Talk:Force

message: I have deleted the third (final) paragraph from Force#First law. See my diff. The paragraph is mostly off topic or misleading. Most of it is unsourced. I’m happy to discuss with others interested in the topic.
My  objections to the contents of the paragraph are as follows:
*The concept of inertia explains the tendency of objects to continue in many different forms of constant motion, even those that are not strictly constant velocity.
:".. even those that are not strictly constant velocity." Really? No example or clarification given so the sentence is enigmatic and not appropriate in an encyclopedia.
*The rotational inertia of planet Earth on its axis is what fixes the constancy of the length of a day.
:This section introduces Newton’s First law of motion which can be comprehensively described without digressing to angular velocity and rotational inertia. The Earth rotates at constant speed but  the length of a day is not constant – see Equation of time.
*Albert Einstein extended the principle of inertia further when he explained that reference frames subject to constant acceleration, such as those free-falling toward a gravitating object, were physically equivalent to inertial reference frames.
:In a section introducing Newton’s First law of motion, Albert Einstein is off topic.
*This is why, for example, astronauts experience weightlessness when in free-fall orbit around the Earth, and why Newton's Laws of Motion are more easily discernible in such environments.
:Astronauts experience weightlessness in free-fall orbit because of Einstein’s ideas on accelerating reference frames? In an introductory article on mechanics and Newton’s laws I think it would be much more appropriate to reinforce the notion that astronauts in orbit have weight almost equal to their weight when stationary on the Earth’s surface.
*If an astronaut places an object with mass in mid-air next to himself, it will remain stationary with respect to the astronaut due to its inertia.
:And is this because of Newton or Einstein? Unsourced. Looks like a student essay. When introducing Newton's First law of motion there is no need to focus on astronauts!
*This is the same thing that would occur if the astronaut and the object were in intergalactic space with no net force of gravity acting on their shared reference frame.
:Readers are people with no experience in intergalactic space! If an example is required, there is an abundance of examples related to day-to-day experiences on the Earth’s surface. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a textbook.
*This principle of equivalence was one of the foundational underpinnings for the development of the general theory of relativity.
:This section is an introduction to Newton’s First law of motion. General theory of relativity is off topic. Dolphin (t) 13:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the removal.  Muddy, wandering paragraph. Rracecarr (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erased paragraph from "First law" 

message: 6.1 Gravitational
The last paragraph states: "For example, a basketball thrown from the ground moves in a parabola, as it is in a uniform gravitational field. Its space-time trajectory (when the extra ct dimension is added) is almost a straight line,..."
What is "ct"?
--Harry Audus (talk) 12:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well spotted! It is probably intended to be "curvature of space-time" but there is no explanatory text before or after, so it is a complete orphan. Orphans like this have no place in an encyclopedia. Hopefully, someone will add some clarifying text in the next day or so. If not, I will erase it. Dolphin (t) 13:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

text: No offer to clarify yet, so I have suspended the offending comment from view - see the diff. If nothing turns up in the next day I will delete it. Dolphin (t) 21:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: A week has passed and no-one has offered to clarify the statement about "when the extra ct dimension is added." I have now erased it. See the diff. Dolphin (t) 04:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fundamental forces 

message: there is written that force when not opposed please change it to when unbalanced. 139.167.15.148 (talk) 03:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Every Physics textbook uses the term unopposed not unbalanced. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 10:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: why do they use unopposed instead of unbalanced 197.214.99.145 (talk) 12:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2017 

message: Plese create an article regarding Newton Spring Balance as there is no an article on that Seniru pahasara kamkanamge (talk) 07:20, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Is spring balance what you have in mind? If not, what is a Newton spring balance? Dolphin (t) 07:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newton Spring Balance 

message: Force does not have the physical power or strength to be exerted upon an object(s) to push, pull, shape, work, or do anything for that matter.  Force, by any definition, does not exist physically in the same way that an object with mass does.  Force, as we know it, turns out to be nothing more than an expression to express an idea like one would use the word “Love” to express one’s feelings.  ~Guadalupe Guerra  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pro3144 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Force 

message: The article says "The original form of Newton's second law states that the net force acting upon an object is equal to the rate at which its momentum changes with time."  Actually, he didn't.  He said force is proportional to velocity.  That's because what Newton called force, we now call impulse.  Admittedly, they are equivalent formulations, but we shouldn't be saying Nerwton said something he didn't. SpinningSpark 13:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you implying that impulse “is proportional to velocity”? Such an implication is questionable because impulse is equal to the change in momentum (or is proportional to the change in velocity.) I don’t object to the current wording in the article. The matter is complicated because, as well as the changes in terminology, Newton wrote his Principia in Latin. Dolphin (t) 14:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, my mistake, it was force is proportional to motion (changed).  For which we have to read force=impulse and motion=momentum. Here is an English translation of the relevant page in the Principia. SpinningSpark 14:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original second law 

message: Right in the middle of this article we have the chart showing the four fundamental forces and their varying properties. Except this chart has FIVE COLUMNS! To the average reader this is beyond confusing. I have a (admittedly very basic) grasp of physics and I don't understand why some of the columns are split into sub-columns. The other confusing thing is that the headers of the columns don't have the traditional names (gravitational, weak nuclear, strong nuclear, electromagnetism). Perhaps someone with experience in the field could make this chart a (bit) more approachable for the casual reader? Or is that just a silly request because I'm not understanding the concepts properly?  MrAureliusRTalk! 11:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Four Fundamental Forces chart 

message: I recently learned from https://www.motionmountain.net/maximumforce.html that there is such a thing as maximum force, apparently the most recent law of nature to be discovered (1973), and was surprised to find that this article on Force makes no mention of it (first I searched Wikipedia for 'maximum force' which got me a video game, then page-searched this article for both the word 'max' and relevant parameters such as the speed of light and the gravitational constant).
Searching the web a bit further, I found a physicsforum thread from last month that links some papers and suggests there is no real consensus on it yet. Is that why it hasn't been included, has this been talked about already? I didn't spot the topic on the current talk page or first and second archive pages.
Should this be included? Even if it's currently being debated, to me it seems like something to mention (with the qualification included).
LucGommans (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is a personal website around Schiller's self-published book. No matter the quality of the book, unless this is extensively treated in the relevant literature, Wikipedia can't have it. This is just not a wp:reliable source in the Wikipedia sense. - DVdm (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure which book you are referring to, he seems to have self-published a few.  But his paper was published in  Physical Review D.  Gibbons' paper mentioned in the link is also reliably published  and seems to support the idea of maximum force as far as I can see from the abstract.  It might or might not support Schiller's assertion that General Relativity can be derived from the principle, and we should be cautious of making that claim based only on Schiller, being as he has a reputation as a crackpot. SpinningSpark 21:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maximum force