as of now, i am already officially done adding to the current (oh, please excuse pun) thread on ohm's law, and the following closes my input into the side thread physical laws. my original comments on physical laws stand. and, incidently, f = dp/dt is correct in special relativity, and <f> = d<p>/dt is correct in non-relativistic quantum mechanics! relativistic time delays and quantum mechanical operators notwithstanding, the simple form of the equation of motion is preserved. perhaps more imporantly, the concepts of inertia and momentum conservation remain valid, with no known exceptions, ever; and if there ever was an apparent exception we would just invent a new field or particle to preserve THOSE cherished laws. newton's 3 laws plus his universal law of gravitation - the latter said to be perhaps the greatest generalization of the human mind - are examples of physical laws. that doesn't mean his original work has not been superceded by more modern theories. ohm's law is a wonderful tool, extremely accurate for ordinary resistances, and easy to derive using certain simplifying assumptions and elementary methods; but it is not a physical law. we know f = dp/dt across the galaxy, but i have at best a rough idea of even the form of the V - I curve for an unkown diode in an alien space probe. dlk >yo, >Motion in complete agreement with Newton's laws? Boy, Einstein would have >a word with you! ;). That Einstein's theories of special and general >relativity are "more correct" than Newton's laws is well known and agreed >upon among scientists. On the other hand, people have known for hundreds >of years that Newton's laws weren't explaining everything (the orbit of >mercury, for example, precesses in a way which is completely mysterious in >light only of Newtonian mechanics). Of course, this doesn't stop people >from calling it a "law". In fact, I'd argue that in the case of MOST >scientific theories (and 'laws'), scientists generally believe that they >AREN'T the complete picture. Ohm's law and Newton's laws, (and >certainly, Einstein asserted many times, Relativty as well), are different >approximations of how things actually behave. > >Just my friendly rant on science! > >-wes >'84 vanagon, getting a new master cylinder > |
Please note - During the past 17 years of operation, several gigabytes of
Vanagon mail messages have been archived. Searching the entire collection
will take up to five minutes to complete. Please be patient!
Return to the archives @ gerry.vanagon.com
The vanagon mailing list archives are copyright (c) 1994-2011, and may not be reproduced without the express written permission of the list administrators. Posting messages to this mailing list grants a license to the mailing list administrators to reproduce the message in a compilation, either printed or electronic. All compilations will be not-for-profit, with any excess proceeds going to the Vanagon mailing list.
Any profits from list compilations go exclusively towards the management and operation of the Vanagon mailing list and vanagon mailing list web site.