Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 33:
Line 33: + + + + + +
→Newton and Falsification: Can we come back from these tangents now?
:::::Well, here in the USA he's respected for scientific treatments, and we're awfully glad he's been [[knighted]] but it doesn't get him called Sir Isaac in [[American English]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:51, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Well, here in the USA he's respected for scientific treatments, and we're awfully glad he's been [[knighted]] but it doesn't get him called Sir Isaac in [[American English]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:51, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
Newton was never falsified. That is nonsense. His laws of motion work perfectly well for slow stuff. They work great for planets in orbit.
Einstein's work simply refined an excellent theory into a brilliant one. We can't aim a spaceship well enough to care whether we use Newton's (simple) laws or Einstein's. The matter crosses the line from engineering into theoretical physics.
Einstein's work led to [[atomic bomb]] theory and helped defeat the Japanese in WW2 - which saved a lot of Japanese lives, by the way. Let's try to get all this in perspective. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:55, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
==Reference==
==Reference==