Should Newton's Laws Be Called "Laws"?

Have you come up with some ground breaking evidence to disprove his theories?

Al

Why don't you try breaking them and see what happens?

There are two questions here...one is mere semantics... 'law' 'rule' ..whatever.... what's in a name?...'A rose by any other name would smell as sweet...'
Hey we could jump on the current wooly thinking and call them 'guidelines'

The bottom line is, they work for the sort of problems that most of us will encounter.
If you want to work in quantum physics then maybe you need something else... they are just dandy for playing snooker, shooting arrows, driving your car.

Del

playing snooker, shooting arrows, driving your car.

Dear Del the cat:

Snooker: The ball does "suffer" "incalculable" loss of energy, as you cannot establish experimentally the EXACTITUDE of the dynamic behaviour of each and every shot and calculated following NEWTON'S LAWS.

Arrows: To hit your target, you have to "angle" up (give a suitable "elevation").The arrow then flies in an "ARC" and not in a "STRAIGHT" line. Please try shooting in a Straight line and get your target, unless you are actually touching the Target with the tip of the arrow.

Driving: Please try "Locking" your steering to neutral position and then drive, even on the straight AUTOBAHN. It is impossible even to "Fly" straight and level.

Please open your mind and stop defending an impractical "scientist", by following whose "laws", the world has wasted incalculable amounts of energy and resources and "Engineered" at the most "inefficient" manner for generations, depleting the Earth's resources.

Snooker: The ball does "suffer" "incalculable" loss of energy, as you cannot establish experimentally the EXACTITUDE of the dynamic behaviour of each and every shot and calculated following NEWTON'S LAWS.
The fact that you do not have sufficient information to calculate everything does not mean the laws or equations are invalid. In the limit the accuracy of all physical calculations is constrained at one extreme by fundamental (quantum) uncertainty and at the other by complexity.

Arrows: To hit your target, you have to "angle" up (give a suitable "elevation").The arrow then flies in an "ARC" and not in a "STRAIGHT" line. Please try shooting in a Straight line and get your target, unless you are actually touching the Target with the tip of the arrow.
"Lex I: Corpus omne perseverare in statu suo quiescendi vel movendi uniformiter in directum, nisi quatenus a viribus impressis cogitur statum illum mutare."
That explicitly says that external forces will cause the motion to be non-uniform - in this case the external forces include gravity and air-resistance.

Driving: Please try "Locking" your steering to neutral position and then drive, even on the straight AUTOBAHN. It is impossible even to "Fly" straight and level.
See "arrows" above - your tyres act on the road, and vice versa (to say nothing about wind effects)

Please open your mind and stop defending an impractical "scientist", by following whose "laws", the world has wasted incalculable amounts of energy and resources and "Engineered" at the most "inefficient" manner for generations, depleting the Earth's resources.
Finally, and more importantly, what wastes the Earth's resources is not that we base designs on the laws of physics, but is in the nature of what the designs try to achieve. Wastage of resource is even more extreme when designs are undertaken without applying known physical principles. Of course, if you refuse to open your mind to understanding...
P.S. On the basis of what you appear to require of the rest of us, you have no business to be driving in the first instance.

(Please don't resort to Latin; lest you be subjected to Sanskrit)

(No amount of expertise in translation/transliteration can get the exact effect of the original language)

"....the rest of us..."

This is precisely the "chauvinism", defending needlessly, when it is clear that the "LAWS" are not related to the real world and existent set of conditions.

The damage that the word "LAWS" does to an undergraduate student of Physics/Engineering is incalculable, as it closes off all options to promote further enquiry or thought....it forces an untenable set of statements on unsuspecting youngsters and makes them take things for granted as ".....the rest of us..." have accepted these without question. If you continue with these attitudes, a time will not be far off when the rest of the world will ignore this kind of "Science" and displace from the "high ground" that is so unjustifiably continuing to occupy.

No wonder the designs based on these laws are "Horrendous" to say the least.Please don't presume that those who don't belong to "...the rest of us..." are below par in any way, just because they immerse themselves (without publicity) into their respective avocations, humbly, lest they be distracted. In fact, personally, I have invented/designed and engineered for over 45 years taking a HOLISTIC approach keeping reality in view, and have shown the futility of designs of most of the "developed" world.

It will be in the fitness of things, if people gracefully accept "corrections" and get on to improvement and progress.Such an attitude would be considered venerable.

I still assert, "NEWTONS LAWS" are not LAWS!!

..the futility of designs of most of the "developed" world

It wouldn't have developed if the designs were futile. Bad designs meet a Darwinian death wherever they come from.

It has "developed" seemingly - because of the "sinister" ways of suppressing others- those who had other priorities- that of shaking off the yoke of the "suppressors".

How great is "GREAT BRITAIN" today??

The persistent use of untenable "laws" has been the cause of it's degenaration.

Maybe you should stop the jingoistic sabre rattling and read the last line again;

Bad designs meet a Darwinian death wherever they come from

I happen to agree with Ghandi's observation on Western Civilization - "it would be a good idea", and didn't trumpet anything about Britain being great etc. Any degeneration you percieve in Britain has nothing to do with Newtonian Laws. Blind resentment because of colonial history will do much to keep developing countries in the past.

Fortunately, since I realised the futility of giving importance to Newton's "Laws", my designs have acquired extreme "Superiority" over any thing that those who continue to follow the untenable "Laws".It is by keeping the past ever alive, we can ensure a better present and thereby a great future.We will not be in the past (the British rule period, but the great past-our ancient heritage), as you suggest.We love the British (including all their ideosyncracies) and in fact all of humanity (Black,Brown,yellow or white). We have rancour towards none.Every creature created by the Almighty has its own place and purpose.Not even a blade of grass can come into existence without a noble purpose for its existence.

As for Darwin, he saw a "pattern", a great sign of intelligence-he never called whatever he put out as "Laws".The Americans too exhibit intelligence-by their ability to "Lable" (or is it "Label"?) any thing and verything.

Merely pointing out the inadequacies does not constitute "sabre rattling" or "Jingoism". This is the culture of those of "....the rest of us..."

By calling the Island Nation as GREAT BRITAIN-is it not TRUMPETING?

The right spelling of the name of the Father of our Nation is GANDHI and not as put out.

If you are confused about the name "Great Britain", so are most Brits.
The "Great" comes from the Anglian use of the term to mean complete. It has been retained to distinguish from an alternate usage of Britain to mean just England and Wales. Great Britain is not one country, but an island that contains three countries - Scotland, England, and Wales. The nation is the United Kingdom, which consists of Great Britain plus Northern Ireland.

And... You say your designs are superior to what would have appeared if you had used Newtonian physics. If you show an example of such superiority, you will have "pointed it out"; however, at least for the time being, all we have on CR4 is an unsupported claim.

Finally for now: 'Newtonian' Physics is scarcely a Western construct; yes, the current form is largely due to Leibnitz amoung others. But most of the earlier basis was set in place by Aryabhatta, Bhaskara, and Madhava, and (slightly more recently) major contributions were made by Sowa.

PS1 Latin was only used because you referred to the orginal, and this is much more precise than any single translation that I have seen (and there is no problem in looking up several).
PS2 I have no problem with your using Sanscrit (or any other language for that matter) if you are quoting from an original text by one of the "greats", because I can then look up multiple translations,

Thanks for the clarifications. So, finally, the cats are out of the bag.....this clarification on GB and Aryabhata etc...

For all these centuries, people have been kept in the "dark", getting mileage out of "Bluff".

My machines have "Intelligence" built into them (into every component, not through Microprocessors and such like, as in the "developed" world) to function as a UNIFIED (systemic) entity, nearly as much as living creatures.Newtonian physics assumes "Dumbness" of matter.This is part of my design philosophy.Appropriate flexibility with full recoverability.

The Robots and Androids under development carry forward this philosophy practiced by me over several decades.This gives energy efficiency through functional efficiency. Please visit www.artecrobotics.com with an open mind and find support for my claim.

Obviously, not all the ideas are dependent on Newtonian physics (its only a formalised description of certain spects of mechanics, after all); but I don't see anything there that would be degraded by using standard engineering calculations (Newtonian-based) for the mechanical design aspects - although building a fully Newtonian-base calculation into the robots' control system would probably be counterproductive, given the limited detail of the information available. But that is just like saying that it isn't helpful for a good ball player to make theoretically-based calculations while playing, and you won't find many technologists (however western-oriented) who wish to make that case.

I don't recall anyone referring to Darwin's theory as a Law, and it was yourself who began talk about the phrase 'Great Britain'.

Thank you for the spelling correction, but it does not add weight to your point of view.

The more appropriate word, in my opinion,would have been "Greater", as in a geographical sense of meaning that you clarified. We say Mumbai (Bombay) and Greater Mumbai to mean the inclusion of suburbia. Similarly, the expression to include all of the constituents of Britain should have been Greater Britain and not Great Britain. I'm sure the English of yore knew the English language well enough.

I have no hesitation in standing corrected, if need be. I also admire the tremendous sense of fairness of the British.

Please permit me to share an incident which occured on my first voyage as a Cadet on board an Indian Navy Cruiser (1961); The Captain was a Britisher,wearing 4-stripes and a telescope tucked under arm, an inspirational model for students of Seamanship. He said directly to me, during a shipboard parade review, "You're very smart".This not only boosted my morale, it gave me a sense of fairness to be emulated throughout my career in the Navy and extended even into life on "civvy" street!!

I like your suggestion of 'Greater Britain'. It carries a better meaning than the pompous sounding 'Great Britain'. The term seems ever scarcely used, which is probably a good thing, 'United Kingdom' being more often heard. There is a distinct difference in what is meant ( I think PwSlack elaborated), but in everyday talk the terms seem to be used loosely. Forms requesting people to state nationality often leave English people scratching their heads for a few moments. Some time back I read that in a convoluted way, the term British could be regarded as offensive (!) - it derives from Briton, which was used to describe the peoples of Wales, but also applied to the English displaced westward by early invaders from Europe. I've no idea how true that is, but it adds an amusing twist. I think there is good basis to adopt the phrase 'Greater Britain' that you've put forward.

It's always good to hear of incidents that have had a positive experience upon peoples lives. In my observation good leaders understand the value of taking an interest in juniors. This applies to all walks of life. One company Director I knew would spend ages on shop floor visits, chatting to people at the sharp end of things. Finding out about their day-to-day job and engaging in general conversation. This always boosted peoples morale. He was also totally at ease whatever the surroundings, and his interest in other people was genuine. Such people possess what I would define as 'class'.

It may be more of an honorary title.

A law should be immutable when tested. In the case of Newtonian physics they meet that requirement to a point, but fall apart when you delve into the world of relativity and quantum mechanics.

Take your CAP LOCK off and I'll tell you.

They ain't guidelines!

law O.E. lagu (pl. laga, comb. form lah-), from O.N. *lagu "law," collective pl. of lag "layer, measure, stroke," lit. "something laid down or fixed," from P.Gmc. *lagan "put, lay" (see lay (v.)). Replaced O.E. æ and gesetnes, which had the same sense development as law. Cf. also statute, from L. statuere, Ger. Gesetz "law," from O.H.G. gisatzida, Lith. istatymas, from istatyti "set up, establish." Lawsuit is from 1624. Law and order have been coupled since 1796. Law-abiding is from 1859.

In the sense that they are 'layed' down, I'd say they were Laws,

I dispute the commonly heard assertion that he either 'invented', or 'discovered' gravity. Being struck by a 1 Newton apple, whilst feasible, is also probabaly rubbish.

Newton #1

Once moving at a steady speed...in a straight line...it will continue moving at a steady speed... in a straight line.

steady : It is impossible! A change in velocity, either "incrementing" or "decrementing" is the reality at any given pair of instants (t₁-t₀), which are required even to just declare

Velocity=(d1-d0)/(t1-t0)

= (d1/t1)-(d0/t0)=Δd/Δt !!!

straight: A straight line is a part of an arc of infinite radius! So, where is the STRAIGHTNESS??

On both above counts, Sir NEWTON's "LAWS" fail!!- Can we still call them LAWS?

Unless we have an expression to declare the "Instantaneous" state (INDEPENDENT OF "time") of a body or particle, all engineering based on present "accepted" body of knowledge is untenable!!

Newton #2

Once standing still... it will stay still

Again, another impossibility! Is any "BODY" or particle existing in GRAND isolation in the universe? Every body has "turbulent" neighbors and therefore will be disturbed and will disturb others surrounding them, by their very "Stillness" and become a "sink" for the multitude of "Sources" .

This kind of Non-Precise thinking and "Half baked" statements by "eminent" Scientists have ruined many an undergraduate engineering study. I categorically reject "Western" and "Eastern" science. Those who are happy with mediocrity of "Snooker...." physics are welcome to continue their mediocrity while those with an open mind can contribute.

Laws should be "Immutable" and they are not. So, why declare any "Laws" at all except as means of "Dominence"? Let there be a convention, free to change, as per evolution of human knowledge.

The analysis of replies received so far show that NEWTONS LAWS are NOT entitled to be called LAWS!!

I believe Newton qualified these by saying "unless acted upon by another force". Thank you for unwittingly pointing out that there are other forces involved. Were they not involved then, perhaps the object would move in "straight" line for example.

I suppose you also reject logic and everything else "western" and "eastern". How for example do you feel about George Boole's work? Aristole? They are all fools as well?

Dear eriew,

why fly off the handle and sink into sarcasm? Please keep focus on NEWTON and his "LAWS"."unwittingly"?-HUH!! Thanks for admitting, however grudgingly, that the "Laws" do not deserve to be called LAWS. It is precisely this kind of "Chauvinism" that makes for a stagnant (non-evolving, degenerate) humanity. Keep an open (and hence tolerant) mind and allow wisdom to fly in from all directions of the compass, contemplate, meditate and then COMPREHEND to be able to "ACCEPT" or "REJECT".

Please remember, no one is INFALLIBLE.After all, we're all human. The only thing worse than an expert is someone who thinks he's an EXPERT.

D.Ramakrishna Naidu

no it should not called to be a law it must called as statement

THANKS A MILLION!

s ur right it should be called only as statement

"This is a statement". I give this as an example of why it is useful to discriminate between different types of statement. You could perhaps call them "Newton's theories"; this is what we continue to call Einstein's more refined versions of the principles and equations that appear to govern the behaviour of our physical world**, but that doesn't discriminate between Newton's viable theories and and some of his other theories that turned out to be complete junk. "Theorem" won't do either, because that is something that can be proved correct iff we accept certain axioms. "Laws" implies statements that should be obeyed, and (within their regions of validity) Newton's laws are universally obeyed (which is more than can be said for most legislative law).

For what it is worth, if we were starting from here I would call them "Newton's models", and "Einstein's special relativistic model", etc., but:
the description exists, and it works (as no-one who uses the "laws" is misled) - so don't fix it.

**In the case of Einstein's relativistic theories, we have so far failed to find any circumstances where our measurements indicate any inaccuracy in the theoretical predictions - so at this point they are more clearly laws than Newton's - but Einstein had particular views on the impossibility of absolutely proving a physical theory, and this view has so far prevailed.

But generally people encourage to follow these laws but they are not allowed to find things new like einsten , newton . the ideas are restricted by these laws. so it should be called as statement.

The whole point of my response is that calling them laws did not have any of the consequences that appear to cause you concern. In no way did this discourage experimentalists from trying to assess the limits to the accuracy of the analysis. Nor did it discourage Einstein's precursors (e.g. Fitzgerald Lorentz) from postulating modifications as soon as evidence was available to support such work.

The same sort of work continues on Einstein's theories, and on quantum mechanics and particle physics.

We have at least the following nomenclature in use:
Einstein (and quantum field): 'theory'
Newton, Planck, Faraday and many others: 'law'
Fermat and Heisenberg: 'principle'
Avagadro: 'hypothesis'
Fleming and Woodward-Hoffmann: 'rule'
Shrodinger and Dirac: 'equation'

Anyone promoting the idea of yet another name for a useful physically predictive algorithm should perhaps be statemented

What about axiom or postulate ?