Table of Contents
Newtonian attraction (Newtonian force?)
Leibniz’s rejection of Newtonian attraction
- Quoted in Cohen p.153
- Leibniz declared that the Newtonian introduction of gravitation of matter toward matter is, in effect, to return to occult qualities and, even worse, to inexplicable ones.“
- Leibniz declared that the Newtonian introduction of gravitation of matter toward matter is, in effect, to return to occult qualities and, even worse, to inexplicable ones.“
Huygens’ rejection of Newtonian attraction
- Quoted in Cohen p.153
- Before reading the Principia Huygens wrote “I have nothing against his not being a Cartesian, provided he does not give us suppositions like that of attraction.”
- After reading the Principia Huygens rejected Newton’s theory of the tides and “all othar theories he builds upon his Principle of Attraction, which to me seems absurd.”
- Huygens stated as plainly as possible that a Newtonian “attraction is not explainable by any of the principles of Mechanics, or of the rules of motion and thus cannot be accepted in natural philosophy.”
- This is so true. Why is Newton’s supernatural cause marketed as it were a physical cause under the name of “force” still exist in physics? Newton’s force must be removed from physics now!
- Before reading the Principia Huygens wrote “I have nothing against his not being a Cartesian, provided he does not give us suppositions like that of attraction.”
This so-called attraction is between particles
- Newton and physicists loosely speak of “attraction between bodies” but this is a fiction. Attraction is mutual and between each particle that make up the “body”. It took Newton years of developing a mathematical sophistry to claim that bodies attract as if all their mass is concentrated at their center.
Between or among particles
[chatgpt]
In this sentence, “Newton and physicists loosely speak of ‘attraction between bodies’ but this is a fiction. Attraction is mutual and between each particle that make up the ‘body’. It took Newton years of developing a mathematical sophistry to claim that bodies attract as if all their mass is concentrated at their center,” is it correct to say that “attraction is between particles” or do I need to say that “attraction is among particles”?
The choice between “attraction is between particles” and “attraction is among particles” depends on the emphasis you want to convey:
- “Attraction is between particles”: This is correct and often preferred when discussing interactions between two specific entities at a time. It aligns with the pairwise nature of gravitational forces, where each particle interacts with every other particle individually. This phrasing emphasizes the direct, pairwise nature of the interactions.
- “Attraction is among particles”: This is also correct but suggests a more collective view of the interactions. It implies that the particles as a group have a web of interactions, which might work well if you’re emphasizing the overall dynamics of the system.
In your sentence, “attraction is between particles” is more precise because you’re referring to Newtonian physics, where gravity is mathematically described as a force between pairs of particles.
Inertial and gravitational forces
- Newtonians equate these, right?
- But in this comment they say Newton did not equate inertia with force or whatever because they don’t have the same unit