ProtoQuant.com

Newton’s Force

Little have we found in the literature at our disposal towards the conclusion that the two attributes of the concept of force - “cause” of the motion and “effect” of the motion - need to be taken quite differently from a conceptual point of view. Newton assumed the centrifugal force as an effect of the motion of planets, by accepting that our experience is universal: the same laws act for a sling as well as for a planet. However, when he set out to explain the motion of planets, the origin of the force of attraction, opposed to centrifugal force by the Third Principle, was placed in the Sun, and the force itself became cause of the motion. In the first case the force is submitted to the Third Principle of Dynamics, in the last case it is a hypothesis which seems to be “innate to matter”. Against this point Newton, who was entirely faithful to his commitment of not inventing hypotheses, arose heatedly. He ascribed to God the cause of gravitation, as well as that of the transversal impulse necessary for the motion of the planets according to the three Laws of Motion. Newton was perfectly aware of the fact that there is no experimental reason to extend the Third Law to the action at distance. Vox clamantis in deserto! He was not judged by what he did, but by what he seemed he did! And the Third Principle was extended uncontrollably to its unfalsifiability. What created the environment for this situation? Well, this is obvious by today’s standards in the Classical Dynamics as studied in contemporary academic curricula. The force in its capacity of action at distance has been extended indeed as such to be “innate” to any component of matter. As a result we cannot imagine a component of matter: atom, molecule, or simply a generic particle whatever it is, without having this capacity of acting at distance upon its “peers” no matter of their relative position in space.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12