Argh no! First of all, F = ma actually means [sum]F or F[sub]net[/sub] = ma, and it's meant to be a model for how things would operate ideally. Pretty much all of newtonian physics is meant to be a model and not accurately predict everything in the universe! Newtonian physics is unquestionably inaccurate because the world is not ideal.

Secondly, what the hell is "the acceleration variable is invalid at an instantaneous moment in time" .. instantaneous acceleration = d/dt[v[sub]t[/sub]]. The instantaneous force at time t is is F[sub]t[/sub] = m(d/dt[v[sub]t[/sub]]). The acceleration a in F[sub]net[/sub] = ma is average or constant acceleration .. in physics problems in school you will always see it qualified with "average accel." or "constant accel"

You don't even understand what force is.

You can massage and bull**** your way through elementary calculus all you want, but acceleration is still due to a force being applied to an object. Force being applied to an object does not generate instantaneous velocity. Instantaneous velocity does not generate Force. You're simultaneously confusing the concepts of work, force, impulse and momentum and rolling them all up into a giant katamari of ignorance.

I really don't know how to explain this to you in simpler terms. Even the observations you made of your magnet experiments, which you "posted" on a previous thread (without any data, mister SUPER SCIENTIST), prove that I am right and you are wrong. This is stupid.

Damn, I'm sorry I went out to eat and missed this rape. Even if it was tofu doing it.

Except that (t) is an index evaluation of the time elapsed in (a). Instantaneous velocity at time (t) is the Limit of the average velocity delta d / deta t as delta t approaches 0.

"The velocity at any instant t is the derivative of the distance with respect to the time evaluated at time t."

Oh and m(d/dt[x[sub]t[/sub]]) (or mv[sub]t[/sub]) is equal to instantaneous p[sub]t[/sub] at time t, not force.

Edit: I'll keep going haha

F can also be the change in momentum dp/dt = d/dt[mv[sub]t[/sub]] (remember, the mass m is a constant) = ma (because dv/dt = a).

So there you go, F = ma.

You misunderstand the point. This has nothing to do with "force being applied to an object to generate instantneous velocity." I never once stated or even suggeseted it. It's merely an alternative evaluation of the Force model. The 'classical' way of thinking or even the 'school taught' way of thinking doesn't always work. Sometimes you have to take a step back and reapproach all aspects (and yes, even the most basic aspects) from a different perspective. That's the beauty of normative phsycs (or normative anything, for that matter). It's a different approach to something that has already been proven one way. Will it yeild productive results? Not ussually. But sometimes it does and it that is were innovations in understanding occur. Advancemet always occurs in the relm of normative thinking.

Until you guys can get off your high horses and open your mind to normative discussions, then why even have a discussion forum? Let's just call it the fact forum and post random 'proven' facts and ideas from...where ever.

Meh...

But .. but .. It's not! If anything you might've meant (like I just posted) instantaneous F[sub]i[/sub] = d/dt[mv[sub]t[/sub]]

Without the d/dt your thing just doesn't work .. and that mightve been what you were trying to get at anyways

Simple way to conserve energy is don't use so much.

[another comment in attempt to get this discussion to be about real energy again]

I think you're confusing the fact that F=ma assumes Force is a constant, whereas instant velocity does not change with respect to time. When you differentiate the equation with respect to time it becomes a function of time. Meaning that if Force and Mass are constant with respect to time, acceleration is constant with respect to time, but velocity is not because acceleration is a function of elapsed time.

I'm not even sure how you got this or what sort of moon-man calculus you think you know. Ugh. Seriously, psyduck.

A one. What the hell are you on about anyway?

You're right, it doesn't. However, experiments have proven time and again that classical physics provide a reasonable approximation while near the Earth's surface. They aren't "always" correct, which is why we have things like special relativity. Note: Special relativity is much more accurate than F=mv.

The beauty of thetans is that they're alien spirits that live within people and cause all of our mental illnesses. Also, telepathy is real.

Seriously, your overuse of the term "normative" makes you sound like a damn cultist. Scientists do not need to change 'paradigms' in order to discuss a new theory. They write reports and then they test them. I demand to see the results of an experiment that demonstrate F=mv, and instructions so I can reproduce your results. Like scientists. Because you aren't one, and you haven't done an experiment and I know you haven't.

I have conducted actual experiments that demonstrate F = ma as an acceptable approximation. I'll get off my high horse when you get off your crack horse and act like the damn scientist you delude yourself into thinking you are.

I don't think anyone's on a high horse. All of those people know a whole lot more about physics than I do.

I'm on a very small horse.

I can tell you, all the way down from here, on my TINY little horse, that I'm CERTAIN you're wrong. 100%.

Wait, 110%, because with + Efficiency, I can truthfuly say you're wrong.

I don't need a high horse to see that you're trying to argue that the basic fundimentals of physics are incorrect, because they disprove your THEORY that's been TESTED to be FALSE.

I'd hate to see – efficiency.

it happens all of the time, right? Ramps?

It's been a while since I've done dimensional analysis so maybe my working is no good.

M = mass
L = length
T = time

F = N = kg*m/s[sup]2[/sup] = MLT[sup]-2[/sup]
a = m/s/s = LT[sup]-2[/sup]
v = m/s = LT[sup]-1[/sup]

Assuming F=ma

MLT[sup]-2[/sup] = m*a
MLT[sup]-2[/sup] = M*a
MLT[sup]-2[/sup] = MLT[sup]-2[/sup]

Assuming F=mv

MLT[sup]-2[/sup] = m*v
MLT[sup]-2[/sup] = M*v
MLT[sup]-2[/sup] = MLT[sup]-1[/sup]


Where does the time go? (har, a pun). Maybe you could post a link to one of your publications Bevvil?

Oh dear god this thread is funny.

Alright, I see this has turned into a trimathalon here... So... case closed, peace out people.

Well damn; I'm confused. Especially since I'm pretty sure that 'instantaneous force' means 'force over zero time', and, damn - that zero just spreads EVERYWHERE, and then you've got no force at all!

I'm confused, why was CaptBevvil trying to tell us Force = Momentum?

This is like the rules that govern translucency in JK.

Because he misunderstands the concept of limits. Jon'C got it bang on when he said CaptB had muddled up force, momentum, acceleration and impulse.

How much does it cost to patent something? If it's cheap, I want to put a patent on some really crazy and improbable idea, on the off-chance it'll be proven correct. Then I get to legitimately cackle "They all said I was mad! But who's mad now? BWAHAHAHAHAHA!"

Do something better. Trademark F=MV so he has to pay you every time he says it. His stupidity shouldn't cost us headache pills, he should pay for it.

And Jesus Christ, Beevil, I learned F=MA NOT F=MV back in my second month of HIGH SCHOOL PHYSICS.

If scientists had to use your sort of physics, we'd have to record the moonlanding here because we would have overshot it by about 50 billion miles and flown the men straight into the SUN.

Chances are quite good that friend14 is one of those people who think the moon landing *was* a hoax, so I'm sure that's no great loss to him.

All things force, momentum, and impulse

If you don't believe me. Go the other way.

p = mv

(dp/dt) = m(dv/dt)

Change in velocity per unit time is acceleration!

(dp/dt) = ma

F = ma

bold indicates a vector.

science is gay

Patent costs

This thread makes my day.

I concur wholeheartedly. If it weren't for F = d/dt(mv) then I'd be out of a job. and by the way, that simplifies to F = dm/dt*v + m*dv/dt. Most people seem to forget that some things (like rockets) also lose mass as they accelerate.

Aye. Calculus == Rocket science.

<.<
>.>

Or thereabouts

I'm surprised nobody posted "I am Albert Einstein. I am a physicist." yet.

Personally I was trying to come up with some joke that involved this thread being a trainwreck, but that trainwrecks only happen if F=MA and therefore if F=MV then... I dunno. My tired brain is not up to the job.

All I know is, if F=MV, our planet would have departed this solar system a long time ago. If the refutation of the others isn't enough, most people also overlook that it's F(bar) = ma(bar) where the (bar) denotes a vector. Suppose, for a moment, that it actually was F(bar) = mv(bar). The Earth is travelling at, oh, a gillion feet per second. This translates to an instantaneous velocity vector tangential to the orbit of Earth at that point. If it was experiencing say, the force of gravity along that vector, as opposed to towards the sun as it is now, we would have reached escape velocity for the solar system a long time ago.

You need to learn what a limit is. You're not dividing by zero; you're finding a tangent.

I think he was being sarcastic.

Can do.

I am Albert Einstein. I am a physicist .

I just want to post and re-re-verify that it is indeed F=ma.