Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition)

[Bob Sciamanda <trebor@VELOCITY.NET>]

I certainly agree with the spirit of this.  There are many ways of
imposing a logical structure onto physics, or any branch thereof.  Eg.,  I
read Isaac's 3 laws as implicitly enabling the definitions of inertial
frames, mass, and force;  others impose a different logical structure.  SR
has been "derived" from various sets of premises, etc.

I think it is important that we teach from some chosen logical flow chart,
clearly defining the logical status of each assertion and distinguishing
among OUR definitions, theorems, conjectures, etc; at the same time (as
appropriate) indicating that this logical structure may not be unique.

Bob

Bob Sciamanda (W3NLV)
Physics, Edinboro Univ of PA (em)
trebor@velocity.net
http://www.velocity.net/~trebor

----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Schweber <edschweb@IX.NETCOM.COM>
To: <PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 1999 10:01 PM
Subject: Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition)


> . . . But is it really clear which is the definition. Could we not
define W =
> delta K and work backwards to W = fd?
> . . .
> Ed Schweber