Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 20:32:43 -0500
Reply-To: "Daniel L. Katz" <katzd54@YAHOO.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: "Daniel L. Katz" <katzd54@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Re: Fwd: RE: "Green" solar battery charger (NO VANAGON CONTENT)
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 that doesn't mean his original work has not been superceded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
>
| 
