Money is the universal unit that allows the comparison of dissimilar products. Force is the universal unit of physics that allows comparison of dissimilar physical quantities.
What we know we know by comparison. In science quantities are compared by forming ratios and proportions. Since dissimilar quantities cannot be compared we may define a third quantity as a unit and compare dissimilar quantities to this universal unit. The result of comparison with money is value. The result of comparing physical quantities is quantity. Value is the relative worth of a product normalized by money and quantity is the relative quantity of a physical quantity normalized by force. In a monetary system everything can be expressed in terms of money, e.g., time is money. In physics everything can be expressed in terms of force, e.g., change in motion is force. Money creates exchange in society and force creates change in nature.
In order to compare two physical quantities you need to bring them on either side of the equals sign and form an equation. The equation is the scale physicists use to weigh physical quantities. Start from an existing equation and use legal steps called derivation to bring the desired quantities next to each other and then compare. As long as you obey the legal rules of derivation physics promises a solution to the problem you are trying to solve.
The language of equations that allows the manipulaton of physical quantities is not rational, or mathematical in the Galilean sense of the word, but legal and causistic. This is because the purpose of the language is to ensure consistency of units, not to solve problems. Problems are solved by the underlying rules. So, physics consists of two independent parts:
1. units and the language of equations to manipulate units
2. proportions or rules that model nature.
The consistent system of units allows physical quantities of different types to be compared via a universal unit called force; the legal language of equations allows manipulation of physical quantities in order to bring them side by side for comparison in an equation and the original proportion hidden in the equation takes these properly scaled and typed physical quantities and solves the problem. The language of equations acts like a preprocessor that makes sure that the physical quantities fed to the rule are all properly scaled with a unit and have the correct type for that rule.
Equations that allow comparison of physical quantities and solve problems are the ones that once were proportions that physicists converted to equations by adding units and constants in order to incorporate them into the legal language of physics. These equations solve problems using the rule. The problem is always solved by applying the rule, not by the unit system and not by the language of equations. Physics appears to be like a computer language where the language itself has been sanctified as the problem solver instead of being recognized as a tool to write rules that solve problems.
For instance, a simple problem about projectile motion, such as computing the height a toy rocket will reach when shot straight up, will always use Galileo’s time squared rule. Instead of starting directly from the rule physicists will write standard Newtonian equations with units of force for every quantity involved and then use the rule with their units and claim to have solved the problem by using Newton’s force. In practice, force enters this problem only as a unit conversion factor and after scaling the force of the rocket engine so that it can be compared to the force of earth’s gravity, it vanishes.
In general, force never appears in any solution to any physics problem. In every physics problem force makes sure that all physical quantities are legal and comparable and ready to be used with the rule and then it vanishes.
The rule is independent of the language of equations that allows physicists to manipulate physical quantities and it is also independent of the unit system. The rule is fundamental. The professional language of physicists is not fundamental. We can use the rule to solve the same problem without using the unit system and the language of equations. We cannot use the language and the unit system without the rule to solve any problem. The language ensures that every quantity is called “force” but labels do not solve the problem, the rule does, and rule does not contain force. Physicists claim that the language is fundamental not the rule.
Nature is rational not legal, therefore, any physics problem can always be solved without physics equations. As long as you know the rule hidden in the physicists’ equation you can use it directly to solve the problem. If you do that, you don’t buy the solution, you barter for it. If you use proportions, as in the case of barter, you need to negotiate a unit each time you want to solve a problem. Physicists defined force as the overall standard legal currency and as long as you abide by the laws of legal physics you can buy any legal solution you need. This is both the power and the limitation of physics.
The discovery of money may have been a progress from barter because it allowed easy exchange of dissimilar items by way of a universal standard. But the same method of using a legal standard to define changes in nature means a relapse to old scholastic philosophy. Using a legal language to legislate nature has been the defining characteristic of scholasticism. Science was born as a reaction to legal scholasticism.
Science is rational but professional physics, as scholasticism currently calls itself, is legal. Consequently, physics is not a science in the Galilean sense of the word. Galileo would have recognized today’s physics as the old scholastic legal system based on legal definitions used to fit nature into the Aristotelian doctrine. Galileo used rules, that is, ratios and proportions obtained from observations. Scholastic doctors of Galileo’s time used legal definitions to legislate nature. Modern scholasticism developed the language of equations to hide the rules in order to continue using legal definitions to legislate nature in the name of Newton. That’s why physics looks like a quantitative science.
So what’s wrong with the legal Newtonian approach to nature? Why not revere physics as the best system ever devised to model nature? My focus has been on the concept of force in physics. Is nature forceful? Or does physics assume force as a universal unit and fit nature into the legal physics? I believe the latter. In physics, force is defined as a physical quantity. Any number with a unit is a physical quantity, therefore, being defined as a physical quantity does not assure existence in nature. Physicists claim that the consistency of the unit system proves the doctrine of force. They say without the doctrine of force physics problems cannot be solved therefore force must exist in nature. This is wrong. Force makes physics work because it is the universal unit of physics but force does not make nature work because there are no units in nature. Nature is modeled with ratios and proportions, not with units and the language of equations. Units are arbitrary. Force is not a quantity that enters in any ratios in any known proportion.
Force is not a measurable quantity, it is a unit. It is the standard that measures all other quantities. That’s why force always cancels.
Force cannot be represented as a geometric line and as Galileo knew only quantities represented as lines can form ratios. Therefore, force is the product of a legal profession and has no place in a rational science. Force does not exist in nature.