Cons. If Newton's "laws" of motion are all facts, why is it they cannot be used...?

Question

to explain Mercury's motion around the sun?

Cons like to downplay the significance of the scientific concensus on the theories of evolution, the big bang, and man made global warming, because they think "theory" means hypothesis.

In addition, plenty of them think a "law" is superior to a "theory", but the fact is Einstein's (((THEORY))) of relativity supercedes Newton's "laws" of motion. Einstein's theory applies at regular speeds and speeds approaching the speed of light.

NOW READ ABOUT ONE OF THE FIRST FLAWS FOUND IN NEWTON'S "LAWS" OF MOTION

It gave the wrong prediction for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit. Mercury's orbit is elliptical, as predicted by Newton's theory of gravity, but the ellipse doesn't stay in precisely the same place all the time. It precesses, which is to say that as Mercury orbits the sun, the entire ellipse rotates about the focal point (i.e. the sun) as shown in the Figure below. This precession is very small; only 570 seconds of arc per century. A second of arc is 1/360 of a degree. Most of this precession could be understood in the context of Newton's theory of gravity by taking into account perturbations of the orbit due to the presence of other planets. However, once this was done, there still remained a discrepancy of about 40 seconds of arc per century between the prediction, and the observed value. This discrepancy was a complete mystery to scientists at the turn of the century.

They even went as far as postulating the existence of an unseen planet (Vulcan) on the far side of the Sun in order to explain it. It was not until Einstein published his work on the general theory of relativity that the perihelion shift of Mercury was truly understood.

http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node60.html

Brian,

You are talking to an aerospace engineer here. Newton's second law of motion : F=ma can be solved for using numerical integration. This allows us to predict the future motion of any object given the intial position and velocity and the external forces acting on that object.

This method works fine for most applications, but like I said it could not predict the motion of Mercury.

Second you say, Einstein's theory of relativity has not been proven. It has. It was proven when it explains Mercury's motion around the sun, when it predicted star light could bend, and when it is used in GPS systems.

Without Einstein's theory, GPS systems would not work anywhere as well as they do.

Continued.

Third, no theory or "law" can ever be proven to be 100 percent correct under all possible explanations.

Newton's laws of motion were proven wrong under high speeds and Einstein's theory of relativity might be proven wrong in the future.

However, they are as close to truth as we have today.

Lavrenti,

You are wrong. Numerically solving Newton's 2nd law of motion works fine for the orbits of other planets moving around the Sun.

Mercury is the big exception because the HIGH SPEED is the difference.

Answer 1

You clearly don't understand the difference between a Law and a Theory. They are in no way the same thing. The things that Newton's Law can explain have been observed by different people independently and shown to be true. Those things it can't explain are not part of the Law of Motion. Einstein's Theory has not been able to be proved yet thus it remains a theory. Pretty simple.

The Theory of Evolution has not in whole been proved. There has been no proof uncovered that shows one species changing into a new species. We obviously haven't had time to observe this change first hand in the short amount of time the theory has been proposed. I will reserve accepting it until some fossil evidence prove it valid.....

The great thing about science is that as new evidence emerges assumptions can be changed.........

Answer 2

I don't get the parallel between Newton's Laws, Einstein's Theories and anything remotely political, let alone partisan.

I personally tend to downplay man made global warming simply because of all of the rhetoric and exaggerations and outright deception that's being utilized to try and convince me otherwise.

Just another rung on the socialist ladder to an idealistic and unrealistic Utopia. Perhaps the government should tell us what kind of vehicles we should drive and how far? How we should heat our homes? Maybe initiate a tax on an excessive "carbon footprint?" Or more funding for climate change research?
All in all, don't you really think that we have enough REAL concerns presently facing this great nation - concerns that really need our prompt attention other than a scenario which is best left to the experts and scientists to fathom out rather than the politicians - who apparently know damned little about the subject?

Answer 3

How is this political?
I am an amateur astronomer. I have forgotten more than you might know as well.
I DO NOT downplay the Big Bang or Creationism. Man has not caused GW, proof is in our history, Earth has heated and cooled. We are still an "infant" system by proof of the Sun. Theory IS a hypothesis. Law is not superior to theory but law in this instance is set as fact and awaits scientific disapproval.

Answer 4

Republicans will always find something to take a dig at Democrats. They didn't like Bill Clinton having his knob polished either. They were ready to impeach him for lying about whether that counts as an affair, yet everyone was willing to forgive Newt Gingrich, Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart, and Ted Haggard.

Answer 5

Laws of motion.

An object in motion will stay in motion. An object at rest will remain at rest until acted upon by an outside source.

I can trust that.

So, tell me, if objects at rest will remain at rest until acted upon by an outside source... How did we all get here?

I mean, you can't get something (life) from nothing. You can't have complete nothingness one day and the next have the cosmos swirling and mixing and evolving.... So, exactly how did these objects at rest get set into motion?

Also, if you're referring to Global Warming, you're far off the mark.

We don't dispute that Global Warming occurs, that's just ignorant. Global Warming is a naturally occurring meteorological function. In fact, 90% of Global Warming is the result of Cloud Cover and Water Vapor in our upper atmosphere. Additionally, only 0.0032% of our atmosphere is CO2, so little that meteorologists only consider it a "trace element" from when our atmosphere was first formed.

You may also want to take note of the fact that other planets in our solar system are getting warmer, and there are certainly no humans there.

You see, we dispute MAN MADE Global Warming. 20 years ago it was Global Cooling.

You see, the reason those other theories are so well trusted is because we can use the SCIENTIFIC METHOD to reproduce results of their hypotheses You just can't do that with MAN MADE Global Warming.

You should also take note of this little fact that is making headlines everywhere but here (strangely enough).


A British court has ruled that Al Gore's BS documentary is not suitable to be shown in schools because it is full of lies. Among them are:

The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.

The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.

The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.


The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.

The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.

The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7037671.stm

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth

Answer 6

And why is this just a conservative thing? I know plenty of people from all sides who agree and disagree on this. I'm a conservative who believes in science but not when it denounces God in it all. God has created all that science studies.

Answer 7

I think your argument assumes that the center of gravity of the sun stays in place, it does not - it precesses about the CoG of the solar system.

Answer 8

Where am I? Oz?
Seriously, when I clicked-in I expected to read the Law of Cause and Effect.
I expect it takes an astronomer or heavy-duty mathematician to appreciate your, uh, question. Thanks, just the same.