Or more correctly, Sir Isaac Newton. For without him, apples just wouldn't be what they are today.
~:cheers: Here, here. ~:cheers:
Printable View
Or more correctly, Sir Isaac Newton. For without him, apples just wouldn't be what they are today.
~:cheers: Here, here. ~:cheers:
Wassap? :inquisitive:
*sighs*
You were supposed to release balloons in his honour. :balloon3:
Oh lets face it, Newton theories have fallen from their pedestals.
Vive la relativity :yes:
They still stand up in the Backroom where every action has a reaction.
Gravity doesn't exist. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Judging from the Backroom, however, force does.
Not really, for the vast majority of everyday problems they are still perfectly good. Relativity and quantum mechanics only kick in at the extremes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moros
Of course, you can calculate the velocity of an apple falling from a tree using General Relativity, but I would not recommend it.
Incidentally, any particular reason for the tribute, Raz?
Well if his theories would have been that wrong that you could calculate the speed of an Apple falling to the ground, well he bloody wouldn't earn this. But let's face it wether we can use it or not doesn't mean wether it's true or not. And Of course not all of his theories were really wrong. And it's not that Einstein's are. We all know only Rick Astely knows the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poor Bloody Infantry
Ah, but is any scientific theory ever really "the truth" of how the universe works? Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are both themselves approximations which do not give the whole picture. And if we do find a GUT, how will we know if it is really the true picture? That the "real" theory isn't actually something more complicated, but which we will never be able to distinguish from the simplified theory?Quote:
Originally Posted by Moros
Amen to that.Quote:
We all know only Rick Astely knows the truth.
Actually Moros I thought it was a rather good joke. That was why I played on with the reaction joke.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moros
Now Gravity only seems not to exist in the Backroom because of the excess of hot air floating up from the political debates. Gravitas definitely still exists in the form of Banquo's Ghost and KukriKhan :bow:
Ah yes, I get it now.
Please forgive my overly literal interpretation, I wouldn't want to get in the way of a good physics joke.:2thumbsup:
Either way, only Einstein's equations work when physics starts to get interesting; talking with regards to black holes and the like. :beam:
If you go for great quantities yes. But if you're going subatomic scale well, then Einstein gets messy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Newton makes Einstein look like an idiot.
and your posts make me wonder about you..Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Geezer
Newton's laws aren't outdated for smaller problems, that is very much true. but Einstein's theory can explain the universe's quirks more accurately, especially on a larger scale.. If it weren't for his theory, our satelites wouldn't work properly, as it is proven that without the recalibration of the satelite clocks and meters* for relativity, for example, the GPS satelites would be dozens of yards off; thanks to him, most are under 20ft in error, even less. if it were false, we wouldn't see pictures of 1 star duplicated 4 times round another star**, nor would black holes exist (they do now, don't they?)
*meter=measurment tools
N.B: yes, satellites are clibrated with relativity accounted for.
**look carefully at this picture. what do you see?
http://prl.aps.org/files/prl_timelin...positive_0.jpg
or this:
http://io.uwinnipeg.ca/~vincent/4500...steinCross.jpg
note these are all the same star-literally.
Let me see if I've got this right.
Gravitational lenses give us a way to detect the effects of dark matter (or was it dark energy?) Something (perhaps) also anticipated by Einstein in his cosmological constant.
Dark matter is a result of the decreptency between the estimated mass of the universe (and hence predicted "gravity"), and the actual observed values. whether there really is a 90% invisible matter in universe deal is not testable at the moment, nor is it truly predicted by Einstein (black holes, the Big bang, light distortion, etc, are). we cannot "see" gravitational distortion; the only way one can tell that there is gravity is to observe the effects on heavenly bodies: changes in redshift, high energy light (UV, gamma, etc), and again, the spectral skewing you see in the above photos. so one can only draw two conclusions:Quote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
1-relativity is flawed (not wrong-flawed*), and the flaw leads to the dicreptency.
2-we have not measured the universe properly. this can happen due to the massive ditances involved, the large numbers and quantities realted to and for the universe, and the complex equations as well. and equipment is not always perfect.
I support 2 actually.
*it cannot be completely wrong, as the effects have been observed as per his predictions..
Thank you for clearing that up Ibrahim:beam:
The pathetically little I know about the subject came from one CBC "Ideas" interview. The scientist tried to describe what a gravitational lens is, and how they are using it to (perhaps) get a clearer idea of what dark matter/energy is; how it is distributed; possible effects it may have on our observations on a very large scale. She did mention that the influence it has may account for the value of Einstein's constant...although she qualified that by saying it was way too early to tell, and that the statement was "wild speculation"
I admit, 90% (or more) of the stuff was beyond me :eeeek: fascinating all the same
Oh yes, certainly Newton was a pure genious. Not only did he formulated the laws of gravity through the laws of Infinitesimal Calculus (upon which we built and got where we are now), but he did also some awesome research on planetary movements, optics (especially prisms and the dispersity that occurs to light when going through one) and some other slightly "dark" stuff which we don't hear about every day.
Oh yes, we Physics students sleep with our Machanics books together at night. Until we start doing modern Physics (Quantum Mechanics et al), that is.
Maion
I've taken two physics classes and all this talk is bringing back bad memories. I'm very glad I wasn't an engineer as I first intended. :sweatdrop:
I'm not that good at physics anyway. I just get the idea-the math usually screws me over:wall:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kush
He's also the father of modern British coinage, having instigated and overseen extensive reforms at the Royal Mint.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maion Maroneios
I enjoyed my newtonian mechanices, Im assuming if i go onto qauntam mechanics its going to get quite a bit harder!
Not as hard as you might expect; at least mathematically, if you can handle Classical Mechanics you will be able to cope with the maths in Quantum Mechanics. The big step up is on the conceptual level; whereas Classical Mechanics tends to be intuitive (which is not to say it is easy, just that the answers generally "make sense"), Quantum Mechanics is physically deeply unintuitive and filled with conclusions which would seem nonsensical were it not for the fact that they have been rigourously proven experimentally. However, I would argue it is well worth the struggle, it's probably the area of physics I most enjoyed during my undergraduate degree, and I find those unintuitive implications both profound and endlessly fascinating. Plus of course it means you can feel smug whenever people argue about determinism in the backroom ~;)
QM has a fearsome reputation but so long as you have a good grasp of Classical Mechanics and calculus it's not especially harder than any other advanced topic in physics (electromagnetism, fluid mechanics, relativity etc). If you really want you can take a purely mathematical approach to it and not worry about the physical implications, although I would argue this would be missing out on the best bits.
Wow, you're really getting me excited about getting those lessons later on!Quote:
Originally Posted by PBI
Right now, I'm still doing General Physics and Mathematics, which is basically Classical Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Optics and Electromagnetism (the Physics part) and Infinitesimal Calculus-Infinite series (as well as some "advanced" stuff like multiple integrals, functions of two or more variables etc.). Next semester, I will be (finally!) dealing with Differiental Equations and (again finally!), an introduction to Modern Physics (Quantum Mechanics et al). But I'm getting rushed and write too much again, I think :whip:
Anyway, out of curiosity, in what field did you actually study PBI? Physics, I assume?
Maion
Yup, I'm studying for a PhD in Theoretical Physics.
My research is based around developing new techniques in Quantum Field Theory, which is basically an extension of Quantum Mechanics to include Special (but not General) Relativity.
Hope you enjoy studying modern Physics, what level is it at? Good luck with Differential Equations; not my cup of tea, I found it involved a bit too much just guessing the solution and plugging it into the equation to see if it's right, some people can't get enough of them though.