MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
What problems do you experience when picking stuff up?
I don't, but then i don't live in a Newtonian world.
the laws in my world allow me to grip and squeeze stuff. It's a lot more fun!
What problems do you experience when picking stuff up?
Schrödinger's cat steals it.
"Loud mouthed atheists spouting extracts from the god delusion at religious people they don't understand is just as bad. "
Er, actually I'm an atheist and have never read or quoted Dawkins. atheism was around for a considerable time before Dawkins and his is not the only reading material available on the subject.
As it's only relatively recently that we could publicly state our atheism, without Christians torturing,having a pogrom or setting fire to us, we get a little giddy and feel it's nice to be allowed to express our opinions in relative physical safety sometimes. Sorry about that.
I don't, but then i don't live in a Newtonian world.
So for you Force doesn't equal Mass times Acceleration?
So for you Force doesn't equal Mass times Acceleration?
🙂
Schrödinger's cat steals it.
Go on, explain that statement in a thread full of physicists, I challenge you.
Charlie - wtf are you talking about? Tell me where Newton's laws stop you from picking stuff up?
If it were all Newtonian, stuff would break when we tried picking it up, unless we were very very very careful.
If it were all Newtonian, stuff would break when we tried picking it up, unless we were very very very careful.
See now I'm really confused. I thought that it was going to be about how Newtonian mechanics breaks down at very high velocities or near very large gravity wells (e.g. the orbit of Mercury that doesn't obey Newtonian mechanics), or something to do with quantum mechanics but this is new to me. Why does Newtonian physics require stuff to break when picked up?
Because atoms and other smaller stuff would have to behave in a Newtonian manner.
I thought it might be about the failure to get a Unified Theroy of Everything [quantum v Newtonian]but incompletness and wrongness are not the same.
I am also intringued just answer the question please you flirt
If it were all Newtonian, stuff would break when we tried picking it up, unless we were very very very careful.
Physics FAIL.
Newtons laws apply to macroscopic objects. That's what they are for. They [b]model[/b] what we see on a human scale.
They don't claim to be able to model the quantum or relativistic universe, so you can't say they are 'wrong' because they don't work there.
It's like saying a Trek Madone is rubbish because it's no good on Glentress black.
Now, that's not what I said is it?
No, but it was funny.
Because atoms and other smaller stuff would have to behave in a Newtonian manner.
In the same way that newtonian mechanics doesn't apply to high speed and high gravity situation, similarly it doesn't apply at the atomic level. You and I however exist in the macroscopic world, not the quantum one. No one claims that Newtonian mechanics is perfect, however it does describe the observable world very very well.
incompletness and wrongness are not the same.
+1. It's not just that though. "Newtonian Physics" is a simple answer to a complicated question. Unfortunately, things usually aren't that simple. Newton himself knew this. His concepts hold true for most practical purposes, which is good enough for pretty much everyone apart from scientists and mountain bikers.
People, generally, like easy answers (veering dangerously back on topic, this is at least in part why we still have religion).
molgrips - Member"Schrödinger's cat steals it"
Go on, explain that statement in a thread full of physicists, I challenge you.
My attempt at a physics joke 😳 should really have been "Schrödinger's cat might steal it" I suppose. Quantums and things 😳
They don't claim to be able to model the quantum or relativistic universe, so you can't say they are 'wrong' because they don't work there
So 'Newtonian Physics' is the wrong model to use. If you use 'Newtonian Physics' to explain it you get the wrong answer.
Unless of course you are saying that the term 'Newtonian Physics is wrong' is a meaningless phrase. But that's something else
So 'Newtonian Physics' is the wrong model to use. If you use 'Newtonian Physics' to explain it you get the wrong answer
If I were trying to model the subatomic, yes. If I were modelling picking something up, then no.
I can't believe I've wasted my effort arguing with you.
People, generally, like easy answers
Or rather, and more appropriately, sometimes a simple answer is good enough.
You could consider the religious as like those seeking only to model the macroscopic world. Then the 'simple' answer is perfectly good enough and will serve them well. Some us may search for the Theory of Everything if we wish.
And that is how you get a thread back on topic 🙂
If I were trying to model the subatomic, yes. If I were modelling picking something up, then no
but picking something up involves the subatomic, and the original quote was general in its scope
Nevertheless, the original quote was that 'Newtonian Physics would be wrong' We at least agree that that is true in some cases.
The subatomic effects are nullified by the scales involved. Don't be a tool.
If you use 'Newtonian Physics' to explain it you get the wrong answer.
i have yet to see you explain why this object falls apart and as you are describing macroscopic objects we have already established that on earth for a human Newtonian Lwas do describe what happens.
None of of us observe events on the quantum level and if do then you our are neo , you are the one and I claim my £5
So are you now saying that Newtonian Physics is right, in contradiction to what you said earlier?
This argument is more confusing than quantum mechanics.
Not at all! If the subatomic effects were Newtonian, we'd certainly know about them at large scale.The subatomic effects are nullified by the scales involved.
So are you now saying that Newtonian Physics is right, in contradiction to what you said earlier?
Did I?
Listen. Newton is a special case for a certain range of scales. As is Quantum Mechanics and Relativity.
So none are wrong.
Stop being a knob. Your trolling is silly.
Explain custard, then.
(-:
Listen. Newton is a special case for a certain range of scales. As is Quantum Mechanics and Relativity.So none are wrong.
Stop being a knob. Your trolling is silly.
Oh that's a convincing argument then! So, does Newtonian Physics apply to a cup or not?
Explain custard, then.
Non-Newtonian fluid, probably
None of of us observe events on the quantum level
No, we don't see them, but we see their effects don't we?
Newtonian Physics is wrong, yer numpty. What world do you live in?
Well that's what you said earlier and you now appear to be saying the opposite, although I do find your arguments difficult to follow.
CharlieMungus - MemberNone of of us observe events on the quantum level
No, we don't see them, but we see their effects don't we?
We can actually see single photons 🙂 Thats the quantum level
So, does Newtonian Physics apply to a cup or not
Yes.
Well that's what you said earlier and you now appear to be saying the opposite,
where?
So, does Newtonian Physics apply to a cup or not
Yes.
but not to my picking up of said cup?
Yes.
Depending on how you model the problem.
The way you are trying to approach the issue suggests to me that you have not been educated in Physics.
All Physics does is model things to predict certain behaviour. The Newtonian model perfectly models what happens to you and your cup on a macroscopic scale.
A quantum model of the interaction between the atoms in the cup and your fingers is a different problem and requires a different model to solve.
best religeous thread ever. Can I nominate it for raising the bar at STW towers....apart from the last dozen or so posts which appear to be (to a none physicist [newtonian or otherwise])
Charlie Mungus: 'tis
Somebody else: 'tisn't
Charlie Mungus: 'tis
Somebody else: 'tisn't
Charlie Mungus: 'tis
Somebody else: 'tisn't
Charlie Mungus: 'tis
Somebody else: 'tisn't
Charlie Mungus: 'tisSomebody else: 'tisn't
Charlie Mungus: 'tis
Somebody else: 'tisn't
Charlie Mungus: 'tis
Somebody else: 'tisn't
Charlie Mungus: 'tis
Somebody else: 'tisn't
That's getting on for binary that is, speaking of which, when are the Mathematicians going to turn up and whip the Physicists?
'Nowt like a good Science fight!
So, does Newtonian Physics apply to a cup or not
Is there a storm in it ?
I was kind of hoping that by asking a specific question, this would be the one thread about religion that didn't go back to the same old themes of world war two and the big bang.Oh well. Still no answer.
Now this I don't believe!
You are the troll and I claim my £5!
Well, it was worth a try.
I thought maybe someone would have a bash at explaining why a religion that promotes truth and honesty would use an untruthful story in this way.
MTQG, it's because people are still people, no matter what religion they subscribe to.
Yeah, I know it's human nature that people will always seek the reassurance of being part of a group in preference to the isolation of thinking for themselves, and will believe the completeness of an absurd mythology rather than accept the gaps in current scientific knowledge.
I still don't get it though.
If I was going to make some outrageous claim of cycling ability, I'd tell people I had cycled the length of the Grand Union Canal in 7 hours.
Go on, prove I haven't.
I wouldn't claim to have won last year's Mountain Mayhem, when it's so easy to check the results.
I just find it bizarre that someone went to so much trouble to hire all those actors and the set to make a "factual" film that is so obviously fiction.
well they were writing it 2000 + years ago so there understanding of the world was less than it is today and it was plausibel. imagine saying at the time we came from apes would that have seemed more believable at the time? everything had a common ancestor and you are 50% similar to a banana etc prima facie ludicrous yet true
if we created a religion now for example, we would not make claims we knew were verifiably false , nor did they at the time. Daft but not that daft.
I just find it bizarre that someone went to so much trouble to hire all those actors and the set to make a "factual" film that is so obviously fiction
Some debates in the USA are all about the spin. The whole thing is built upon people trying to out-do each other, spiralling out of control. So you end up with this kind of craziness.