Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In one of his three Annus mirabilis papers of 1905, on special relativity, Albert Einstein noted that, given a specific definition of the word "force" (a definition which he later agreed was not advantageous), and if we choose to maintain (by convention) Newton's second law of motion F = ma (mass times acceleration equals force), then one arrives at / (/) as the expression for the transverse ...
For example, consider a book at rest on a table. The Earth's gravity pulls down upon the book. The "reaction" to that "action" is not the support force from the table holding up the book, but the gravitational pull of the book acting on the Earth. [note 6] Newton's third law relates to a more fundamental principle, the conservation of momentum.
Finding that an elliptical orbit fit the Mars data (the Vicarious Hypothesis), Kepler immediately concluded that all planets move in ellipses, with the Sun at one focus—his first law of planetary motion. Because he employed no calculating assistants, he did not extend the mathematical analysis beyond Mars.
However, this is misleading as it was emphasized by Einstein or Planck. On one hand it's true that space and time became relative, and the inertial frames of reference are handled on equal footing. On the other hand, the theory makes natural laws invariant—examples are the constancy of the speed of light, or the covariance of Maxwell's equations.
A more recent assessment has been that while acceptance of Newton's laws was not immediate, by the end of the century after publication in 1687, "no one could deny that [out of the Principia] a science had emerged that, at least in certain respects, so far exceeded anything that had ever gone before that it stood alone as the ultimate exemplar ...
Although the laws of motion and universal gravitation became Newton's best-known discoveries, he warned against using them to view the Universe as a mere machine, as if akin to a great clock. He said, "So then gravity may put the planets into motion, but without the Divine Power it could never put them into such a circulating motion, as they ...
Newton's style of demonstration in all his writings was rather brief in places; he appeared to assume that certain steps would be found self-evident or obvious. In 'De Motu', as in the first edition of the Principia, Newton did not specifically state a basis for extending the proofs to the converse. The proof of the converse here depends on its ...
Further, the current usage of "Kepler's Second Law" is something of a misnomer. Kepler had two versions, related in a qualitative sense: the "distance law" and the "area law". The "area law" is what became the Second Law in the set of three; but Kepler did himself not privilege it in that way. [11]