[Phlyer]

Agree. It's also a tempest in a teapot. As the article states:

"Others think that it is so obviously correct that it is barely worth arguing for."

Nothing really changes with either interpretation of the Latin. The real point of the 1st Law is to refute Aristotle, who said that a constant force results in a *constant* velocity. He used the illustration of pushing an object across a table. If he pushed on it with about the same force, it moved smoothly across the table. Of course, Aristotle was ignoring friction. But that was the 'settled science' before Newton. So his 1st Law is upending Aristotelian pseudo-physics.

Which begged the question of what *does* a constant force do? Which is second law.

Then there was the question of what happens when there are no *external* forces, but the body itself is not constant - for example, if part of it comes loose? Third Law.

And none of those change meaning if 'unless' becomes 'insofar.'

[sasquatch]

#3 F=d/dt(mv)=mdv/dt+vdm/dt
I think it’s sumtin like dat.

[JackFromTexas]

“And none of those change meaning if ‘unless’ becomes ‘insofar.’”

Wrongo, FRiend. Of such things in the Academic World, Phds are won and lost.