Relativity

[Drakon]

Of course Newton wasn't wrong - but he wasn't right either

The mistake that Newton made was a very slight and, IMHO, significantly cool.

All of Newton's laws of motion are still valid, with very, very slight changes. The change is that instead of "straight lines" we now talk about "Geodesics", which is the shortest distance between two points. In flat space, there is no difference between geodesics and straight lines. When space-time curves, that is where the weird stuff happens.

During Newton's time, the idea of curved or non-euclidean manifolds was not well developed. There was knowledge of spherical geometry, (due to navigation) but not much theoretical work behind it. The idea that space and time could be curved, was inconcievable at that time. It was only after the work of several mathematicians, that the idea of curved space-time became useful at solving Newton's "Spooky Action at a Distance" problem.

This is why General Relativity is considered the pinnacle of classical physics. Newton was almost completely right. The "error" is the difference between Newton and Einstein, and it is very small.

 

[mike wightman]

But enough of an error to give lie to it being called a law.

Which is my point.

Newton works well enough to get spacecraft to Mars and beyond (provided the engineers remember the units to use) - but to call something that has a very real flaw a law is just plain daft.

There should be no laws in science.

 

[Jeffr0]

Sheesh. Newton invented the calculus for Knuth's sake!

Einstein doesn't destroy Newton... he just tightens up the model a bit more. Newton stood on the shoulders of giants... and Einstein stood on the shoulders of Newton.

(If I could contribute to civislization just one "mistake" on par with Newton's, I would have done something great....)

Mike... you're acting like someone that makes a big deal about Evolution being "just a theory". Being overly literalistic with words like "Law" and "Theory" is pointlessly pedantic, even for a Traveller discussion....

 

[aramis]

Jeffr0: if you use Newton's rules and an infinite ∆V to get to Proxima Centauri orbit, you will miss the system. Why? because you won't be going as fast as you thought, and the system will have moved.

Use Einstein's and you get there. Admitedly, 40 years later, and having perceived somewhat less than that. (About 30, IIRC).

 

[Rev Round]

Is it a law of science that there is no laws of science?

 

[Drakon]

But enough of an error to give lie to it being called a law.

Which is my point.

I think I see where we are miscommunicating here. I think I am thinking about Newton's Laws of motion. His law of Gravity, (which I am not sure was considered a law) is what you appear to be thinking of.

His laws of motion are still standing, even incorporated into Special Relativity. And inside one's own internal frame of reference, Newton and Einstein are indistinguishable. But examining one frame from another, things get squirrelly.

Newton left Gravity as a "spooky action at a distance" and one of the reasons some aether theories were proposed as an explanation. (Explaining the apparent consistency of the speed of light being another major factor) Why objects are attracted proportional to the product of their mass and inversely proportional to the square of the separation is left as a hole. And that hole is where Newton's equations end up as very good approximations.

Newton works well enough to get spacecraft to Mars and beyond (provided the engineers remember the units to use) - but to call something that has a very real flaw a law is just plain daft.

There should be no laws in science.

Laws, like theories, are linguistic or semantic formulations of how we mere humans think the world works. Part of the mental models we create to aid our predictive abilities. if you are upset that they are called "Laws" well, sorry but tough. It is what it is, and no amount of complaint is going to change that any time soon.

Whether they are called laws in science, is irrelavant. The universe appears to work by some laws, some rules. It does not matter whether you call Newton or Einstein ideas laws, or theories. You step off a cliff, you are going to fall down. Without any such "laws", science is impossible. That the universe does work under some rules is a central assumption of any kind of scientific investigation. Doing an experiment here and now has some validity at a later date, in a different place.

Do not let the perfect be an enemy of the good.

 

[Drakon]

Is it a law of science that there is no laws of science?

But, if the law is there are no laws, isn't that itself a law?

 

[mmbutter]

His law of Gravity, (which I am not sure was considered a law) is what you appear to be thinking of.

It's called the "Law of Universal Gravitation". F = G(m1*m2)/r^2

 

[Rev Round]

If space is curved where can I get a straight ruler?
Science or the science establishment is bent.
From where I am standing the edge of our universe is literally a point both at once here and all the way over there. Since there is no past or future the big bang must be here and now in some way too.

How fast is the universe expanding?