Newton's first law of motion not practical

[s2a]

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

Ya see?

Random quotes will serve to invalidate any "science".

The cell phone in your hand (or pocket) is just an illusion of imaginary and inventive "moments"

If we had just been patient enough, "nature" would have eventually "provided". It's all in the math

 

[factseeker88]

Ya see?

Random quotes will serve to invalidate any "science".

Maybe so, but my original post was based on my actual experience, my employment, and had nothing to do with science.

:yes::yes::yes:

"This moment is your life." Omar Khayyam

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

 

[s2a]

Maybe so, but my original post was based on my actual experience, my employment, and had nothing to do with science.

:yes::yes::yes:

"This moment is your life." Omar Khayyam

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

I believe you.

"my original post was based on my actual experience, my employment, and had nothing to do with science."

Enough said.

I believe that beetles are the Devil's Spawn.

Disprove that.

Newton is spinning at 600 rpms in his casket, just hanging upon you newest revelations.

Moving on...

 

[Yerda]

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.

That's not obvious at all. Any decent textbook will give you sufficient history and explanation of the 1st law.

By the way, the 2nd law solves those things that you think can never be known. F=ma.

 

[factseeker88]

That's not obvious at all. Any decent textbook will give you sufficient history and explanation of the 1st law.

By the way, the 2nd law solves those things that you think can never be known. F=ma.

My practical approach trumps all unprovable scientific theories that cannot be demonstrated. Seeing is believing.

“No lesson is so deeply inculcated by the experience of life as that you should never trust experts.” Lord Salisbury


"Question everything." TV Science channel

 

[Skwim]

My practical approach trumps all unprovable scientific theories that cannot be demonstrated. Seeing is believing.

Are the middle circles both the same size?


​

 

Is this really a square?



​

ARE THE HORIZONTAL LINES PARALLEL?

SAME SIZED SECTIONS?

​

Although the answers should be obvious, these optical illusions do show that our eyes can be deceived. But feel free to believe as you see; no skin off my nose.

 

[Kerr]

My practical approach trumps all unprovable scientific theories that cannot be demonstrated. Seeing is believing.

“No lesson is so deeply inculcated by the experience of life as that you should never trust experts.” Lord Salisbury


"Question everything." TV Science channel

Of course we should question everything, and not blindly trust experts. In a way thats the basis for the scientific method, that we repeat experiments and studies over and over again because we dont take someones word for it. That said, what appears to be true can be very far from the truth. For example, take the heliocentric and geocentric models of the solar system. One of the reasons the geocentric model was dominant in the passed was because the theories based on it gave better predictions of planetary movements. Then someone, think it was Kepler, realized that planets didnt have circular orbits, but elliptical. Thats why the geocentric model gave better results earlier, not because it was true, but because the heliocentric people viewed the orbits as circular and, as such, their calculations didnt match the actual movements. The geocentric model managed that much better by putting planets in orbits that can be described as circles in circles in circles (or something like that). If I remember correctly, Keplers idea of elliptic orbits proved to not only give better results, but it was also vastly simpler. Newton later derived Keplers laws of planetary motion from his laws. Bottom line is, no, we shouldnt blindly accept truths from experts. Kepler and Newton didnt. But dont assume there isnt something to what the experts say either. Newtonian mechanics has shown to be quite accurate in many situations. There are places where its not practical, mainly at the very small scales or where relativistic effects become noticable (very high speed and strong gravitational fields).

Also, if I remember my class in machanics correctly, Newtons first law is actually just a consequence of Newtons second law, F = ma. Essentially it means that it takes a force for velocity to change, which to my knowledge is backed up by observations.

 

[Thief]

.....and the singularity is 'self' starting?

 

[Jeremy Mason]

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.

Bingo!... and quantum physics does not quantify the spinning speed of the electron, right?

 

[Iti oj]

.....and the singularity is 'self' starting?

Because an eternal God is any more of an answers...

 

[Alt Thinker]

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.

Newton’s First Law was adapted from Descartes. Ref Ref
Descartes was thinking of ordinary terrestrial phenomena and not celestial ones. It is not at all obvious that Newton was referring specifically to the Earth or the Sun.

The mass of the Earth is known as is its velocity in its orbit around the Sun. The mass of the Sun is also known. Newton’s principle of F = ma (Force equals mass times acceleration) allows us to easily calculate the force need to stop the Earth in its orbit or to accelerate the Sun to some desired velocity. Ref Ref Ref

 

[Yerda]

My practical approach trumps all unprovable scientific theories that cannot be demonstrated. Seeing is believing.

Which theories are you referring to?

What is it about your practical approach that provides insight into inertial mass?

 

[Skwim]

Bingo!... and quantum physics does not quantify the spinning speed of the electron, right?

From my limited understanding of quantum physics, it does. Now what?

 

[Alt Thinker]

Bingo!... and quantum physics does not quantify the spinning speed of the electron, right?

The angular momentum of the electron is known. But 'spinning speed' does not really make sense at the quantum level.

"An angular momentum and a magnetic moment could indeed arise from a spinning sphere of charge, but this classical picture cannot fit the size or quantized nature of the electron spin. The property called electron spin must be considered to be a quantum concept without detailed classical analogy."
Electron spin

 

[factseeker88]

Which theories are you referring to?

What is it about your practical approach that provides insight into inertial mass?

All theories that cannot be proved or demonstrated for all to see and understood are suspect.

:yes::yes::yes:

“[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]No lesson is so deeply inculcated by the experience of life as that you should [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]never trust experts.”[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] Lord Salisbury[/FONT][/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]"[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Question everything."[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] TV Science channel [/FONT]

 

[Skwim]

All theories that cannot be proved or demonstrated for all to see and understood are suspect.

:yes::yes::yes:

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][/FONT]

If they could be proved they wouldn't remain theories, but promoted to laws, or some such rank of truth.

 

[factseeker88]

Newton’s First Law was adapted from Descartes. Ref Ref
Descartes was thinking of ordinary terrestrial phenomena and not celestial ones. It is not at all obvious that Newton was referring specifically to the Earth or the Sun.

The mass of the Earth is known as is its velocity in its orbit around the Sun. The mass of the Sun is also known. Newton’s principle of F = ma (Force equals mass times acceleration) allows us to easily calculate the force need to stop the Earth in its orbit or to accelerate the Sun to some desired velocity. Ref Ref Ref

Newton didn't just create his theory, he could only relate with something he saw, and the only immovable body he could see was the sun, and the only movable body he could see was the moon and both were constant.

Back in Newton's day, the 17th century, very little was known about astronomy and everything else.

:yes::yes::yes:

“[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]No lesson is so deeply inculcated by the experience of life as that you should NEVER TRUST EXPERTS” Lord Salisbury[/FONT]

"QUESTION EVERYTHING." TV Science channel

 

[Yerda]

All theories that cannot be proved or demonstrated for all to see and understood are suspect.

Newton's laws are suspect. That's not important. They are useful. That is.

 

[Yerda]

Newton didn't just create his theory, he could only relate with something he saw, and the only immovable body he could see was the sun, and the only movable body he could see was the moon and both were constant.

Where are you getting this from?

The first law is a reformulation of what Galileo said on the matter. Movable bodies include everything we see. You are a movable body. Galileo experimented with rolling balls on inclined planes. He found that to change motion you needed a force. This is the 1st law.

Did Newton say the Sun was immovable?

 

[Kerr]

Where are you getting this from?

The first law is a reformulation of what Galileo said on the matter. Movable bodies include everything we see. You are a movable body. Galileo experimented with rolling balls on inclined planes. He found that to change motion you needed a force. This is the 1st law.

Did Newton say the Sun was immovable?

From my mechanics course, we where taught that the Sun isnt what the solar system orbits. Rather, Newtonian mechanics leads to the conclusion that it, along with all the planets, orbits the solar systems center of mass (if I remember correctly). It just happens that the mass of the solar system is dominated by the sun, so the center of mass lies within the sun. Dont know if that was what Newton believed, though, but since it can be infered from his mechanics, it wouldnt surprise me.