Does Relativity prove that Isaac Newton was wrong?
The reason I ask is that I was arguing with people on Reddit who were claiming that Newton was wrong and that Einstein is correct. I was arguing that Newton couldn't have been wrong since his laws of motion are still used for basically everything, like statics/dynamics etc. Even Navier-Stokes and MHD are based on Newton's laws. If Newton is making correct predictions then how could he have been wrong?
>>8017279
He was just wrong in thinking in a same pass of the time for all the universe. Einstein prove that it depends of the gravity. But since we're in the earth and the gravity it's the same talking relatively we can still using the Newton's laws.
>>8017279
It would be like saying Eratosthenes was wrong because his calculation of the earth's circumference was out by 5 or 10%. Relativity calculations yield almost the same values as Newtonian calculations at non relativistic speeds. Newton did amazing for his time.
I would not use the word "wrong" to describe Newtonian mechanics -- it makes fantastic predictions*.
* as long as the velocity is not near the speed of light.
Once your v approaches c, then you must use Relativity. But in our everyday world of very low velocity, of cars and airplanes, Einstein's equations reduce to Newton's equations.
Think of Newton's equations as the low-speed limit of Einstein's equations. Newton was not wrong in the low-speed context.
>>8017279
>This thing is 300cm long
sorry that's not quite right, it's 301cm long
>I'm not wrong, how can I be wrong? no
this is you
> I was arguing with people on Reddit
The most vocal people on Reddit are SJW idiots. Even the science and maths subs can sometimes be very retarded... Undergrads thinking they're PhDs by some process of lecture hall osmosis lol
>>8017279
He was wrong about gravity, completely wrong. But constructively so, and thats what science is all about
>>8017316
By that logic no one has ever been right, since all physical models are approximations of reality.
Of course he was wrong.
"All models are wrong, some are useful. "
>>8017345
exactly
the question is ridiculous
>virgin
I never took Newton seriously
>>8017345
b i n g o
>>8017279
He was wrong, but he wasn't all wrong. What I mean by that is that his model was not perfect. I mean, he definitely made huge strides with his laws of motion, but just like he made corrections to those before him, people have made corrections to his model since then. For instance mechanics near the speed of light are not accurately described by Newton's laws. Also, if I recall correctly, Newton theorized that changes in an object's mass/position change gravity instantaneously, but we now know that the change radiates out from the object in question at the speed of light.
>>8017279
Just because its currently used it doesn't mean its the best possible explanation. Engineers often stick to using Newtonian mechanics because it is much simpler and they dont need more precise predictions most of the time.
This essay by Asimov is a good discussion of what it means for a scientific model to be "wrong". I think you'll find satisfying answers in it.
http://hermiene.net/essays-trans/relativity_of_wrong.html
>>8017345
This is correct. Science is never right, only less wrong than it used to be
>>8017279
>Physics (also known as "natural philosophy") is the analysis of nature that is conducted in order to [math] \underline { model } [/math] phenomena to describe how the universe behaves and gain partial understanding of it. One must keep in mind that physical laws and theories are never [math] proven [/math] nor [math] refuted [/math] but examined on how well they are in agreement to observations and in what domain of physical parameters (speed, temperature, pressure, field strength, etc) they remain in acceptable agreement with experimental observations. While it may be very temping to assume our equations are the unbreakable rules or source code of the universe, we must realize that such absolute knowledge is fundamentally and hopelessly unknowable.
>>8017279
He wasn't wrong, he just wasn't general enough. Kinda when you say that the solution to [math]x^2=4[/math] is [math]\{2\}[/math] rather than [math]\{-2,2\}[/math].
>>8019215
That was an entertaining read. Asimov certainly had a way with words
>>8019287
No worries
It was certainly going to be a better answer than a post on /sci/
>>8017345
and this comes to you as a surprise?
>>8017279
Newton WAS wrong. But as people already pointed out, this only becomes meaningful during scenarios where relativistic effects start making a difference. Which means that most scenarios can be handled well enough with Newtonian calculations, which are much, MUCH simpler, faster and therefore more practical by comparison.
In layman's terms, let's say you need to describe the color of a green object like a box, in common natural language. You have two options. One is simply saying "It's green". The other is perfectly analyzing it's every single hue, gradients, color balance etc down to the last visible molecule, and then present this in whatever suitably accurate format?
Just "green" is wrong, really. But it more than has the accuracy needed in this context. Disclaimer: This example was a caricature, and quite rudely simplifies the amazing accuracy of Newtonian maths. But it's the same basic principle.
>>8017345
Yup. If we ever see a real candidate for a theory of unification, chances are relativity will be wrong as well. And then that, and then that... etc. Science isn't about being afraid of sometimes being wrong. It's about coming up with the best testable, reproducible, and provable explanations to natural phenomena. And hoping that someone will some day improve upon that, over and over, until perhaps in a distant future, we finally see and understand things for what they truly are.
