3 ms·
> At low speeds relative to the speed of light, they have the same accuracy don't they? When measuring signal (ie radio, light, gravity) from slow speed perspe
by Supermancho 7y ago
> At low speeds relative to the speed of light, they have the same accuracy don't they?
When measuring signal (ie radio, light, gravity) from slow speed perspectives, newtonian physics is not as accurate - https://futurism.com/newtonian-physics-vs-special-realtivity https://futurism.com/newtonian-physics-vs-special-realtivity - Eg we actually need to account for it between gps sattelites and we do so from the perspective of GR as well as the recent evidence of gravity propogation being restricted to localization (ie roughly the speed of light)
- hudon 7y agoYup. And when you need to measure where artillery shells land, the GR model is overkill and you'll waste less time by using a Newtonian prediction. I think this proves my point?
- kyralis 7y ago"Newtonion physics is a perfectly acceptable approximation in many circumstances" and "GR is less wrong than Newtonion physics" are not in conflict. Newtonion physics can absolutely be "more wrong" and "useful in many circumstances" at the same time- and in fact is!
- cma 7y agoSo GR is more right in more scenarios and that makes it no more or less wrong?
- withants 7y agoi am a big fan of newtonian mechanics
- bashinator 7y agoIf your point is that they're both equally wrong, then no, I think you've disproven your own point. There are no circumstances in which Newtonian math produces better results than GR. That the latter is more complex is not relevant to the discussion of whether one is more accurate for a wider range of phenomena than the other.
- pdonis 7y ago> I think this proves my point? No, because "less accurate but in practical terms the difference can often be ignored" is not the same as "the same accuracy".