Newton vs Einstein
Newton's Laws of Motion:
Briefly stated, the three laws are:
1. An object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by a net force.
2. Force equals mass multiplied by acceleration.
3. To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
According to Einstein's general relativity, the observed gravitational attraction between masses results from those masses warping nearby space and time.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Round 2, Fight 4
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Einstein. No Contest.
Newton describes what happens, Einstein describes why it happens.
Once you understand why something happens it becomes easier to twist it around for nefarious ends, such as world domination. Err, or so I have heard...
I voted for Einstein, but only because I think Newton's third law is a bunch of baloney.
First of all, if there really were equal and opposite reactions, semi vs. yugo would turn out just as bad for the semi.
Second of all, I went target shooting last Friday, and shot about 150 rounds. Suspiciously, my arm does not look like it was shot 150 times. Ergo, no equal and opposite reaction. Of course, it's entirely possible that my arm was healed 150 times and I just didn't notice, but I don't think that's the kind of "opposite" he was talking about.
As much as it pains me to vote against Einstien, I feel I need to in this case. The problems here is actually very similar to what badanswer says. Einstein describes why things happen, Newton just codfies what happens. Unfortunatly Einstein's law requires 2 things: an understanding of how space-time can be warped and a way to apply that warping. The problem is that while Einstein is spending time pulling that together Newton is attacking.
I see it going something like this.
Einstein steps out and starting into some kind of physics kata - it is smooth, fluid, and physical perfection in motion. It looks like a tai-chi master. Then Newton steps out and interrupts that warm-up with a 2x4 to the head.
Could Einstien pull off the win? Certainly! Betting against the crazy haired German is never a safe thing, but in this case I'm going to go with Newton as being the most likely to win.
karl,
I'm afraid that your arguments display a distinct lack of understanding of how Newton's 3rd Law works, as well as a lack of comprehension of the 2nd Law as well.
Basically, for your first argument you need to realize that the same amount of damage IS done to both vehicles. Call it 1 Yugo worth of damage. (Imperial or metric Yugo, it doesn't matter) 1 Yugo of damage obliterates the Yugo, which is expected since that is the definition of a Yugo of damage. 1 Yugo of damage is also done to the semi. The difference is that the damage capacity and resistance of the semi is such that 1 Yugo of damage doesn't do much more than bend the bumper. However, Newton was right about the reactions being equal and opposite.
You second argument shows a similar misunderstanding. Combining the 2nd and 3rd laws basically says that when you shoot a certain amount of force accelerates the bullet one direction, and the same amount of force accelerates the gun (and attached body) in the opposite direction. Lets assume that you are shooting an 8mm Mauser rifle. A typical bullet weights 190 grains, or about 0.027 pounds. Let's say you weigh 250 lbs. If the same force is applied to both objects the acceleration of the bullet will be 9260 times greater. Or conversely the acceleration applied to your body is 0.00011 times that applied to the bullet.
There is also the differnce in pressure to consider. That force will be apllied to your shoulder (assuming a rifle) over an area of ... call it 12 square inches. The same force is applied at the target is delivered (assuming a flat face bullet) over 0.081 square inches. It is kind of like the difference between puching someone in the chest and using the same amount of strength to shove a knife into his chest. You can probably figure out which will do more damage.
Oh, please. If your "pressure" argument were true, then you could stop a bullet from killing you just by wearing some sort of vest that spread the force out over a larger surface area. Instead, everyone knows that bulletproof vests work by being made out of really strong, thick stuff.
And don't you think it's a little too convenient that Newton's second law happens to explain the gaping flaws in his third law? Talk about circular reasoning!
As for your supposed 1 Yugo of damage argument, everyone knows that if you weld a Yugo to the front bumper of a semi, then use it to collide with another Yugo, that the one on the semi will only be minimally damaged, because it is now a part of the semi.
Next, you'll be telling me that if I roll a ball on the ground, and it stops rolling, that there really was some mysterious invisible force acting on it that just happens to have the exact magnitude required to stop the ball. For such a supposedly agnostic group of people, scientists sure believe in a lot of mysterious invisible forces.
1) They do
2)That's not circular reasoning, or a flaw
3)The welded Yugo adds to the overall damage capacity of the semi-Yugo system, but does not inherit the damage resistance of the semi. Therefore the welded Yugo is destroyed as well as the normal Yugo, and you probably hurt the semi more by removing the welded Yugo than the impact would have done on its own.
4) Yes, and Yes. Deal with it.
As the material causing the bending has yet to be fully described for Einstein's theory, I will go with Newton. I mean, Newton's got the whole practical application thing wrapped up (as has been expansively discussed).
For the record, I think mysterious forces are awesome, but they're kind of hard to define. So far, Einstein's done some good work showing that something is probably happening, but he didn't do much towards figuring out how.
I think I'll have to vote Einstein in this particular battle. Despite my deep appreciation for Newton and his motion laws, I can't help but see Albert as some sort of visionary.
**WARNING: POOR ANALOGY BELOW**
I think of Newton as a bridge builder, toiling away at the exact specifications of how the bridge should be built, what designs should be incorporated, and how it will reach the other side. Einstein, on the other hand, doesn't really care about the bridge: he's busy telling us what's on the other side.
**END POOR ANALOGY**
So as can clearly be seen, Einstein may not have known how to prove his ideas but the glimpse of something greater that he did provide has spurred mankind into a new age of thought and scientific reasoning.
Einstein wins.
The problem beany is that this is not a popularity contest or a look at who inspires us more. It is a cage match, a no-holds-barred fight.
Einstien stands to inpire us and show us the future, and then Newton shanks him in the back with a shapened piece of rebar and then curb-stomps the body.
I'm very sad about this, but unless Einstien remembers to watch his back and bring a .45 I'm going to say Newton wins this one. And no one has yet suggested that Albert remebered to bring the gun.
You're forgetting that according to Newton's third law, he can shank and curb stomp all he wants, and there will be an equal and opposite reaction dishing it right back.
On the other hand, Einstein can just warp space and time to dodge anything, Matrix-style.
Sorry kit, but karl is right Einstein wins. Here is the way I see it playing out. Einstein sits in his corner (its a round cage, and this confuses Newton) with a contemplative expression. Newton charges threatening to do a "Yugo" of damage to the old man. Einstein then shouts to Newton "Your singularity is untied!" Newton, thinking it is a joke, fails to look and is swept past the event horizon to his doom. Einstein taunts Newton as he is stretched and squeezed while being sucked in.
Sorry for the double post, but I forgot to address beanholio's comment.
As a further illustration of why Einstein is better, let us contemplate why the chicken crossed the road. Stretching beanholio's bad analogy a bit further (Hooke could have told us how much we are forcing it, but he lost) Einstein could tell us what makes the other side so much better than this side; very useful to others who may desire to cross and enjoy the apparent perks. Application of Newtons laws would allow us to explore rather a chicken can absorb a "Yugo" of damage in the event he does not in fact complete the journey.
What keeps being left out in this analogy is that Einstein only described the other side - he never even saw it. The fact remains that noone saw it.
So in the cage match, Newton vs. Einstein consists of Newton beating the crap out of Einstein, no matter how cool he thinks he is, or how interesting his attack would be. Since it can't yet be detected, it may or may not really exist.
This is especially true because neither combatant really has the mass to show some evidence of Einstein's theories. If the combatants were planetary (or at least asteroidal) in size we might be able to see a roundhouse/body slam by the larger of the two. As it is, Newton just equal-and-opposite-reaction-ates Einstein's butt.
Easy win Newton.
What keeps being left out in this analogy is that Einstein only described the other side - he never even saw it. The fact remains that noone saw it.
So in the cage match, Newton vs. Einstein consists of Newton beating the crap out of Einstein, no matter how cool he thinks he is, or how interesting his attack would be. Since it can't yet be detected, it may or may not really exist.
This is especially true because neither combatant really has the mass to show some evidence of Einstein's theories. If the combatants were planetary (or at least asteroidal) in size we might be able to see a roundhouse/body slam by the larger of the two. As it is, Newton just equal-and-opposite-reaction-ates Einstein's butt.
Easy win Newton.
Deja vu!
Anyhow, despite Einstein's inability to actually produce anything that can be proven at this time doesn't necessarily condemn him to losing the match. Basing our decision's upon what is known right now is exactly the situations that his theories confound. Space-time and it's relationship to mass and energy is not well understood right now but it does describe much greater ideas than just that single relationship, such as a greater range of forces than the commonly labeled 4 (Gravity, electro-magnetic, weak, strong). I see this panning out much like the battle betweem Obi-wan Kenobi (Einstein) and Darth Vader (Newton). Despite his apparent physical loss of the battle, Einstein becomes far more powerful than Newton could ever imagine, mostly due to Newton's adherence to math which automatically rules out his ability to make things up, dream, and enjoy any Hollywood produced movie set in space. Einstein will continue on in a strange glowy state that cannot be denied nor explained, just like he wanted. Einstein wins.
Post a Comment