[Ilander]

Originally posted by Malthaussen: I'll agree with you there, SG, but I do have to ask Ilander why he persists in discussing physics without showing the relevant equation. According to my ancient textbook, it is f = mv2. -- Mal

Malthaussen, I'll be civil about this, though the above seems mildly disrespectful. My above post includes a quote from Sir Isaac Newton's Principia, specifically the first law of motion, which I already used to disprove your F=mv^2.

Newton, fairly early on, defines "the motive force" (the force that causes motion). Definition IV in Book I of the Principia is: "An impressed force is an action exerted upon a body, in order to change its state, either of rest or of moving uniformly forward in a right line"

Again, F=mv^2 is inadaquate, as it have a force when the object is moving at constant speed in constant direction.

Now, the orignal wording of the second law is "The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force impressed; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impressed."

Now, note that "the alteration of motion" is the change in momentum. Change in momentum is defined asthe product of mass and the change in velocity (the derivative of velocity for calculus-based methods). The motive force in this case would be equal to mass times acceleration, not velocity (mass times velocity is defined as momentum).

Newton goes on to state, again in the Principia, Book I, that "If any force generates a motion, a double force will generate double the motion, a triple force would generate triple the motion, whether that force be impressed altogether and at once or gradually and successively. And this motion (being always directed the same way with the generating force), if the body moved before, is added to or subducted from the former motion, according as they directly conspire with or are directed contrary to each other; or obliquely joined, when they are oblique, os as to produce a new motion compounded from the determination of both"

Well, this is prinicpally concerned with forces acting over very small instances, but nevertheless, it refutes the idea that F=mv^2, as it tells, in clear wording, that the force causes DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL CHANGES in velocity. Not directly proportional to the square of the velocity.

I would like to note that four hundred years of physics has upheld this, at least at speeds low relative to that of light, and macroscopic scales, meaning the "everyday world."

I suggest you do more research on this, as it is always a good idea to dispel ones misconceptions of the way the physical world works. It broadens one's horizons.