Every Predictive Formula Embeds a Dangerous Assumption
And many of Newton’s have already blown up
We’re told that f = ma is a law.
A cornerstone of classical physics.
It appears clean, quantitative, predictive.
But inside that tidy equation is a quiet assumption—
one that goes unnoticed because it’s so common, it feels like math itself.
It’s the multiplication symbol.
To use f = ma as anything more than a label—
to use it to model or predict—
you have to believe something very specific:
That force scales linearly with mass and acceleration.
That if you double the mass (and keep acceleration constant), the force doubles.
That the relationship between these components is proportional.
That’s what multiplication means.
It isn’t just combining values—
it’s asserting a rule about how reality behaves when those values change.
And that rule is not provable.
It’s assumed.
Modern physics already knows f = ma breaks down
It works in many ordinary situations, but not in all.
Specifically, f = ma breaks:
At very high speeds
At quantum scales
Near black holes
Under relativistic conditions
These aren’t edge cases—
they’re cracks in the foundation.
And they show up precisely because the multiplication-based assumption
stops matching what the world actually does.
Every predictive formula embeds a specific relationship
This isn’t just about f = ma.
It’s every predictive formula in physics.
Each one assumes that some specific mathematical relationship holds—
and that it holds beyond the cases where it was observed.
Sometimes it’s linear:
“Double the input, double the result.”
Sometimes it’s quadratic.
Sometimes exponential.
Sometimes inverse square.
Sometimes something more exotic.
But always, the formula is making a quiet claim:
“This is the kind of curve the universe runs on.”
That assumption is almost never stated.
The formula is presented as a fact—
as if the relationship is built into reality itself.
It might be.
But it’s only confirmed in some cases—
and then extended, quietly, to all others.
As Einstein put it:
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right;
a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
The formula doesn’t necessarily reflect a universal truth.
It’s just what truth has looked like every time we’ve checked, so far.
Don’t overlook the operator
When a predictive formula stops working—
when it fails to match reality under certain conditions—
the cause is often not the numbers.
It’s the relationship.
And the relationship lives in the operator.
In f = ma, the assumption of proportionality is buried in the multiplication.
It’s typically left unquestioned—
and not even shown.
Because the equation is rarely written as:
f = m × a
It’s usually written as:
f = ma
The multiplication is hidden—literally.
But its meaning is not.
It says:
“These two quantities scale linearly. Always.”
And that’s the bet.
That’s the risk.
That’s what eventually breaks.
Take a simpler example:
speed = distance / time
At first glance, this looks like a neutral definition.
Just a way of saying these three things are related.
But the moment you include the division sign,
you’re doing more than defining terms.
You’re declaring that speed is the result of dividing distance by time.
That’s not just structure—
that’s function.
It assumes:
That the relationship is proportional
That the quantities are scalable
That the division is meaningful across all domains
And now, if you say:
“If I double the speed, I’ll double the distance over the same time”
—you’ve stepped into assumption.
You’ve declared:
“This relationship is linear, and it applies universally.”
And maybe it does.
In your car, under normal conditions, it seems to hold.
Double the speed, double the distance.
But that’s just what you’ve seen.
It’s an observation—nothing more.
It doesn’t justify calling the equation universal,
without also explicitly stating the embedded unproven assumption.
Every time physics uses an equation to predict behavior,
it’s betting on a shape.
It’s saying:
“I think reality curves this way.”
And maybe it does.
But if you forget that it’s a bet—
if you treat it like a truth—
you’re not modeling anymore.
You’re mythologizing.
Humans are no match for the universe.