Newton's concept of mass is "quantity of matter".
Say Newton had a gold bullion ingot. If his ingot were not to be corrupted, then its "quantity of matter" would remain the same forever.
Force = d/dt(mv) = ma; m being invariant.
Descriptive statements(what is) are not the same as normative statements(what ought to be).
It is clear you want Newton's descriptive statements to also be eternal normative statements(what ought to be), using appeals to intuition and Newton's "authority" to establish this.
The implicitly normative statement is that "Newton's definition and laws ought to be followed and cannot be superseded".
Indeed, you state that Newton had implicit normative beliefs behind the laws despite providing no personal testimony from Newton.
This line of thinking can only be necessarily rejected because:
1. Intuition has usually failed to express the functions of "Nature" and
2. no lone scientist actually has "authority" to promulgate anything that has enforceable power over another like legal laws and governments do.
In fact, a central tenet of science proper is that with new evidence, the current paradigm can be challenged and amended if there is good cause shown via new evidence and/or a re-examination of current interpretations.
3. Newton was only describing things to the best of his knowledge and ability, but he is not some all-knowing being.
4. Rather, Newton's definition was based on what could be observed in the 1600s.
Your argument is implicit, and it shall be made explicit. It is as follows:
Newton described mass as what has been already aforementioned (invariant, and the product of density*volume).
Since Newton described it, it ought to be described that way in perpetuity and without challenge into the future
Therefore, anyone who proposes something contrary to the exact definition of F=ma is, a priori, incorrect.
Here, you lapse once again into using a "legal sense" of law as if Newton promulgated such a law and has the power to "enforce" it. In science, laws are descriptive and always subject to change based on new evidence. They cannot be used to charge someone with a violation. Not only that, but the actual definition is based on the integral of a function, which happens to
result in F=ma assuming particular parameters.
The difference between legal system laws and scientific laws is that legal system laws prohibit, allow, or compel an action over another person, including businesses. Scientific laws describe things and how things work. One can say legal laws formalize verbs while scientific laws describe nouns.
Legal system laws are developed by legislatures or judges over time. There can also be "unwritten rules of a community". Whatever, there is an Binding Authority with power over the masses. As already mentioned, these rules either allow, prescribe, or prohibit an action and is codified in sentences.
You attempt to turn Newton into a "binding authority" who passed a "law" in which violations can be enforced by dismissing the assertion a priori, one of your key assertions being "Oh, it doesn't match exactly F=ma". That's simply not what scientific laws are. The thought process of dismissing things a priori is also simply not...science. Not to mention that your a priori arguments are fallacious, and thus are logically invalid(invalid meaning the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises).
Science on the other hand, involves at least:
1. Observation
2. Experimentation and repetition of the results
3. Forming concepts and explanation that is subordinate to the observations and experimental results.
Sure, scientists may hold beliefs on what ought to be and even chase hypothesis justifying their opinion, but the body of confirmed knowledge itself only describes the :"what is".
Here's an example of a legal law and "enforcement" regarding Maryland security deposit enforcement, which is Section 8-203.1(a)
(a) A receipt for a security deposit shall notify the tenant of the following:
(1) The right to have the dwelling unit inspected by the landlord in the tenant’s presence for the purpose of making a written list of damages that exist at the commencement of the tenancy if the tenant so requests by certified mail within 15 days of the tenant’s occupancy;
(2) The right to be present when the landlord inspects the premises at the end of the tenancy in order to determine if any damage was done to the premises if the tenant notifies the landlord by certified mail at least 15 days prior to the date of the tenant’s intended move, of the tenant’s intention to move, the date of moving, and the tenant’s new address;
(3) The landlord’s obligation to conduct the inspection within 5 days before or after the tenant’s stated date of intended moving;
(4) The landlord’s obligation to notify the tenant in writing of the date of the inspection;
(5) The tenant’s right to receive, by first–class mail, delivered to the last known address of the tenant, a written list of the charges against the security deposit claimed by the landlord and the actual costs, within 45 days after the termination of the tenancy;
(6) The obligation of the landlord to return any unused portion of the security deposit, by first–class mail, addressed to the tenant’s last known address within 45 days after the termination of the tenancy; and
(7) A statement that failure of the landlord to comply with the security deposit law may result in the landlord being liable to the tenant for a penalty of up to 3 times the security deposit withheld, plus reasonable attorney’s fees.
This law was passed by an entity(MD legislature) with power over a populace. If one is found in contradiction of the terms of the law, the violated can ask for legal relief.
To be in contradiction of the law, one simply has to commit the act of not including the specified terms in a lease.
To prove a violation, the evidence would be a lease with a section on security deposits. If a fact-finder, be it a judge or "administrative body", finds any of the above elements are missing, then the lease is in contradiction to the "law" and thus an judgment can be issued that the "law" was violated and that the deposit be returned.
All these sources you linked to are mainstream's misinterpretation of Newton's second law of motion. These sources are all wrong (Britannica, Quora, physics stack exchange). They don't understand Newton's laws in the manner Newton intended it to be the basis of Newtonian mechanics.
Yes! Force = dp/dt in Newtonian mechanics, but provided momentum p= invariant-mass x velocity.
If you define p=(γ^n)m₀v; for n= 1,2,3...infinity, you would be having infinitely many new "relativistic mechanics" and all these would work in their respective "relativistic world of reality"; they would have nothing at all to do with "Newton's world of reality".
You misrepresent quora and stack exchange. They are community platforms in which those with more training and education than the likes of you provide answers.
Your conceptualization of "wrong" is not in conformity with the actual definition of wrong. Your conceptualization is that "it doesn't match what I think it ought to be". One of the definitions of wrong is "incorrect", of which there are two senses:
1. not in accordance with fact; wrong.
2. not in accordance with particular standards or rules.
Your conceptualization of "wrong" does not match either sense:
A. not that the facts are wrong, as you dispute firmly established experimental evidence
B. nor with the procedure, as you haven't done one iota of actual "science", you have rejected every reasonable experiment, and you have attempted to rejected the concept a priori by utilizing an irrelevant procedure(the treating of Newton's Second Law and it's F=ma as a quasi-legal law).