Law Of Motion

[Guadalupe]

Law of Motion

 

Law of Motion states: Energy creates momentum to create force.

 

Without energy, there is no momentum. Without momentum, there is no force.

 

My mathematical formula for the Law of Motion is as follows: "Energy equals Momentum times Force or E=pF."

 

 

 

 

Law of Motion © Copyright & E=pF tm

 

:)

[joekgamer]

If that were true then momentum would have to be measued in distance.

E: energy

F: force

M: mass

d: distance

c: speed of light

m: meters

kg: kilograms

s: seconds

p: momentum

a: accelleration

 

E = M c²

 

E = kg m/s m/s

 

E = kg m/s² m

 

F = M a

 

F = kg m/s²

 

E = F m

 

E = F d

 

So, if E = p F:

 

p F = d F

 

p = d

[Eclogite]

Indeed. Gaudeloupe, what are the dimensions of the elements of your equation? You appear to be defining energy or momentum or force, or some combination of them, in an unorthodox way.

[CraigD]

Echoing Polymath and Eclogite,

 

My mathematical formula for the Law of Motion is as follows: "Energy equals Momentum times Force or E=pF."

Simple dimensional analysis proves your formula wrong - that is, what you're naming "energy" is a quantity other than what is meant in physics.

 

Work and energy (E) have dimensions ML²T^-2.

Force (F) has dimensions MLT^-2.

Momentum (p) has dimensions MLT^-1.

pF, then, has dimensions M²L²T^-3. These are not the same dimensions as for energy.

[Guadalupe]

Echoing Polymath and Eclogite,

 

 

Simple dimensional analysis proves your formula wrong - that is, what you're naming "energy" is a quantity other than what is meant in physics.

 

Work and energy (E) have dimensions ML²T^-2.

Force (F) has dimensions MLT^-2.

Momentum (p) has dimensions MLT^-1.

pF, then, has dimensions M²L²T^-3. These are not the same dimensions as for energy.

 

 

Hi! CraigD :)

 

Your only issue here is with my mathematical formula E=pF and not with the Law of Motion itself. Am I correct?

 

 

:cup:

[CraigD]

Hi Guadalupe :)

Your only issue here is with my mathematical formula E=pF and not with the Law of Motion itself. Am I correct?

No, you're not correct.

 

Your “Law of Motion”, “energy creates momentum to create force”, can be interpreted as an uncontroversial statement that agrees with the usual classical mechanical laws of motion.

 

Energy is the potential to do work, work (ML²T^-2) can change after some period of time (T) the velocity (LT^-1) of a body with non-zero mass (M), which changes – you could say “creates” – momentum (MLT^-1). Doing work requires force (MLT^-2), applied over a distance (L), so you could – though here I think it’s a pretty big stretch – say momentum can “create” force.

 

Being able to use the flexibility and ambiguity of natural language to interpret a given sentence as scientifically sensible doesn’t imply that the sentence being interpreted is of much general value. Scientific observation must be expressible in unambiguous, formal terms – that is, with formulas – to be useful enough to be called “laws”.

 

I think it’s worth noting again that a physical law is just an observation about something that appears to be physically true – in light of modern physics, usually only approximately, in a narrow range of cases. Laws are scientific starting places, not goals. Theories that generate many successful predictions are goals. So focusing on writing (and trademarking! :confused:) lots of “laws” doesn’t look sensible to most scientists or experiences science enthusiasts.