Are Newtonian physics universal?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the distinction between objectivity and universality in the context of Newtonian physics. It questions whether specific objects, like a coffee mug, can be considered objective but not universal. Newtonian physics is acknowledged to be effective within certain limits, particularly in everyday scenarios. However, it fails to accurately describe phenomena involving objects moving close to the speed of light. Additionally, relativity effects can influence Newtonian interactions at lower velocities, though these effects are often negligible.
Hunter1234
Messages
11
Reaction score
1
I am wondering if things can be objective but not universal.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What do you mean by "things"?
Is a coffee mug objective? How about universal?
 
As far as we know and can tell (through astrophysics) Newtonian physics work well enough within certain bounds. We know Newtonian physics doesn't work well at all for objects traveling close to the speed of light. We know also that even at reduced velocities there are relativity effects on "Newtonian" interactions, they are just too small in magnitude to make a practical difference.
 

Thread '1:1 versus 2:1 Mechanical Advantage debate'

The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
View full post »

Thread 'Newton's first law?'

Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
View full post »
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
View full post »

Similar threads

B A universe where Zeno is right and the law of inertia still holds
Replies
6
Views
627
I Does Lagrangian Mechanics Handle Variable Mass System?
Replies
3
Views
1K
Newtonian Physics: Is it Compatible with Relativity?
Replies
2
Views
12K
Do we have "Newtonian space-time" in classical physics?
Replies
8
Views
2K
B Understanding the Rheopectic Properties of Blood: Fact or Fiction?
Replies
5
Views
1K
I Metal Ball Rolling in a Parabolic Bowl in the presence of a magnet
Replies
1
Views
1K
I Questions on Expansion of the Universe and Newtonian Physics
Replies
7
Views
1K
Derive Newtonian gravity from symmetry?
Replies
6
Views
1K
I Lecture on Newtonian spacetime
Replies
27
Views
5K
I Is there a way in Lagrangian mechanics to incorporate the inertial response from initial momentum when using initial conditions instead of BCs?
Replies
9
Views
923

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top