yes, I will also ignore my meaningless post.

your so right , mr bill

In fact I have never found someone as smart and such a genius as
you are.

how do you do it?
how could anyone become as intelligent as you have become.

I think that you are approaching the level of intelligence
that einstein approached and books should be written about your
world renowned genius.

I do agree that posting on sagg is meaningless.

but its only meaningless because you and the other posers
here on sagg are so smart , so magical , so inventive with physics.

even newton himself would feel as if he were standing in your shadow.

all hail mr bill and his poser group on sagg


strike a pose

I've had about enough of this tripe. Either get on topic and act like an adult, or go find somewhere else to post your video clips. If you can't even go one post without insulting someone you need to grow up and act like an adult. Exchanging insults and linking to music videos are not an adult mode. Respect those who hold views opposing your own, if you want to be respected for your views.

R2

its really odd that you jump in and correct me when I
am "insulting someone".

where are you when I am the one being insulted?

poser

Don't piss off the moderator.

Tut, tut!

Can I be a Mod?

I don’t have enough hair for a Hitler haircut, but I might manage the moustache.

Cancel that, Donette says she will leave me if I grow one of those.

oh , so all the posers on sagg can piss me me off all they want
and the moderator never steps in and pisses them off.

but if I piss someone off then the moderator is right there telling
me that I shouldn't piss people off.

piss off

anyone know the meaning of that?

Paul,

You are the one doing most of the instigating. You deliberately provoke people by insulting them and then whine when you get called names in retaliation. What goes around comes around. If you don't want the discussion to degenerate into name calling and mud slinging, don't lead the way there. Grow up and learn to respect your fellow posters. If you will respect them, and not start with the name-calling, you will find you'll get better results.

I think you need to start from the beginning of the post R2.

I'm not sure how much more you could grow up , but recognizing
your own failures was suppose to be a part of it , if you fail
to moderate , then things can get out of hand.

you really need to learn physics in order to moderate in a physics
forum.

if there are 5 members ganging up on 1 member claiming that
2+2=0 then you would see the ganging up.

but if you don't know physics and there are 5 members ganging up on 1 member saying that F=ma does not mean force equals mass times acceleration then you wouldn't recognize it because you would only have reasoned it the way people who don't know physics reason it.

read before you plead.