Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-L] fundamental notion of force --> using an arrow to represent something more than a vector



On 10/23/2015 03:14 PM, Jeffrey Schnick wrote:

Sometimes a force can be represented by a vector.

Sometimes a force can be represented by a vector plus a line of action.

Well, that's the truly fundamental issue, isn't it?!!!

To some extent this is a matter of opinion, but IMHO it is
a mistake to have two different concepts hiding behind the
same name. It's a pedagogical disaster.

I say force is either a vector or it's not. Pick one.

I think of an interaction as something that involves two forces

The third law guarantees there are always two forces. However,
only one half of each force-pair shows up on any given FBD.
This is not new. This doesn't strike me as a problem.

I picked "interaction" as a term to describe the thing that
is more than a vector.

interaction = (force, line of action)

If you don't like the name, please suggest a better name.
I'm not stuck on any particular name ... but please please
let's not use "force" for both things. It seems insane to
say:

force = (force, line of action) ☠ ☠

I've been struggling with this for years. At one point
I toyed with:

dyno = (force, line of action) ? ?
dyline = (force, line of action) ? ?

Additional suggestions would be welcome.