Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Is Newton right?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Amalthea" data-source="post: 9381425" data-attributes="member: 84493"><p>Agreed. But we are talking physics here not engineering.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>She died 70 years ago. Probably the most famous woman mathematician ever.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>They are experimentally verified in only the regimes that we can test. We know that they cannot hold if the theoretical reasons behind them were to not occur.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>That is all well and good. But what you are dealing with here is approximation. Just like not needing relativistic accuracy when sending a probe to the Moon, but that doesn't mean Newtonian meechanis is accurate.</p><p> </p><p>The point I am trying to get across is that from the OP Newtons Laws of Motion have nothing to do with energy conservation. Thermodynamics which states energy conservation were rules developed based upon experiment. The reason behind those laws is theoretically based and we know where to expect them not to hold. But to state that thermodynamics is fundamental in a physics sense is not true. They are flat spacetime consequences of symmetries in nature. This is much more of a fundamental and important statement. Yes, as far as an engineer is concerned this real world practicality is the important thing but let's not confuse that with physics. An analogy would be the zero point of gravitational potential. To an engineer the reference zero potential is most often the Earth's surface but to a physicist it is at infinity. An engineer is most often worried about changes in potential with respect to the Earth's surface whereas a physicist is concerned with the gravitational field in a cosmological sense.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Amalthea, post: 9381425, member: 84493"] Agreed. But we are talking physics here not engineering. She died 70 years ago. Probably the most famous woman mathematician ever. They are experimentally verified in only the regimes that we can test. We know that they cannot hold if the theoretical reasons behind them were to not occur. That is all well and good. But what you are dealing with here is approximation. Just like not needing relativistic accuracy when sending a probe to the Moon, but that doesn't mean Newtonian meechanis is accurate. The point I am trying to get across is that from the OP Newtons Laws of Motion have nothing to do with energy conservation. Thermodynamics which states energy conservation were rules developed based upon experiment. The reason behind those laws is theoretically based and we know where to expect them not to hold. But to state that thermodynamics is fundamental in a physics sense is not true. They are flat spacetime consequences of symmetries in nature. This is much more of a fundamental and important statement. Yes, as far as an engineer is concerned this real world practicality is the important thing but let's not confuse that with physics. An analogy would be the zero point of gravitational potential. To an engineer the reference zero potential is most often the Earth's surface but to a physicist it is at infinity. An engineer is most often worried about changes in potential with respect to the Earth's surface whereas a physicist is concerned with the gravitational field in a cosmological sense. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Is Newton right?
Top
Bottom