Observations on Statical Force.

Progress, Volume VI, Issue 9, 1 July 1911, Page 725

Observations on Statical Force.

(By Peter Ellis.)

Is there such a thing as “statical force i l am aware that I am unorthodox in asking the question, but claim the right of independent thought. With all due deference to orthodoxy, I am of opinion that force implies movement, and statical or stationary force is an anamoly. It may be convenient to assume that such

a thing exists for the purposes of calculation, research, etc., but in reality when two equal and opposite forces meet they eventually destroy each other, and the only real force after all is “Kinetic,” or moving force—it cannot be latent, I am aware of the difficulty of proving my contention. The constitution and behaviour of matter being so complex, nevertheless, their subtleties are worth studying. Take, for example, a heavy weight, hanging on, say, a rod of steel, or by a chain, we say the rod upholds the weight, and is in a slate of tension. Or we take a weight resting on a column, and we say the column supports the weight, and is in compression. This is true, but when the rod has been extended, or the column has been compressed, force ceases. It was force when the extension or compression took place, because there was movement, but when movement ceased, force ceased, and until movement re-commences (which may never happen) there will be no further force exerted; the very idea of force implies action, and as long as force can overcome opposition, it exists, but when it is balanced by its opponent it is dead and inert. The fact that force cannot be measured except in terms of motion shows that there is no force without motion.