Do you have a conversation topic that doesn't seem to fit any of the other conversations? Here is where we discuss ANYTHING about Joseph Campbell, comparative mythology, and more!
Cindy B. wrote:I'm certainly no scientist, guys, by why not both/and when it comes to Einstein and Newton? Just trying to learn here...
And Neoplato, your thread seems to have gone off track. Okay with you?
Cindy
Newton is good enough for billiard balls, as is Einstein. Newton does not work for our GPS system whereas Einstein is good enough.
My simple understanding of the situation is that Einstein took Newton's physics and corrected by the Lorentz transformation. The other thing Einstein did, was he postulated that the speed of light was constant regardless of the speed of the observer. Something that Newton and most of us who dwell in a Newtonian world would find nonintuitive.
From my perspective:
Einstein's model is more accurate (a better description) than Newton's. In the laboratory I live in a Newtonian world, it is accurate enough for what I do and a whole lot simpler than reality.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
Neither Newton's nor Einstein's laws are right or wrong.
These laws are nothing but mathematical models formulated to explain the behaviour of the universe. Newton's laws work at the macro level. Einstein's work at the relativistic level. That's all.
Rom is trying to tease you by making it all sound complicated, methinks.
Cindy B. wrote:I'm just trying to understand, romansh, how Newton's laws can be deemed "wrong" if in fact they are valid and useful at the macro-level.
They are wrong in the sense that:
10.1 + 10.1 = 20.0
is wrong.
While a useful approximation and is valid as an approximation in certain circumstances. It is wrong.
All teasing aside
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
Thanks for the link that shows the power of the scientific method to debunk theories. I am convinced by the author of the article. Perhaps I shouldn't be.
Rom
Isn't mathematics wonderful? The transcendent reality unsoiled by nature. I dare say nothing we do has infinite precision, which by your definition implies that every measurement we make is wrong.
I love mathematics. I find it fascinating that the definition 1 + 1 = 2 is unaffected by space and time, and is true whether this universe exists or not. At any time in any universe someone may discover this truth and unleash mathematics on her world.