Newton's first law of motion not practical

factseeker88 · Jul 14, 2014

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Newton's First Law of Motion states that a body at rest will remain at rest unless an outside force acts on it, and a body in motion at a constant velocity will remain in motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an outside force."

Newton was obviously referring to earth's orbiting motion, and the motionless Sun, the only two bodies he could relate with at the time. The outside force it would take to move the sun, and the outside force it would take to stop the earth's orbit will never be known.

[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]"Our belief or disbelief[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] [/FONT]of a thing does not alter the nature[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] [/FONT]of things Tillotson[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]This moment is your life. [/FONT]Omar Khayyam

Skwim · Jul 14, 2014

factseeker88 said:
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Newton's First Law of Motion states that a body at rest will remain at rest unless an outside force acts on it, and a body in motion at a constant velocity will remain in motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an outside force."

Newton was obviously referring to earth's orbiting motion, and the motionless Sun, the only two bodies he could relate with at the time. The outside force it would take to move the sun, and the outside force it would take to stop the earth's orbit will never be known.
[/FONT]

Not obvious to me at all. Why do you think it is?

BTW, the Sun is not "motionless." it orbits the center of our galaxy.

Revoltingest · Jul 14, 2014

factseeker88 said:
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Newton was obviously referring to earth's orbiting motion.....
The outside force it would take to move the sun, and the outside force it would take to stop the earth's orbit will never be known. [/FONT]http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/o/omar_khayyam.html

Newton was speaking about all masses, not just the Earth.
There's no need to know the force required to stop the Earth's motion.

Thief · Jul 14, 2014

factseeker88 said:
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Newton's First Law of Motion states that a body at rest will remain at rest unless an outside force acts on it, and a body in motion at a constant velocity will remain in motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an outside force."

Newton was obviously referring to earth's orbiting motion, and the motionless Sun, the only two bodies he could relate with at the time. The outside force it would take to move the sun, and the outside force it would take to stop the earth's orbit will never be known.

[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]"Our belief or disbelief[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] [/FONT]of a thing does not alter the nature[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] [/FONT]of things Tillotson[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]This moment is your life. [/FONT]Omar Khayyam

And you would be moving to the notion....
The singularity is self starting?

Reptillian · Jul 14, 2014

Revoltingest said:
Newton was speaking about all masses, not just the Earth.
There's no need to know the force required to stop the Earth's motion.

Aye, Newton was embracing Galileo and differing from Aristotle who thought that the natural state of all bodies was rest in the absolute frame, and that motion was a special state requiring continued force. It's the Galilean principle..uniform motion is relative.

Reptillian · Jul 14, 2014

factseeker88 said:
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Newton's First Law of Motion states that a body at rest will remain at rest unless an outside force acts on it, and a body in motion at a constant velocity will remain in motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an outside force."

Newton was obviously referring to earth's orbiting motion, and the motionless Sun, the only two bodies he could relate with at the time. The outside force it would take to move the sun, and the outside force it would take to stop the earth's orbit will never be known.

[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]"Our belief or disbelief[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] [/FONT]of a thing does not alter the nature[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] [/FONT]of things Tillotson[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]This moment is your life. [/FONT]Omar Khayyam

The great thing about Newton's Laws is that they can be tested by experiment...and for three centuries they withstood all conceptual tests, then our good buddies the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics appeared. Interestingly, both theories rely and preserve some of Newton's ideas. Relativity in the Equivalence Principle and quantum mechanics in the Correspondence Principle and Ehrenfest's Theorem.

factseeker88 · Jul 16, 2014

Skwim said:
Not obvious to me at all. Why do you think it is?

BTW, the Sun is not "motionless." it orbits the center of our galaxy.

Newton thought it was motionless at the time, as for the Sun orbiting the center of our Galaxy, it's just another theory that can't be proved.

"This moment is your life." Omar Khayyam

"Our belief or disbelief of a thing does not alter the nature of things Tillotson

Skwim · Jul 16, 2014

factseeker88 said:
Newton thought it was motionless at the time,

Fine, just tell me why you think "Newton was obviously referring to earth's orbiting motion."

as for the Sun orbiting the center of our Galaxy, it's just another theory that can't be proved.

Proof is for math, logic, and alcohol, NOT theories. :facepalm:

As for, "just another theory," I'd be careful in demeaning theories. Many have led to extremely important understandings, and the basis for numerous discoveries.

Some of our more important theories, which remain theories.

Information theory: Claude Shannon, 1948

Game theory: John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern, 1944 & 50's

Oxygen theory of combustion: Antoine Lavoisier, 1770s

Plate tectonics: Alfred Wegener, 1912; J. Tuzo Wilson, 1960s

Theory of Statistical mechanics: James Clerk Maxwell, Ludwig Boltzmann, J. Willard Gibbs, late 19th century.

Theory of Special relativity: Albert Einstein, 1905

Einstein's theory of General relativity: 1915

Quantum theory: Max Planck, Einstein, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrödinger, Max Born, Paul Dirac, 19001926

Theory of Evolution by natural selection: Charles Darwin, 1859

Heliocentrism theory: Copernicus, 1543

factseeker88 · Jul 19, 2014

Skwim said:
Fine, just tell me why you think "Newton was obviously referring to earth's orbiting motion."

Proof is for math, logic, and alcohol, NOT theories. As for, "just another theory," I'd be careful in demeaning theories. Many have led to extremely important understandings, and the basis for numerous discoveries.

Some of our more important theories, which remain theories.
Information theory: Claude Shannon, 1948

Game theory: John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern, 1944 & 50's

Oxygen theory of combustion: Antoine Lavoisier, 1770s

Plate tectonics: Alfred Wegener, 1912; J. Tuzo Wilson, 1960s

Theory of Statistical mechanics: James Clerk Maxwell, Ludwig Boltzmann, J. Willard Gibbs, late 19th century.

Theory of Special relativity: Albert Einstein, 1905

Einstein's theory of General relativity: 1915

Quantum theory: Max Planck, Einstein, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrödinger, Max Born, Paul Dirac, 19001926

Theory of Evolution by natural selection: Charles Darwin, 1859

Heliocentrism theory: Copernicus, 1543

I only accept nature and all other natural things that effect me and mine, and none of the theories you listed are natural.

"Our belief or disbelief of a thing does not alter the nature of things Tillotson

"This moment is your life." Omar Khayyam

Skwim · Jul 19, 2014

factseeker88 said:
I only accept nature and all other natural things that effect me and mine, and none of the theories you listed are natural.

"Our belief or disbelief of a thing does not alter the nature of things” Tillotson

"This moment is your life." Omar Khayyam

Yet you still can't tell me why you think "Newton was obviously referring to earth's orbiting motion."

But never mind. I recognize that you put yourself in a corner and are now using the IGNORE defense to extricate yourself. A sad maneuver, but understandable.

factseeker88 · Jul 20, 2014

Skwim said:
Yet you still can't tell me why you think "Newton was obviously referring to earth's orbiting motion."

But never mind. I recognize that you put yourself in a corner and are now using the IGNORE defense to extricate yourself. A sad maneuver, but understandable.

He could have been referring to the moons motion, the only other body that moved, but that does not explain why he saw the sun as a body at rest. At that time in history there was no way to find out.

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]"Our belief or disbelief[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] [/FONT]of a thing does not alter the nature[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] [/FONT]of things Tillotson[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]This moment is your life. [/FONT]Omar Khayyam

Bunyip · Jul 20, 2014

factseeker88 said:
He could have been referring to the moons motion, the only other body that moved, but that does not explain why he saw the sun as a body at rest. At that time in history there was no way to find out.

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]"Our belief or disbelief[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] [/FONT]of a thing does not alter the nature[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] [/FONT]of things Tillotson[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]This moment is your life. [/FONT]Omar Khayyam

Why not assume that he was talking about objects on earth? Like billiard balls? The first law applies to an archer firing arrows, a child throwing stones - the planets are far less likely to have been his inspiration.

Skwim · Jul 20, 2014

factseeker88 said:
He could have been referring to the moons motion, the only other body that moved,

You mean that cannonballs don't move and the dead don't lie still?

but that does not explain why he saw the sun as a body at rest.

Perhaps it was because he was familiar with the writings of Aristarchus, Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler.

s2a · Jul 21, 2014

factseeker88 said:
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Newton's First Law of Motion states that a body at rest will remain at rest unless an outside force acts on it, and a body in motion at a constant velocity will remain in motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an outside force."

Newton was obviously referring to earth's orbiting motion, and the motionless Sun, the only two bodies he could relate with at the time. The outside force it would take to move the sun, and the outside force it would take to stop the earth's orbit will never be known.

[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]"Our belief or disbeliefof a thing does not alter the natureof things Tillotson[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]This moment is your life. [/FONT]Omar Khayyam

Oh good. At last, someone brave enough to question scientific conclusions offered nearly 400 years ago.

*rolls eyes*

Just curious...upon what date did science stop experimenting and observing the cosmos? Whom is really to blame? Newton? Kepler? Copernicus? Hubble? Einstein?

Jeez, why can't scientists just stop questioning their forebears and just accept current understandings?

Avi1001 · Jul 21, 2014

Newton was simply formalizing that velocity was equal to the distance x time. This principle was known for thousands of years, but remarkably no one had written it rigorously for uniform motion, and incorporated it systematically within his three laws:

dv/dt=0

Newton basically invented The Calculus to describe this:

Integrating, one gets: v=d x t

Amazing in its simplicity. And hold on to year seat for the Second and Third Laws.

F=ma

and

Fa=-Fb

So simple, a child could have written them. But he was the Einstein of his day. These three simple laws are used to solve nearly all the problems of Classical Mechanics. They are probably the most practical laws of all time.

You learned this in high school physics, didn't you ? And of course, Newtons laws breakdown. That is in freshman college physics.

Factseeker, as an electrical and mechanical design engineer, you must have another point ? We don't want to go back to elementary school on this thread.

factseeker88 · Jul 21, 2014

Avi1001 said:
Newton was simply formalizing that velocity was equal to the distance x time. This principle was known for thousands of years, but remarkably no one had written it rigorously for uniform motion, and incorporated it systematically within his three laws:

dv/dt=0

Newton basically invented The Calculus to describe this:

Integrating, one gets: v=d x t

Amazing in its simplicity. And hold on to year seat for the Second and Third Laws.

F=ma

and

Fa=-Fb

So simple, a child could have written them. But he was the Einstein of his day. These three simple laws are used to solve nearly all the problems of Classical Mechanics. They are probably the most practical laws of all time.

You learned this in high school physics, didn't you ? And of course, Newtons laws breakdown. That is in freshman college physics.

Factseeker, as an electrical and mechanical design engineer, you must have another point ? We don't want to go back to elementary school on this thread.

My engineering background is practical. if you can demonstrate it for all to see and understand it's real, not theory, and the only math design engineers use is geometry and trig.

"This moment is your life." Omar Khayyam

"Our belief or disbelief of a thing does not alter the nature of things Tillotson

idav · Jul 21, 2014

factseeker88 said:
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Newton's First Law of Motion states that a body at rest will remain at rest unless an outside force acts on it, and a body in motion at a constant velocity will remain in motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an outside force."

Newton was obviously referring to earth's orbiting motion, and the motionless Sun, the only two bodies he could relate with at the time. The outside force it would take to move the sun, and the outside force it would take to stop the earth's orbit will never be known.

[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]"Our belief or disbelief[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] [/FONT]of a thing does not alter the nature[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] [/FONT]of things” Tillotson[/FONT]

“[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]This moment is your life.” [/FONT]Omar Khayyam

It doesnt matter if he was talking about the sun or not. The assumption would be if the sun moves its cause a force made it so.

His biggest flaw was the orbits because gravity made orbits deviate from his calculations that didnt add up. Cause he didnt know gravity was a bending of spacetime, what a silly lol. His answer was god did it.

Revoltingest · Jul 21, 2014

factseeker88 said:
My engineering background is practical. if you can demonstrate it for all to see and understand it's real, not theory, and the only math design engineers use is geometry and trig.

I've needed calculus several times, eg, to calculate deflection of a beam whose load
conditions weren't in any handbook. Easy as pie. Mmmmmm.....piiiiiiiiiiiiie!

idav · Jul 21, 2014

"The six primary Planets are revolv'd about the Sun, in circles concentric with the Sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts, and almost in the same plane. […] But it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions. […] This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."

Newton

Awkward Fingers · Jul 21, 2014

Weekly...in the world, would you think he based this law solely on celestial bodies...

I really can't get behind that idea at all...
Clarification, please?

Newton's first law of motion not practical

factseeker88

Veteran Member

Pragmatic Libertarian

Rogue Theologian

Hamburgler Extraordinaire

Hamburgler Extraordinaire

factseeker88

Veteran Member

factseeker88

Veteran Member

factseeker88

pro scapegoat

Veteran Member

Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator

reform Jew humanist liberal feminist entrepreneur

factseeker88

Being

Pragmatic Libertarian

Being

Omphaloskeptic