Re: New laws of motion?
- From: joe_avery_2005@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: 3 Jan 2006 07:33:06 -0800
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
> In article <1134247237.430206.117870@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Orion <danny99@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >According to special relativity, motion does not require power. I think
> >there must be, otherwise there wouldn't be gravity.
> >
>
>
> According to Newton, motion does not require power, either. That's what
> his first law says.
Good point Gregory. But what about, for instance, gravitational
free-fall and change in state of motion, in general?
Another point, taken from the paper I mentioned, is that Newton's first
law is really a mathematical concept. It defines the reference frames
where the second law holds. Actually, there is only one such reference
frame according to Newton, absolute space. So the first law cannot be
verified empirically since these inertial frames are just an abstract
concept. What do you say?
Joe
>
> --
> "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
> the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they
> are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism
> and exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: New laws of motion?
- From: Herman Trivilino
- Re: New laws of motion?
- From: Gregory L. Hansen
- Re: New laws of motion?
- References:
- Re: New laws of motion?
- From: Gregory L. Hansen
- Re: New laws of motion?
- Prev by Date: Re: new year wishes from Bob
- Next by Date: curses
- Previous by thread: Re: New laws of motion?
- Next by thread: Re: New laws of motion?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|