|
Isaac Newton's law and other questions.
|
|
This is just simple Physics and not related to Einstein(maybe) The question is: What is the connection of the apple falling from a tree on Isaac's head and him Making the laws of gravity and motion? Another thing: Are machines not a part of physics, I mean the simple one that can be comprehended by not so smart people like me?.  |
|
Re: Isaac Newton's law and other questions.
Link |
by SuicidopoliS
on 2007-05-17 05:06:22 (edited 2007-05-17 23:45:36)
|
|
First of all, the story of Newton's Apple, is a story. It's a romanticized version of the facts, and God only knows how much of it is true... The point is: Newton realized the apple will always fall onto the ground, and never "fall into space". Or if you prefer, the earth will always attract the apple ( causing it to accelerate towards it's center of mass ), no matter how far away the apple. Of course, if the apple is far away enough, then it won't fall back onto the earth, because it will be attracted by other massive bodies out there, who also attract things around them. Thus, he came to the conclusion that the gravitational force is an attractive force working at a distance between two ( or more ) bodies, and hence he started working on his Universal Law of Gravity ( F = ( G*m1*m2*(r2-r1) )/|r2-r1|^3, if my poor mind recalls it correctly... ). As to your saying of:"This is just simple Physics and not related to Einstein(maybe)". Don't underestimate Newton! He's a triple bloody genius! The biggest scientific genius there ever was! Way more brilliant than Einstein ( in my opinion, which i force nobody to share ), who, b.t.w., "stole" most of his Special Relativity Theory from Lorentz and Maxwell without giving them credit for it! And believe me that if you dig deep into Newtonian Physics, you'll quickly notice it ain't that simple at all! In a way, it is related to Einstein too, since he, err... updated Newton's law to make it compatible with the Theory of Relativity. And also, there are way more physicists then Newton and Einstein! And a LOT of them made complicated stuff! And finally:"Another thing: Are machines not a part of physics, I mean the simple one that can be comprehended by not so smart people like me?.". Yeah, sure, why wouldn't they? The reason Gendou said that your previous topic should be in the W.O.T. section, and not Physics, is because creating a Perpetuum Mobile has long been proven impossible, and the "quest" to create one started resembling that one of alchemists trying to create gold => scientific wizardry bullsh*t. Perpetuum Mobile's don't exist, and will never exist, because it is physically impossible to create one. And if your teacher bluntly asked you to create one, *snap with fingers*, just like that, this means you either didn't understand his question correctly, or he's a moron... I'm very sorry to say so. EDIT: @Andvari: I was in no way implying you're dumb, or a moron, or whatever! Sorry if you misread my words... I was merely suggesting that maybe your teacher wasn't asking you to create a Perpetuum Mobile, but rather to do some research on the numerous, some of them quite cunning, attempts made at creating one in the past... .oO° Life's THE CURE, the rest are details! °Oo. |
|
Re: Isaac Newton's law and other questions.
|
|
Physics sure is interesting but hard, makes my head hurt. I said simple in my question because I only have a simple mind but I really agree than Newton is one heck of a man! Because his law was the first one I understood(a little) and I don't know the rest. I think my teacher is a moron but morons(like me) sometimes dream big so why stop them? Hehehe.. The story about the apple sure is simple at first but if I dig deep into it, I think my mind will go nuts. Thanks for the explaination mr. Suicidopoli. About the perpetual thing, I know that it is impossible to create one so I was just thinking about a semi-perpetual blah blah. Hehehe.. Sorry for my dumbness.. |
|
Re: Isaac Newton's law and other questions.
Link |
by
on 2007-05-21 09:47:10 (edited 2007-05-21 09:52:40)
|
|
@Suicidopolis: I would have to agree with you that Einstein is not as smart as people think he was. He was wrong about God not playing dice (quantum mechanically speaking) Yes, Newton was a great scientist and a mathematician, but personally, I think Galileo Galilei is equally great if not greater both in terms of scientific acheivement and character. Galileo was tried in the inquisition and suffered because of his belief. It took some guts to challenge the church and said the sun revolves around the earth. Back then even the suggestion of such claim could get you burned on the stick. Newton, on the other hand, started the Newton VS Leibniz calculus contraversy, which divided Europe's scientific community for about a century. (referenced from Wikipedia.org) As to the perpetual machine, just because we can't account for all the energy going into a machine doesn't mean it is impossible to make. We don't have to understand EVERYTHING in the universe to make things work. Examples are thrust capacitor, quantum entanglement, and the motionless electromagnetic generator (MEG).  |
|
Re: Isaac Newton's law and other questions.
Link |
by SuicidopoliS
on 2007-05-21 18:31:03 (edited 2007-05-21 18:32:05)
|
|
The fact that Einstein was wrong about Quantum Mechanics doesn't make him any less intelligent, but rather stubborn. The point is, he used a LOT of other people's work without giving them credit for it ( again, especially Lorentz ), which hasn't anything to do with intelligence, i believe, but rather with personality ( and the fact he worked at a patent office... ). I agree that Galileo is an intriguing figure. Defying the Church at the time of inquisition sure is a courageous ( and foolish? ) deed, for which he sure earned my deepest respect. Nevertheless, i believe his scientific achievement is less then that of Newton, although i agree that his ( Galileo ) role in the development of Physics can hardly be overrated. And the fact that there was this whole "Who invented calculus first?" thing going on ( b.t.w., apparently Newton's theory was more advanced that Leibniz' ;) ), plus the fact he ( Newton ) had a serious grunge against Hooke ( and vice versa ) doesn't change much about his scientific achievements. I defy you to find me one single scientist who has done relevant research in so many different fields as Newton. Hell, he even developed a theory according to which light consisted of separate, discrete particles! At a time when nobody believed that, when electro-magnetism was science-fiction, and about 250 years before this was eventually backed up by experimental proof ( photo-electric effect => Einstein )! Plus, when the guy needed math that didn't exist, hell, did he care? He just created it! He did all of his own experiments! He might have had a despicable personality, but he also was a genius in the true sense of the word, or so i believe. Concerning the Perpetual Machine... it's impossible, end of the line. We certainly don't understand everything in the universe, but we do understand enough to know that for sure. Theoretically, it would be possible in ideal environments ( no aging, no friction, no external forces, 100% efficiency,... ), but in real circumstances, it is simply impossible. Yes, Kelvin and Clausius, when formulating their postulates which eventually became the second law of thermodynamics, couldn't prove them, hence the "second law" is an axiom, but nevertheless, i think, and about every physicist on the planet agrees with me ( it's probably safer to say i agree with them ) that it is safe to assume it is correct, and so, no Perpetuum Mobile in the real world... ever. .oO° Life's THE CURE, the rest are details! °Oo. |