Space and time are ontologically peculiar entities. On the one hand, they seem to be at the forefront of our experience. On the other hand, they seem to be merely relations between objects. Thus, the ontological status of space and time is a controversial issue that philosophers have been grappling with for centuries. Empiricists claim that all of our knowledge begins with experience. They emphasize the limited role of reason in our everyday lives. Thus, feelings and instincts take over and philosophical doubts seem prevalent.

If you were an empiricist, then how would you go about explaining space and time? I would like you to adopt this position of empiricism and provide an account of space and time itself. Please refrain from using any outside material here. I would like original thoughts about this issue. Although this topic has been discussed in many of the (hard) sciences, I would like you to provide a philosophical position.

the only real purpose of sputnik 1 was to beat the us into space. we were getting close to launching a useful satellite, explorer 1 - which launched on january 31, 1958. the ussr had to beat that, so they launched sputnik 1 on october 4, 19

force is based upon mass and acceleration.the statement is not always true.

it can be explained from newton's second law of motion.

as per newton's second law of motion the rate of change of momentum is directly proportional to the applied force and takes place along the direction of force.

mathematically it can be written as -

                                              ⇒      

here   k is the proportionality constant whose value is 1.

                                                            [a is the acceleration=dv/dt]

hence we see that force not only depends on mass and acceleration but also on velocity and rate of change of mass. force f will depend on mass and acceleration only when mass is constant.

hence the statement that force is based upon mass and acceleration is false.