The mainstream view that F is the "net force," which of course includes frictional forces and gravity, and they also acknowledge that Relativity would mean Newton's laws need to be rewritten, so I'm not sure how most of your critiques apply to the mainstream view on this one.
Force cannot equal mass x acceleration as outlined by Newton. Friction and gravity are absent. So the equation is wrong. Gravity is a weak force in any event and has its own set of problems never rectified by either Newton or Einstotle.
Thanks Gemma for the kind words. The 'science' shrouds all of this in mystery, but in reality, it is not difficult for a lay person to comprehend if the priests of 'the science' talked clearly and transparently. What scares people are the contrived maths but these can and should be broken down into their simple components and properly explicated. Bit of a confidence trick all of it. The issue is the lack of simple experiments in real life which are then described using straight forward calculations not based on axioms or 'laws'.
The mainstream view that F is the "net force," which of course includes frictional forces and gravity, and they also acknowledge that Relativity would mean Newton's laws need to be rewritten, so I'm not sure how most of your critiques apply to the mainstream view on this one.
Force cannot equal mass x acceleration as outlined by Newton. Friction and gravity are absent. So the equation is wrong. Gravity is a weak force in any event and has its own set of problems never rectified by either Newton or Einstotle.
What a wonderful article on Newton’s Second ‘Law’ of motion which even this English major was readily able to follow.
Thank you.
Thanks Gemma for the kind words. The 'science' shrouds all of this in mystery, but in reality, it is not difficult for a lay person to comprehend if the priests of 'the science' talked clearly and transparently. What scares people are the contrived maths but these can and should be broken down into their simple components and properly explicated. Bit of a confidence trick all of it. The issue is the lack of simple experiments in real life which are then described using straight forward calculations not based on axioms or 'laws'.