On 27 Sep 2003 10:31:32 -0700, murdock@tntech.edu (David Murdock) wrote:

>HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message news:<pukanv09rgc0j04875msh6ms2lc5sm2ntk@4ax.com>...
>> On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 21:47:46 GMT, "Donald G. Shead" <u10889@snet.net> wrote:
>> 
>> >The equation: f = ma has been attributed to Newton; ever since someone first
>> >interpreted his Second Law of motion; when the inverse of mass [m] entered
>> >physics texts; written as 1/m!
>> >
>> >Now I ask you: Who would think that the inverse of mass [m], is [1/m]?
>> >
>> >Any intellegent pros or cons are welcome; from anyone.
>
>
>> The only relationship that works is a=F/m. 
>>
>> A few idiots jumped on this little identity and twisted it around in the hope
>> that they would appear knowledgeable.
>
>Damn right.  So here's my advice to people who have to take college physics
>courses from idiot professors who tell you to use F=ma:
>
>DON'T GIVE IN!
>
>If they give you "a" and "m" and ask you to find "F", just keep trying
>different values of F until you can make a=F/m work out.  Eventually, by
>trial-and-error, you'll do it.
>
>With some work you can automate the process with a simple computer program; do
>a search on F so as to minimize |a-(F/m)|.  (But only if you accept the validity
>of subtraction, and I'm not saying that I do.)
>
>Sure, it's tough, but you'll have the satisfaction of knowing that you did not
>cave in and multiply.
>
>---DPM

I am sitting with two main forces on my body right now. 
I am clearly not experiencing a positive 'dv/dt' in anyone's frame.

Force cannot be defined as 'ma'.