moragmacpherson (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
moragmacpherson) wrote2010-08-30 06:21 pm
moragmacpherson) wrote2010-08-30 06:21 pm
Attention: stupid dead academics!
Okay, all of you guys from the 19th century and earlier writing commentaries on Aristotelian physics: could you please define the symbols you're using for physical constants? If I don't know what alpha stands for then it's really hard for me to follow your discussion of the faults of "v α F/R; F>0; R=0".
I'm pretty sure v is velocity, F is force and R is resistance, but I have absolutely no clue on alpha, and none of the modern uses of alpha make any sense. And no, there's no decent prose statement of the law either.
(Yes, I know Aristotle's dividing by zero there, which is problematic, but the formula has to do with the motion of celestial spheres, which he believed was infinite, and while I always thought dividing by zero = does not exist, Roomie assures me that the result of dividing by zero could also be termed infinite)
I'm pretty sure v is velocity, F is force and R is resistance, but I have absolutely no clue on alpha, and none of the modern uses of alpha make any sense. And no, there's no decent prose statement of the law either.
(Yes, I know Aristotle's dividing by zero there, which is problematic, but the formula has to do with the motion of celestial spheres, which he believed was infinite, and while I always thought dividing by zero = does not exist, Roomie assures me that the result of dividing by zero could also be termed infinite)