3 ms·
You cannot explain the motions of planets with Newton. Not Mercury at least. You cannot launch a rocket with Newtonian physics either. It will explode, and it d
by ctulek 11y ago
You cannot explain the motions of planets with Newton. Not Mercury at least. You cannot launch a rocket with Newtonian physics either. It will explode, and it did indeed. I don't think you can make efficient photocells either by just using Newtonian physics.
So, the new paradigms were a shift from Newtonian physics for sure.
- nerd_stuff 11y agoI've given you a corrective upvote. I agree you need physics Newton never dreamt of for photocells. Explaining Mercury's precession was a big deal for Relativity as well. Out of curiosity, what's non-Newtonian in a rocket launch?
- ctulek 11y agoSorry, my bad about rocket part (There is a difference in Newtonian and Relativity calculations but it is too small). For space technology it is not the rocket launches but, for instance, GPS satellites, that work with the principles of relativity, that cannot be explained by Newtonian physics. Off topic: I have no idea how this voting stuff works, and I don't know why mine is -3
- mkempe 11y agoGiven his methods and genius, I trust if Newton had had the (modern) data about Mercury's orbit he would have developed further insights in his understanding of the laws of nature. He explicitly rejected dogmatism and did not claim that his identifications were to be used against new facts if and when such would be discovered.
- ctulek 11y agoHe was already aware of the mismatch with data and his theory, and he didn't hesitate to put "Hand of God" to his work to explain it. : ) That a scientist had great contributions to science doesn't mean that s/he was a human being with her own dogmas and conflicts.