What did Newton destroy beyond repair?

  • Thread starter Thread starter riddlingminion
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Newton
AI Thread Summary
Newton fundamentally challenged Aristotelian physics by introducing the concept that an object in motion remains in motion unless acted upon by an external force, effectively dismantling the previous belief that a force was necessary to maintain motion. This shift marked a significant transition in understanding motion and inertia, which was encapsulated in Newton's first law of motion. The discussion highlights the confusion surrounding the term "Mechanical Universe," suggesting it relates to the broader implications of Newton's work in redefining physical laws. Participants express a lack of familiarity with Newton's contributions and the historical context of his theories. Ultimately, Newton's advancements laid the groundwork for modern physics, replacing outdated notions with a more accurate framework for understanding motion.
riddlingminion
Messages
7
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


1. In the introduction to the Mechanical Universe, what did Newton destroy beyond repair

2. What did Newton create to take its place?


Homework Equations


I don't think this question has to do with equations, as it is only worth one mark.



The Attempt at a Solution


I don't know where to start with this, this question is part of an introductory assignment on sig digs, and I've attempted to google this, but I can't find anything. I must clearly be missing something.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
How much do you know about Newton and what he accomplished? Before his time, the largest part of the common knowledge of nature was based on Aristotelian philosophy. What area of physics was Newton most active in or most famous for? Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica might give you a clue. What was Newton a big advocate for?
 
Well the thing is we haven't learned a thing about Newton yet. But I know he has these three laws of motion from what I've googled about him, I just can't see how that links into destorying something beyond repair? I must be thinking about this question too literally, one sec, i'll google this aristolian guy, never heard of him.
 
K I really have no idea what to do here, I can't even figure out what the mechanical universe is. Any more help? You guys are my only hope.
 
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill"

That quote encompass much. What you are looking for can be many things, but I reckon that it must be something that spans over many sections.

Do you know anything about motion in Aristotelian philosophy? Before Newton's time, it was thought that an object needed to be supplied with a force to start moving and if that force was removed, the object would come to a natural stop in its motion. It wasn't really called force back then. 'Something' would be a better choice of words in this paragraph.

However, Newton changed much of that by declaring that motion continues in a straight line with constant speed as long as it wasn't affected by a resulting force. See Newtons first law. Don't remember the name, but remember the concept.

This may sound somewhat counterintuitive, as if you roll something over a table, it will eventually stop due to friction. Nonetheless, if there were no friction or air resistance and so on (resulting forces affecting it), the object will continue to move in a straight line with constant velocity.

See this for more information: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/newt.html#nt1
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top