This I deny. I know for a fact that Newton did not understand torque. I would venture to say that you have an excellent understanding of the way Newton understood torque, don't you? If you want we can have a little torque chat, with me using my world and you representing Newton's views on torque. What do you say, shall we?
I realize my words are wasted on you, and it's worse to post formulas since you have no idea what they mean.
Your obsession with torque is ridiculous. In the first place, it was known to Newton as "the moment of a force". This just opens up another can of worms since you have no clue what that means either, do you. Just for the hell of it, I checked
Principia and there were something like 65 references to moments that appeared to be relevant to this question of what Newton knew about torque that you're pretending to excel at. But harping on this trifling subject just says you really don't have any idea what Newton is about.
You would really get lost in his work, since he goes through derivation after derivation using geometry and other fundamental tools of math that you wouldn't understand.
I already told you: torque is F x r. Newton explained this in prose, for example that the force applied on the "handles" of a screw is proportional to the force transmitted to the body where the screw tip impinges. His technical derivations are completely beyond your capacity to understand, so I'll leave it there.
No one here has any clue what you're talking about when you say you want to debate the meaning of torque. There's nothing to debate. It's eff cross arr.
Before you would begin to understand Newton, you would need to master geometry, and not just the pictorial abstractions, but the whole system of drawing conclusions about the truth of a matter by parsing the argument into a sequence of elementary logic statements. Newton was really good at this, and in spite of his antiquated English, he packs a lot of ideas into a compact verbiage.
He follows the scientific method to a tee, and goes out of his way to present topics according to an organized format that builds, like geometry, from axiom to axiom.
Principia almost models itself after a geometry textbook. You immediately notice how Newton was concerned with being so clear that the reader would actually learn about kinematics, orbital mechanics, and gravitation just by reading
Principia in the manner of a self-paced tutorial. His intro extolling the virtues of teaching and learning are exactly the reverse of the approach you take, which is, random attacks on the fields of math and science.
F x r. That's all there is to it.
