is there is a theory tht proves the newton's laws of motion wrong? wt is it?

Answer 1

it seems to me that no one has actually answered the question so...

nothing has proven newton's second law of motion wrong, but MoND claims that since the second law is unverified for very small accelerations it may become constant instead of decreasing as the square of the distance. this is proposed as an alternative to the existence of dark matter.

f = ma is unverified for very small values of a.

Answer 2

Well, as I see it for the sake of convenience, newton's laws of motion can be regarded as acceptable & only acceptable ( you don't see people travelling in the speed of light everyday!!).

It is however an evident fact that newton's laws do not hold for large velocities.

And yes, it can be proved!

Let's set up a logical experiment. You mark a grid on the land of your backyard. Say it's square in nature & has dimensions 16x16. Then you keep a clocks at all smaller squares. The grid represents spacial coordinates. Then you synchronize the actual time in the 1st clock. The other clocks get synchronized respectively but it takes time for the signals to reach. Therefor if you asked Einstein he would simply say that time is reletive. But newton would obviously say that it's impossible & time is absolute.

The thing is there is no such thing as motion. There is only relative motion. But again who the hell knows whether Einstein is correct!!

Answer 3

I think we can still generate new laws of science if we come up with ideas that are tested and confirmed over and over and over. So, yeah, we talk about Newton's law of gravity. And in fact, physicists will tell you that Newton's law is wrong in the extreme. Newton's laws of motion are only approximations -- they're wrong when you talk about very high velocities and then you have to go to the theory of relatively. So the theory of relatively is more correct than Newton's laws of motion. But we don't refer to Newton's theories of motion and Einstein's Laws of relativity. It's just custom to use it the other way around. So we have laws that are very well tested and some have been generated recently by quantum mechanics and so forth.

For example, I can make the statement that the sun must be composed of iron and calcium vapor because there are iron and calcium lines in the sun's spectrum. And I can test that in a number of ways by making more observations and sure enough, I will detect calcium and iron and my theory is confirmed. And I can go on testing it over and over until finally somebody -- maybe smarter than me -- comes along and does a different test and a different calculation and says, wait a minute, the sun is mostly hydrogen but it's too cool for hydrogen to produce strong lines in the spectrum, so you're mistaken about that. So the sun isn't really made of iron and calcium. It's mostly hydrogen. So my theory was confirmed over and over and over and I really began to have some confidence in it and then somebody did something new and my theory was disproven.

So you can disprove a theory -- you can prove a theory is wrong -- but you can never prove that it's absolutely right. But you can confirm a theory over and over and over. You can confirm it so many times that you gain so much confidence in it that you say, surely this must be true, the Earth really does go in an orbit around the sun, that has been confirmed so many times, it must be true.

Answer 4

Newton's Laws are not wrong within the limited reference that they govern. Unrefined or incomplete, perhaps, but not wrong.

Before Newton there was Kepler. He theorised that the square of a planet's sidereal period was equal to the cube of its semimajor axis. And it turned out that he was absolutley right. Just because he did not address the two body problem on the scale of a planet and satellite does not mean that his law was wrong.
After Kepler, Newton came along and expanded Kepler's law to include any two orbiting bodies. Newton's law was more accurate and more correct, but it did not make Kepler's wrong because Kepler's law dealt strictly with the sun and a planet.
Likewise, Newton's laws deal with motion on an everyday scale. So long as you do not deal with relativistic or quantum level motions, Newton's laws are quite accurate and correct.
Einstein's laws are more general and cover a greater scope than Newton's, but that does not mean that Newton was wrong.

Answer 5

The plural of quantum may well be quanta, no longer quanties. This bickering over the be conscious concept is stupid. it truly is even sillier once you utilize it approximately evolution. the thought isn't evolution.. the thought is concerning to the organic determination. it truly is termed the thought of Evolution by using organic determination. as with all technology each concept stands on the info that carry it up. in case you are able to coach to different scientists that the thought is incorrect so as that they are in a position to do your try to coach it to themselves that it truly is incorrect then that concept might desire to get replaced to slot any new info. Einstein's theories did precisely that to Newton's regulations. Scientists discovered that at speed's drawing close the fee of sunshine Newton's regulations weren't sufficient to describe or assume the info. a medical concept is a hypothesis supported by using a great deal of info which stands the try of time, many times examined and not in any respect rejected. observe that the final public makes use of the be conscious concept to recommend a loss of understanding or a wager, basically the different of the medical meaning. Darwin's concept of evolution by using organic determination is an occasion of a medical concept. It has survived medical scrutiny for better than one hundred thirty years and info to help it maintains to acquire.

Answer 6

They are called General and Specifical Relativity laws, by Albert Einstein, which prove wrong the theories of Isaac Newton, called Classical Physics, and begin the age of Modern Physics. Basicly, they are wrong because a) they are not universally appliable and b) they treat time as an unmodifiable constant c) they state that no movement exists without a force applied to the body experimenting the movement [which basicly means that if you are riding a bus and the bus brakes - you fall -, in newtonian physics, you couldn't have fallen because nothing has touched you - you've fallen because of the difference of forces between your body and the bus].

Answer 7

Within the limitations of the measurement available in Newton's time, the laws are correct and accurate. Einstein's Theory of Relativity, and quantum mechanics make it fall apart, but only at the atomic and sub-atomic levels, which Newton would not have known about it.

Answer 8

No, Newton wasn't wrong, but his laws are just an approach to the very truth, even we still don't know.... he didn't know better. However, if you want to, you can still calculate a planets orbit quite accurately just by using Newton's laws of motion. Related to motion as such, his lawas are still valid.

Answer 9

In addition to the theories already mentioned by other responders, there's another in the source you may want to at least check out. It's not so much that the "laws" are restricted to the macro universe (excluding quantum levels), so much as that the laws are not laws properly speaking, but hypotheses.

Answer 10

newtons laws of motion are not wrong at all,,,,,,,,

ya there is one theory which is saying that,,,,,,,, when object moves velocity is weight is decreased by an amount than weight at stable position,,,,,,,, the weight by which it decrease is very small quantity,,,,,, u can neglect that factor......