John Platko wrote:And if I'm understanding all of this, we don't yet have a way to talk about large aggregates of stuff, like a golf ball, in ways that relate to how we talk about very small stuff, like electrons. There's a gap in our understanding - maybe that's what the hats were trying to tell me.

tuco wrote:One thing I fail to understand John Platko. Newton will be used by anyone wanting to land on any planet in the known universe and your point is? I could understand if people at NASA would be concerned about Newton laws being "true" but they are not. What are you trying to achieve?

newolder wrote:

tuco wrote:One thing I fail to understand John Platko. Newton will be used by anyone wanting to land on any planet in the known universe and your point is? I could understand if people at NASA would be concerned about Newton laws being "true" but they are not. What are you trying to achieve?

Yes, me too.
John has dropped a ball and wants to know something about what happens next. We don't yet know what John means by "Golf ball" - for example, I used to work inside and out of a "Golf Ball" structure built atop Great Dun Fell - it could equally be a membrane impervious (to some degree) to helium gas and simply float or rise away and still Newton would get it's motion correct (to chaotic bifurcation).

John Platko wrote:

scott1328 wrote:John,

you try to use the lingo, but you have failed to grasp the underlying concepts. Do you even understand what integrals and derivatives are or how they are defined? Read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_%28mathematics%29

I'm pretty sure I understand. I also understand that while limits are the modern way of teaching integrals, it is not the only way to understand them.

But, if you see some obvious error that I'm making, why not just spell it out clearly. My question is clear enough.

John Platko wrote:....

Fair enough. I first got interested in this aspect of Newton's law when I heard people talk about the Cosmological argument. The argument didn't sit well with me and it especially felt like bullshit when they called it a proof. Being Catholic, I was most interested in St. Thomas Aquinas's version but I listened to a lot of versions. I found some very convincing, I would call them definitive, reasons for why such proofs fail. But, I thought I'd have a go at coming up with my own proof of why St. Thomas Aquinas's first proof fails, as I understand what he was saying, and perhaps more to the point of what Aristotle was saying (the guy St. Thomas got the idea from) who was more clear about his reasoning. I while back I made a little video explaining my version of why St. Thomas's first proof is wrong. You can watch it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kbARYYkLVk

But my video fails if there's a speed limit on change and Newton's law is a good way to talk about such speed limits because it implies there are none. And I'm interested in checking my work. That's just how I roll. (So far, I still think my video is a valid critique.)

Catholics being Catholics, there are other interpretations of what St. Thomas actually meant in his proof. Edward Fesser writes a lot about it. I made a video showing why his idea of St. Thomas's proof fails also. You can watch it here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klhu7AUQO30

But even though I got into this aspect of Newton's law via what I would call a mutation of a religious idea. I'm interested in the physics of it.

kennyc wrote:Nor does your attempt to discredit existing science in pursuit of your mythological beliefs.

You are not here to learn, you have already made up your mind, you are attempting to find support for that belief.

People have told you exactly the situation in even the first few posts in this thread, yet you continue to argue against them.

scott1328 wrote:

John Platko wrote:

scott1328 wrote:John,

you try to use the lingo, but you have failed to grasp the underlying concepts. Do you even understand what integrals and derivatives are or how they are defined? Read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_%28mathematics%29

I'm pretty sure I understand. I also understand that while limits are the modern way of teaching integrals, it is not the only way to understand them.

But, if you see some obvious error that I'm making, why not just spell it out clearly. My question is clear enough.

Newton's laws describe (certain aspects of) behavior, they do not prescribe it. Specifically, it describes a way for one to calculate forces, masses, or accelerations(velocity(position)) if you happen to have made some measurements.

For example, if you have measured the mass and acceleration of an object, you can calculate the force acting on that object. Furthermore the accuracy of your calculation is only as good as that of your measurements.

It is unwarranted to draw any conclusions about ultimate reality (i.e. your weird assertion about infinite velocity/energy changes) simply because the method of calculation is based on a continuous model of the universe.

Your golf ball question has been answered. Yes, Newton's Laws have been shown to be incomplete for high velocities and small scales. They are still applicable and accurate enough to fly a robot to Saturn and land a probe on Titan.

John Platko wrote:

kennyc wrote:Nor does your attempt to discredit existing science in pursuit of your mythological beliefs.

You are not here to learn, you have already made up your mind, you are attempting to find support for that belief.

People have told you exactly the situation in even the first few posts in this thread, yet you continue to argue against them.

I find no truth in what you say.

Sendraks wrote:

John Platko wrote:
But my video fails if there's a speed limit on change and Newton's law is a good way to talk about such speed limits because it implies there are none.

Well isn't the speed limit terminal velocity? The acceleration is only continuous until terminal velocity is reached, providing the object is given time to reach that velocity (the velocity depends on weight and drag).

Sendraks wrote:

John Platko wrote:And if I'm understanding all of this, we don't yet have a way to talk about large aggregates of stuff, like a golf ball, in ways that relate to how we talk about very small stuff, like electrons. There's a gap in our understanding - maybe that's what the hats were trying to tell me.

Doesn't this rather presume, on your part, that the very small stuff should behave in the same way as the large stuff?

But my video fails if there's a speed limit on change and Newton's law is a good way to talk about such speed limits because it implies there are none.

scott1328 wrote:

John Platko wrote:

scott1328 wrote:John,

you try to use the lingo, but you have failed to grasp the underlying concepts. Do you even understand what integrals and derivatives are or how they are defined? Read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_%28mathematics%29

I'm pretty sure I understand. I also understand that while limits are the modern way of teaching integrals, it is not the only way to understand them.

But, if you see some obvious error that I'm making, why not just spell it out clearly. My question is clear enough.

Newton's laws describe (certain aspects of) behavior, they do not prescribe it. Specifically, it describes a way for one to calculate forces, masses, or accelerations(velocity(position)) if you happen to have made some measurements.

For example, if you have measured the mass and acceleration of an object, you can calculate the force acting on that object. Furthermore the accuracy of your calculation is only as good as that of your measurements.

It is unwarranted to draw any conclusions about ultimate reality (i.e. your weird assertion about infinite velocity/energy changes) simply because the method of calculation is based on a continuous model of the universe.

Your golf ball question has been answered. Yes, Newton's Laws have been shown to be incomplete for high velocities and small scales. They are still applicable and accurate enough to fly a robot to Saturn and land a probe on Titan.

John Platko wrote:I guess you didn't watch my video.

John Platko wrote:One could have very fast changes in velocity, at very low velocities

John Platko wrote:- so no need to bring terminal velocity into the picture.

newolder wrote:

But my video fails if there's a speed limit on change and Newton's law is a good way to talk about such speed limits because it implies there are none.

The speed of light in a vacuum is an observed limit. Theoretically, Newton's ideas can still be used with this new knowledge but even then, the procession of the perihelion of the planet Mercury stands out like a standy-out thing. So, with however much reluctance we feel necessary, we move on to an improved but more technical view of the tensor object in General Relativity.

If your video/physics requires real tachyons (Gr. tachys, fast) then good luck.

Sendraks wrote:

John Platko wrote:I guess you didn't watch my video.

Well observed.

John Platko wrote:One could have very fast changes in velocity, at very low velocities

What would cause these changes in velocity to occur?

John Platko wrote:- so no need to bring terminal velocity into the picture.

Well that will depend on the context of what we are discussing. If you want to discuss "real world" scenarios in an effort to explain how Newton's Laws do not accurately describe what happens in reality, then terminal velocity is a consideration.

If we're discussing entirely hypothetical or unrealistic scenarios, then all you can demonstrate is that Newton's Laws do not work in those contexts.

Agrippina wrote:He has a video?

John Platko wrote:I'm discussing a real world situation. I'm dropping a golf ball! Now what exactly happens when I let go of the ball. I'm interested in the moment the ball goes from a velocity of 0 to something greater than 0. Does it make a discreet jump in velocity or is the increase in velocity infinitely gradual. It's a simple question. Newton's equations imply infinitely gradual.

newolder wrote:How small can "some discrete" get? How would your measurement of any discrete interval tell you anything about the discreteness of the underlying "time" dimension?