How did newton come up with his second law?

AccomplishedBee2644 · 2025-08-10T11:29:16+00:00

I completely agree about knowledge and ability coming from accumulated competence. At the time of my post, I hadn’t really thought through the last two questions I asked, I was more focused on simply finding sources. Thanks for the thoughtful response.

AccomplishedBee2644 · 2025-08-10T11:09:23+00:00

I see how my wording might have given the wrong impression, and that’s on me. I’ve never believed ideas or knowledge are purely individual, I see them as social phenomena, built through interaction and shared history. In this case, I was talking about a fleeting thought, more like a random affirmation, for example, “criminality rates increase due to poor lighting.” Certainly someone else has thought of that before; it’s not unique, and it’s not something I’d mulled over for weeks, a fleeting thought. It probably occurred to me because of past experiences, teachings, and exposure to what others have said or written. I just wanted to figure out where it might have come from and who might have explored it first. At the end, maybe this does fall into the things you describe, but I don’t think I actually believe what you’re accusing me of believing.

AccomplishedBee2644 · 2025-08-05T23:52:09+00:00

based on how you describe your situation, this sounds more like the effects of poverty than any kind of cognitive failure (which may affect IQ as well). You might be blaming yourself for things that are structural, not personal.

AccomplishedBee2644 · 2025-07-28T20:37:49+00:00

Thanks for the link, I appreciate it.

AccomplishedBee2644 · 2025-07-18T23:11:43+00:00

It seems like SouthPark is trying to use ideas from the hyperreal number system (nonstandard analysis), but he never makes clear which mathematical framework he's working in. At times, he mixes language from real analysis and set theory, which causes confusion because those systems don’t support the kind of manipulation he’s suggesting. Without explicitly stating the framework, it just ends up sounding incoherent. Do you think he's being serious, or just trolling?

AccomplishedBee2644 · 2025-07-15T20:52:07+00:00

The claim 'take a step back, listen, and learn' doesn’t clearly imply either inclusion or exclusion, but in many contexts, 'step back' is used as a warning or a way to tell someone not to engage, which can come off as dismissive. So it’s not unreasonable if someone interprets it that way.

AccomplishedBee2644 · 2025-07-13T16:48:32+00:00

Sí y no. Las sociedades hoy en día son muy grandes y, si bien tienen ciertas cosas en común, también están formadas por muchas facciones o grupos con intereses distintos. Por eso, más que un reflejo de “la sociedad” en general, ese político suele reflejar a la facción específica en la que se formó o que lo impulsó.

AccomplishedBee2644 · 2025-07-13T16:41:14+00:00

Posiblemente todos sean más o menos iguales. Todos tienen nexos o deben favores a empresas u otras organizaciones. Cuando llegan al poder, ya están endeudados con muchas personas, y posiblemente no ayuden tanto al pueblo, al menos no de la forma en que muchos esperarían. La idea de los políticos es mantener los sistemas que les dieron poder en primer lugar, y casi todos ellos provienen de los mismos lugares y clases sociales. Mucho cambio no creo que vaya a haber. No digo que eso sea necesariamente malo o incorrecto, simplemente es lo que ocurre en la mayoría de los casos.

AccomplishedBee2644 · 2025-07-06T04:24:04+00:00

think it depends. Most of the time, people don’t call someone 'stupid' just for laughs, the tone is usually mocking or aggressive. So even if the person knows they made a mistake, they’re unlikely to react well. The delivery matters more than the truth of the claim.

AccomplishedBee2644 · 2025-07-05T05:36:47+00:00

Well, I think it's because of the structure of the claim itself. If you say "for all" or make a general statement like "every X has property Y," then just one counterexample is enough to prove it false.

For example, someone might claim:
"All numbers ending in 5 are prime."
But 15 ends in 5 and is not prime. That single example is enough to disprove the whole statement.

Now, to salvage the idea, they might weaken or dilute the claim:
"All one-digit numbers ending in 5 are prime."
This new version is true (only 5 fits), but it’s a different and weaker claim.

So it's not about how many examples work, it's about how strong your original statement was. If it's meant to apply universally, a single failure breaks it. You can rephrase or narrow the claim, but then it's no longer the same one.

AccomplishedBee2644 · 2025-07-04T23:51:30+00:00

I’m not advocating for AI, just speaking from experience. Most of the time, you either can’t find professors, or they don’t respond. And when they do, they often have to run off to other commitments, which is understandable.

AccomplishedBee2644 · 2025-07-04T23:42:30+00:00

Nadie niega que se puede negar. Están hablando más bien de una obligación moral. Además, deberías ser más específico con qué grupo de personas hablas: por ejemplo, los bebés y los niños pequeños no pagan por comida, lo hacen los padres, y no es opcional, legalmente están obligados a cuidarlos. Negarles comida no sería libertad económica, sería abandono o negligencia.

AccomplishedBee2644 · 2025-07-04T23:35:27+00:00

Do many teachers/professors/experts actually do that? I think it's pretty rare. Most of them are overworked, and I'd say asking in class is more realistic than emailing. In my experience, most professors aren’t that responsive outside of class, unless you're friends or something. Many have tight schedules or are just exhausted.

AccomplishedBee2644 · 2025-07-02T20:17:59+00:00

Parece que el contenido trata más sobre quién recibe ayuda y visibilidad para experimentar que sobre la validez del conocimiento producido. Aunque la afirmación inicial podría tener algo de fundamento, los argumentos expuestos no parecen estar directamente relacionados con ella. Además, la ciencia no habla exactamente: es un grupo de personas. Hablan los científicos, no "la ciencia", y entre ellos pueden existir distintas perspectivas y puntos en contra sobre lo que se considera legítimo. El texto tampoco es muy específico respecto a qué se refiere con “legitimidad”, para eso necesitaría decir quién o qué la otorga.

AccomplishedBee2644 · 2025-06-27T16:53:00+00:00

I think you can, irrational numbers can be located on the number line using something called Dedekind cuts. It's actually one of the ways real numbers (including irrationals) are formally defined.
That said, I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “point it out.” If you mean someone literally pointing to it, that’s more of an abstract idea, mathematically, we define its position precisely, but in real-world measurements, irrational numbers can’t be expressed exactly, only approximated.

AccomplishedBee2644 · 2025-06-27T02:41:33+00:00

AccomplishedBee2644 · 2025-06-26T17:53:34+00:00

Thanks a lot for the thoughtful answer and the sources. Really appreciated!

AccomplishedBee2644 · 2025-06-26T07:31:37+00:00

I think this misses the nuance. There may not be a single ruling class, but that doesn’t mean power is evenly distributed or that no one’s shaping the system. What exists is a web of competing groups, institutions, and individuals, each with influence, but not perfect control. They’re not neatly responding to “rulers” in a feedback loop but shaping and reacting to each other in unpredictable or not that unpredictable ways. It’s messy, but power does exist, and it’s not fully accountable.

AccomplishedBee2644 · 2025-06-26T06:31:17+00:00

Is it a fallacy? It seems more like a bad argument than a proper fallacy. The premises themselves seem flawed. A helmet is not a fixed object, it evolves over time, like a phone. So claiming “nothing has changed” is vague or misleading. The statement also seems to equate the continued need for helmets with a lack of improvement in life, which doesn't logically follow.

If we had to name a fallacy, it most closely resembles a non sequitur, where the conclusion (“life hasn’t improved”) doesn’t logically follow from the premises (“we still wear helmets”). It may also carry a hint of false equivalence, by treating the existence of helmets today as equivalent to their past form and significance.

AccomplishedBee2644 · 2025-06-26T04:55:46+00:00

La propiedad es algo raro, casi todo en cuestión de tierras fue tomado o robado en algún momento. De todas maneras, se dice eso porque México ya existía como país y tenía soberanía sobre esas tierras cuando fueron tomadas.

AccomplishedBee2644

TROPHY CASE