1

I know that $F$ is directly proportional to mass and acceleration but why in formula we take $k=1$ not other constant?

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
S K
  • 45
  • 2
    Please clarify your specific problem or provide additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it's hard to tell exactly what you're asking. – Community May 27 '23 at 12:40
  • 1
    Why the close vote? This is a perfectly good conceptual question. Sure, if you've done this stuff for years, you've internalized the concept and can perhaps no longer perceive it... – John Doty May 27 '23 at 12:57
  • 1
    Possible duplicates: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/104101/2451 and links therein. – Qmechanic May 27 '23 at 13:13

2 Answers2

5

I know that F is directly proportional to mass and acceleration but why in formula we take k=1 not other constant?

This depends on your system of units. For SI units $$\Sigma \vec F = m \vec a$$ but for US customary units $$\Sigma \vec F = k \ m \vec a$$ where $$k=\frac{1}{32.2}\mathrm{\ \frac{lb_f \ s^2}{lb_m \ ft}}$$

This is not limited to Newtons laws. Any time that you see a dimensionful universal constant in a law of physics, that constant can be removed by choosing appropriate units. For example, Gauss’ law has $\epsilon_0$ in SI units, but it goes away in Heaviside Lorentz units. Similarly Coulomb’s law has $k_e$ in SI units, but it goes away in Gaussian units.

Dimensionful universal constants describe your units, not nature. That is why the SI is now explicitly defined in terms of universal constants.

Dale
  • 99,825
1

The force was found to be proportional to the acceleration, not $ma$. This means that $F=ma$ with $m$ the constant of proportionality.

Mario Figueroa
  • 96