XPost: sci.math   
   From: ttt_heg@web.de   
      
   Am Dienstag000011, 11.11.2025 um 20:58 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:   
   > Den 11.11.2025 08:34, skrev Thomas Heger:   
   >> Am Montag000010, 10.11.2025 um 18:36 schrieb Tyler Bukoski:   
   >>>   
   >>> there is no force arting in freefall,   
   >>   
   >> Well, that depends on the definition of 'force'.   
   >   
   > A force is what makes a mass m accelerate at a. F = ma   
   >   
   > Consider the following scenario:   
   > You are inside a small capsule somewhere in space.   
   > You are weightless. You can't feel any force acting on you.   
   >   
   > Can you tell if you are 10 million light years from the nearest   
   > galaxy, or if you are in orbit around the Earth?   
   >   
   > In the latter case, according to Newtonian Mechanics (NM),   
   > a gravitational force will be acting on you.   
   > Why don't you feel it?   
   >   
   >>   
   >> Usually gravity is considered to be a force, which accelerates   
   >> objects, once they are allowed to fall.   
   >   
   > In NM.   
   >   
   >> This force reaches out from planet Earth with invisible hands and   
   >> pulls down falling objects with a certain force.   
   >   
   > Quite.   
   > Instant action at a distance.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> That is certainly not a valid description of what is really happening   
   >> in gravity.   
   >   
   > No theory of physics can "describe what's really happening".   
   > A theory of physics is a mathematical model of some aspects   
   > of nature. The best it can do is to give correct predictions   
   > of what will be measured or observed in some experiments.   
      
   I do not agree.   
      
   (This is why we do never agree on anything.)   
      
   I actually think, that models and reality are two distict entities.   
      
   Models are useful, but nature is not.   
      
   Nature is as nature is and that is not supposed to serve our demands.   
      
   To make calculations possible we use simplyfied versions of the real   
   world, call that 'model' and let them run in computers.   
      
   But that is NOT how nature functions, not even close.   
      
   If we want to understand nature, we had to give up our demands for   
   usuable models, because we can safely assume, that nature itself does   
   not use computers.   
      
      
   >>   
   >> Unfortunately nobody has a better one.   
   >>   
   > You can't be ignorant of the fact that 'The General Theory of   
   > Physics' (GR) is a much better model of gravitation that NM.   
      
      
   I do agree here and did already (even if GR had a slightly different title).   
      
   https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wT   
   xBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing   
      
   > What forces are acting on you right now?   
      
   Coffein and peanut butter sandwiches.   
   ...   
      
      
   TH   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)