Re: How can I tell if F is a string or if it is a number?

On Apr 28, 2:27 pm, Patricia Shanahan <p...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Suppose, for example, I have a weight suspended, in a vacuum, near the
surface of the Earth, by some system of pulleys and strings. I think you
would agree that there is a downwards force . . .

If you assume that this force is the Newtonian occult attraction
emanating from the center of the earth and attracting the weight with
its occult qualities, then, I don't agree. To me, the Newtonian force
is action-at-a-distance and it's supernatural and does not exist. So,
I don't make that assumption.

. . . on the weight . . .

This is really Newtonian language. This occult attraction "on the
weight" is the exact thing I am questioning and I will not assume it.

. . . and that in a
static system it is exactly balanced by the upwards force . . .

Are you saying that there is an upward force of attraction attracting
the weight upwards the way the assumed occult force attracts the
weight downwards? No, of course not. That upward force is just a
physics fiction invented by physicists because force by definition is
the universal cause of everything. The assumption of balancing a non-
existing occult force with another non-existing force only tells me
that the paradigm of force is broken.

the suspension
system is applying to the weight. That force can be measured. . .

I believe that what is measured is tension. The chain of reasoning
based on the assumption of various types of forces to explain a
natural phenomenon that does not involve an occult force is not
natural. You are assuming that the tension on the string is a
manifestation of the occult force defined in F=ma because you assume
that F is proportional to acceleration a. So measuring the
acceleration gives you the force. But in the equation

acceleration = a = R/T2 = weight/force = g

the only measurable quantities are the radius R and period T of the
orbit. We measure R and T and call it acceleration, (which is the
label for the ratio radius/period squared) and then call the
acceleration force. Force is not necessary to explain what is observed
but it must be included because it is the universal cause of physics.

What's the difference between the force making the weight travel towards
the Earth and the force making the moon travel towards the Earth?

You are assuming the force. According to observations, neither the
moon nor the weight are set in motion by the assumed occult force.

Or
did the nature of the downwards force on the weight change when I cut
the string attaching it to the pulleys?

No. There is no such force acting between the weight and the Earth.
This "force" experienced by a weight is analogous to the "force"
experienced by the passengers in an accelerating airplane. Passengers
observe that they are pulled towards the back of the plane. Some of
them conclude that there is a Newtonian mass at the back of the plane
that attracts them with the Newtonian force. Others think that they
are pressed to the back of their seat because of the motion of the
airplane. They don't believe they are attracted by a mass in the tail
section of the plane. Who's right? To me, passengers who reject the
Newtonian occult attraction are right. The same with free fall. I
reject on principle the occult attraction postulated by Newton. There
is no occult attraction between the falling weight and the Earth.

From the point of view of the weight nothing changes when the string
is cut. It's motion is always described by the same two terms: Radius
R and period T of the orbit. Newton hid these two quantities in his
definitions of force in order to design a Newtonian dynamical orbit.
The motion of the Moon is described by the same two terms R and T
related by R3/T2. This rule does not have a term called force,
therefore, the assumption of force moving the weight and the Moon does
not come from observations, it comes from Newton's authority, i.e.,
his definitions stated as laws of motion.

Of course, you can remove a lot of the meaning from any formula by
looking at it in isolation . . .

I am not removing meaning, I am removing superflous authority terms to
recover the meaning. The meaning is there hidden under these authority
terms which physicists discard anyway. Newtonian symbolic definition
of force F=ma is discarded in its entirety to recover the rule R3/T2.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Sticky things
    ... attraction in just over a pound of weight, ... "I have no idea what you can reasonably do with this magnet - it is simply ... It'd make nifty suspension, in pairs set up so they repel. ...
    (uk.rec.sheds)
  • Re: Lords fuel climate change row with blow to Kyoto
    ... Elisabeth Müller wrote: ... Greg must have really put on a lot of weight if you can see him! ... > I can feel the attraction, ...
    (rec.humor)