F=0 because m=0, regardless of the accelaration. And undefined does not make a value 0, it makes it an unknown with no parameters. The acceleration could be anything, even a complex number (x+iy, where x and y are real numbers and i is the square root of -1).
I didn't say its 0, I said it's null. The resultant forces of any aceleration gives 0. But that doesn't means the aceleration is going to be any value, you must concrete what is A. For that you must use A = F/M. Now... Any number divided by 0 is undefined. You could try finding limits for the function f(x)/g(x) but that i find pointless. Try making a function for A. You'll find an undefined function.
Think about it. If A where to exist, the same principle that says that there is nothing faster than light would be broken.
I'm fully aware that a is zero, but I still don't know why it is zero. And null meansUndefined means "not clear or defined," and defined means "mark out the boundaries or limits of."Originally Posted by The Oxford English Dictionary
The resultant forces for any non-zero acceleration cannot be zero for any object with a non-zero mass.
http://en.wikipedia.org/nullNull is an English word meaning 'nothing' or without value or consequence. It is derived from the Latin word nullus meaning 'none'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_%28number%29x/0 is undefined, because 0 has no multiplicative inverse
Wikipedia also gives a definition of null math concept. Why can't it be 0? If F = W; F = m*g; As have you told me, m = 0 and g = 9.81m/sē then F = 0; You even imply it
Exactly. But you claimed that you didn't mean zero when you said null:
There is no reason why a zero mass accelerating cannot do so under a zero net force. However, I said that a non-zero mass accelerating cannot do so under a zero net force, which is the claim you made:Originally Posted by m1n05_4
Originally Posted by m1n05_4
Yes, well I'm still claiming that it's not 0 it's null. I made a confusion about the second one I didn't read non-zero mass. The second quote was refering to your case about mass being zero, i didn't thought it would become a confusion. Anyway, the definition of null is very wide so I'll refer to it as undefined.
a != 0;
Do I need to quote the OED at you again? Null and zero in mathematical terms are synonymous, and null is definitely defined.
a!=1x2x3x4x...x(a-1)xa, where a is an integer. A slightly odd fact is that a!=1 when a=0. a! never equals 0.
What the heck? a!? I was making a programming statement there. != stands for FALSE ergo A != 0 means A never 0.
And according to my quote null means none that's why I said it's a wide concept. And your quote says having or associated with 0. It doesn't say: "Synonym of 0".
Sorry, I though you meant a factorial (a.k.a. a!) Math speak
None = zero. That's what none means: there is a zero quantity of that object. Having or associated with zero in mathematical terms is zero, and here we are dealing with mathematics.
And if he ever claimed different to a mathematician he'd be set on fire
Somewhere a definition was called into question, but we're past that now. So, I guess that means we return to the question "Why does light have a speed limit?"
And I've explained why those answers are not correct.
That doesn't explain why c is a constant in the first place.
Red is red because that is how our brains interpret light waves reaching our retina at that particular frequency. That is why red is red. What I don't know is why c is c, which is what I'm asking.
But that still doesn't explain why the speed of light is a constant!
7.89 is a constant by definition because it isn't a variable, independent or otherwise
You have yet to show why there is no acceleration.
In mathematical terms you just claimed a=0. In programming terms (which you seem to insist on using despite the confusion it could cause) you are stating that a is an independent complex variable.
Because 7.89 is a constant! If we were to say that B=n where n is a complex variable, then that would be the definition of B.
Nonono you are confusing the meaning of an independent number to the meaning of a constant in formulas.
It is to call something a constant when it has been observed that it never changes. If you were to say B=N then N would be your constant which will also make B a constant.
F = mg <---- CONSTANT IT NEVER CHANGES.
And A is a complex variable: A = M/0 which is undefined which is complex.
I have never said A = 0, you have.
That doesn't explain why that constant is the speed of light. The constant itself is just that: a constant. But attributing it to the maximum speed of light is saying that said speed is constant, and now you must prove that that is true.
You are claiming that a=0 by saying that light has a maximum speed.
Well done. You just made me go onto Photobucket, bypass several annoying pop-ups, and then post this.
Because I stopped reading halfway through, all I can say is that c is a constant because that's the way it is.
omae wa mou shindeiru