Is f = a X m X 1 X 1 X 1 X 1 Valid?

[K don't know]

It is well known that
force (f) = acceleration (a) X mass (m)

Can I say that actually:
f = a X m X b X e X d X r
where
b = e = d = r = 1?

 

[Drakkith]

Mathematically you can since multiplying by one doesn't change the result, but physically it wouldn't make much sense. What are those letters supposed to represent?

 

[nasu]

The computation would be more "accurate" if you used the formula
$$f=ma \sqrt{br} d^e$$ where again b=d=e=r=1.

 

[K don't know]

Mathematically you can since multiplying by one doesn't change the result, but physically it wouldn't make much sense. What are those letters supposed to represent?

Well, the right wording of the questions is, are all physics formulas complete and absolute?!.

If the formulas are derived from observing a physical event occurring multiple times with a fixed trend, then basically, we can assume that we are only observing changing factors, while there are many other static or unchanging factors that were held constant in all the times that we were observing that we didn't observe. If the math doesn't conflict with the previous assumption, then we might need to revise all our understanding of physics and try to answer questions like "how many such variable are there? why are they constant? can we change them? what will happen if we change them?"

 

[K don't know]

The computation would be more "accurate" if you used the formula
$$f=ma \sqrt{br} d^e$$ where again b=d=e=r=1.

That is too complex for future students. Let just keep it all in one line

 

[Drakkith]

If the formulas are derived from observing a physical event occurring multiple times with a fixed trend, then basically, we can assume that we are only observing changing factors, while there are many other static or unchanging factors that were held constant in all the times that we were observing that we didn't observe.

Assuming that unobserved effects are occurring makes little sense. It greatly complicates things and serves no useful purpose.