Regardless, the square of the hypotenuse is still equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sidesGeometry is not physics.
In physics you have to explain the cause of the phenomenon.
So, what you are basically saying is that the sun, the source of light, warmth and other kinds of radiation, is as a whole an electrically neutral body.
"Building his System of the World, Newton put before his readers “Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy.” The First Rule is: “We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.” Rule II is : “
Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.” "
http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Mechanics%20/%20Electrodynamics/Download/3817'In asserting that he was not making an hypothesis regarding the nature of the gravitational force, Newton was inviting trouble. The Courtesans correctly saw his gravitational force as an hypothesis. That Newton denied this by adhering to a restricted concept of hypothesis deepened the confusion. For Newton believed that his philosophical system gave certain truth, hence the term hypothesis had no place within it since an hypothesis was a mere assumption used to establish a probable truth. In explaining why he rejects the use of hypothesis Newton says
“...and the reason of my making exception to the word, was to prevent the prevalence of a term, which might be prejudicial to true philosophy.”
Huygens rejected this notion of a “true philosophy” interpreted as the philosophy leading to an absolute certain truth. For Huygens an hypothesis demonstrated by induction and deduction was a probable truth, but for Newton, an hypothesis was an absurd notion. He dealt only in truth itself, so an hypothesis was a notion he rejected.
Newton’s method of philosophy is usually either not clearly stated, or when clearly stated,
inconsistent with his practice. It purports to derive principles from experiments rendered general by induction, but we never explicitly find this procedure in his work. The method was to perform experiments and then formulate hypothesis or preliminary causes from the experiments. After a suitable mathematical proof was obtained with its apparent certainty, the theory was restructured and all references to the specific details of the experiments were removed. This accounts for the ambiguous references to magnetic experiments which we find in the Principia. The method had the major flaw that with the experiments removed and the physical model suppressed the resulting theory lost its intelligibility as a physical explanation. Hence it became merely a set of geometrical propositions.
Others who employ the use of the term hypothesis properly face the absurd situation that they are labeling their own system false by doing so, because Newton claims all hypotheses are feigned or pretended truths. The result is insulting, since Newton characterizes all systems other than his own as false, and merely pretending to seek the truth, while being fundamentally incapable of ever achieving it.
His bullheaded response has been debated as to its meaning for many years. Yet, it is difficult to see how it can be construed otherwise than as an insult. Newton seems to be saying that all of his hypotheses are true, because he does not present false ones. Further, because he only deals in truth, he has no need of the concept of an hypothesis, which is a false assumption. Thus for Newton all hypotheses in his system are true, because he never presents a false one."
Here is what Newton wrote in the
Principia:
“In attractions, I briefly demonstrate the thing after this manner. Suppose an obstacle is
interposed to hinder the meeting of any two bodies A, B, attracting one the other: then if either body, as A, is more attracted towards the other body B, than that other body B is towards the first body A,
the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium:
but the stronger pressure will prevail, and will make the system of the two bodies, together with the obstacle, to move directly towards the parts on which B lies; and in free spaces, to go forwards in infinitum with a motion continually accelerated; which is absurd and contrary to the first law.”
The Cartesians immediately recognized that Newton’s gravity relied on the principle of action and reaction with the new conception that the action occurred at a distance. So for them the new gravitational force was merely the old concept of occult force and hidden qualities in a new form. While the principle of action and reaction was not vulnerable, because the Cartesian vortex relied upon the notion of a communication of motion, through action and reaction of impact. The idea of action at a distance by attraction, however, was a vulnerable idea.
If you are wondering, dear reader, what all this has to do with magnetism, the answer is as follows. Newton’s experimental basis for his principal of universal gravitation is magnetism. Where Gilbert saw magnetism as the universal force of nature, Newton substituted gravity. He sees magnetic attraction as a force analogous to gravity. His procedure is inductive. He performs experiments, and then inductively derives laws of mechanical action. But, he does not reveal this in the final presentation of the Principia. The inductive procedure is suppressed, leaving only the mathematical laws and the deductions derived from them. This leads to the Cartesian criticism that his system has no physics.Huygens dismissed the attraction idea:
”Concerning the cause of the flux given by M. Newton, I am by no means satisfied [by it], nor by all the other theories that he builds upon
his principle of attraction, which to me seems absurd, as I have already mentioned in the addition to the Discourse on Gravity. And I have often wondered how he could have given himself all the trouble of making such a number of investigations and difficult calculations that have no other foundation than this very principle."
Leibnitz certainly understood, probably better than any other critics of Newton’s theory, that the Newtonian gravity was a form of magnetic attraction described in terms of a mathematical law. His own theory of gravity clearly shows the role of magnetism in the conception of gravity. Leibnitz did not hide the connection, he made it explicit.