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

On May 6, 9:30 am, Patricia Shanahan <p...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

By that standard, Newtonian
physics is one of the most spectacularly successful theories ever developed.

Yes, I agree with this and I thank you for helping me clarify some of
the confusion I'm having. Thinking about it a bit more, and based on
your comment, I believe that I have a better picture. I agree with the
success of the Newtonian mechanics and I'm not questioning it. I see
Newtonian mechanics as a consistent system of units made of physical
quantities. It is a computational device, or an algorithm, that takes
given values of physical quantities as its arguments and transforms
them according to some rule. Much the same way that Ptolemaic model
predicts planetary orbits.

What I see now is that physicists are making the assumption that this
computational algorithm is coupled to the axioms they call Newton's
laws. This is the same claim Ptolemaic astronomers made about their
model. They believed that their trigonometric computational device was
coupled to the axiom of the stationary Earth and that was why it
worked and that in turn proved that the Earth must be stationary. Only
centuries later Copernicus realized that algorithm was independent of
the axiom and that he could use the same geometric model to design a
system with a moving earth. This is my point. Newtonian physics is
independent of Newton's laws. Newtonian physics is a computational
device just like the Ptolemaic model. It works because it is
independent of Newton's metaphysical laws.

In computer languages the separation of commentary and code is
absolute. The computer never sees the comments, they are clearly
marked as comments. In physics the metaphysical assumption that force
is the universal cause is freely mixed with the computational
algorithm in order to make the algorithm look Newtonian. This is the
question I'm investigating. Does the computational part of Newtonian
mechanics use force? If we do not write "force" and do not start from
F=ma, can we still predict astronomical motions as well as Newtonian
mechanics? If we start directly from Kepler's rule R3/T2 can we obtain
the same results? My answer is related to the second part of your
comment:

You might be able to build a reasonably simple forceless theory for
orbital motion, but it would probably be at least as complex as
Newtonian physics . . .

You are right. Actually, my impression is that it would be not only
more complex but impossible to use in engineering applications because
it would be based on using proportions and not units. Thanks for
mentioning this, because it clarifies to me that what makes Newtonian
physics a useful paradigm in engineering is not force but the unit
system. Newtonian mechanics works because it is a consistent system of
units. Trying to use Kepler's rule without units is cumbersome and
difficult. So physicists write Kepler's rule R3/T2 with a Newtonian
unit as a = GM/R2 and believe that they are using Newtonian mechanics
and Newtonian force. This is due to historical reasons and to Newton's
immense authority. I think when physicists will realize that Newtonian
physics is independent of Newtonian doctrine of force, a new
scientific revolution will happen. It happened in astronomy and
mathematics. I think it will happen in physics too.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: No Such Thing As "Macro" Evolution
    ... >>>You mistake appearance for reality. ... Langrangian analysis or a Newtonian analysis must be the same for any ... using the same methods of celestial mechanics developed by Laplace ... Calculation in physics ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: How can I tell if F is a string or if it is a number?
    ... that unifies physics is not the Newtonian force but the unit system. ... Adopting an anti-realist attitude towards Newtonian force might ... However, regardless of your stance on realism versus anti-realism, you still ...
    (comp.theory)
  • Re: definition of a clock in relativity theory
    ... >>of the equations of Newtonian theory. ... transition in lightpeed wouldn't have made sense of c was infinite. ... But that's an example of clever mathematics being "dumb" physics, ... Mathematicians are good at generating tools and techniques for use in ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: How can I tell if F is a string or if it is a number?
    ... We now call this system of methods "Newtonian mechanics." ... Or I could do some physics ... ... the entire Newtonian doctrine must be true. ...
    (comp.theory)
  • Re: Is F=ma a definition or not?
    ... It is only in the case of the elliptical orbits that the ... the Newtonian equation of motion is only an approximation to the ... Force is the only foundation of physics known today, ...
    (sci.physics)