Bhassler wrote:I think you're conflating Force with Kinetic Energy, Momentum, Power, and maybe some other things, which leads to an inaccurate representation of what "force" means. That doesn't invalidate the rest of what you're saying by an means, but it does detract from the overall coherence and message of the article. Purely from a writing perspective, F=ma is fine as a hook and to set the stage, but I would more quickly establish that you're talking about what people "think of" as force and make it very clear that you are not talking about the literal meaning of the equations.
They do get kind of tricky.
Kinetic energy would be more like E = mass*speed.EDIT (thanks ParadoxTeapot) : It actually IS
KE = 1/2(m)s^2 or half of mass times speed squared.
Unbalanced/net force is F = mass*CHANGE in speed
What gets confusing is that we only think about it when they collide.
For example you have a 100kg mass moving at 9.8m/s, the formula for energy is KE = .5*m * s^2 so E = 2401 Joules.
If we're in a frictionless vacuum with no gravity then there is no "force' present, just that kinetic energy.
If it were to hit a brick wall, then it and the brick wall would exert a force of 980 Newtons against each other.
If it were to be caught in Earth's gravity well and start falling, then gravity would exert a force of 980 newtons every second, 9.8m/s^2 acceleration, increasing the speed and kinetic energy while the force remains constant.
So if it falls for ten seconds, then it will be moving at 98 m/s and be carrying 240100 Joules of energy when it impacts the earth and then both will exert 9800 Newtons of Force against each other.
So they are closely related, and kinetic and potential energy are definitely at play, but they are talking about different points in the process.
Kinetic energy = how much energy something has by virtue of mass and motion
Force = how much energy is involved in making something change its motion
Thank you for reading and taking the time to respond!