No, not quite. You can't think of it in terms of right and wrong- only in utility and predictability with respect to a particular level of observational ability.
When did I said Newton's theory is wrong? I said his theory is horribly flawed, mainly because of his definition of gravity as a mysterious force.
I was responding to you saying Newton's model was
trash.
The "force" of gravity may very well still exist even if Newton's description of it is flawed.
I don't mind if you like to believe something that doesn't exist.
I don't believe in it as Newton describes it. Did I say that I believed in it?
Further, since curvatures in space-time cause accelerations (as objects move through them), and since the Newtonian concept of force is defined as something that could cause an acceleration, one would still not necessarily be wrong in saying "the force of gravity."
Right, which is why Newton's force of gravity is flawed since its proportional only to inertial mass.
But you can still say "force" so long as by force you do not mean mass * acceleration. It is a wording game.
Further, in special relativity the definition Force = the derivative of momentum with respect to time, F = dp/dt still holds, so, because gravitation causes changes in momentum with respect to time, once again you could say "the force of gravity" (but I am told that this time momentum must be defined differently- instead of mass times velocity, p = mv,
it is p = mv/[(1 -v2)/c2](1/2) Some math wrangling changes this into a "four-force," which replaces the Newtonian concept.
What, so you're now trying to mix things up to suit your position?
No, I am saying that Newton wasn't
scrapped with Einstein, it was
modified and exists as a limiting circumstance withing relativity.
Although causes changes in momentum (or anything: acceleration, velocity, mass, etc) with respect to time, gravitation is not a force. The word "cause" is not "is". And F = dp/dt is not even the force of gravity, in terms of Newtonian mechanics. Gravitation, in Newtonian definition, is "action at a distance", basically that formula you put before.
Not sure if GR gravity is defined in some way like this though, but even so, if we use Newton's definition of a force, Einstein's "gravity" still can be called "the force of gravity"- albeit with an * ...
Uh, Einstein defines gravity as the curvature of space-time, not a force. Again, can we be consistent with correct information?
It is a matter of what you mean by the words you use. We cannot
see the curvature of space-time, we can only see that the mathematical model that includes this also matches reality very accurately.
Also, I absolutely disagree that Newton's model is trash. It is still extremely useful for every day calculations and simple physics, and is easier mathematically.
Like I said, Newton's model only works on inertial frames; inertial frames don't apply in the real world.
The effects of GR are often neglible enough to where Newton's model works perfectly fine.
Finally, since Einstein's model cannot be unified with quantum mechanics as is, it can be considered "trash" as well, if you want to hold it to a similar standard.
You might as well say "since quantum mechanics cannot be unified with relativity as is, it can be considered 'trash' as well." It's all about wording.
No, what we can say is that GR is not a complete theory and will be a subset of a larger more encompassing one, and QM is not a complete theory and will be a subset of a larger more encompassing one, but some definitions and ways of understanding both will probably have to be changed... just like what happened with Newton's model.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That entirely depends on your goal. If your goal isn't in the applied sciences (at least in the short term), then this isn't true at all.
Yes, you are correct. If we are doing theoretical physics that Newton's model is pretty much useless.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOU should do some research:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum
notice it says: momentum is the PRODUCT of MASS and VELOCITY.
momentum=mass*velocity.
therefore, a object with zero mass would have zero momentum!
Actually in GR momentum has a different definition.
A good way to see the relation is this:
pc = (E
2 - m
02 c
4)
1/2 also, for extreme relative velocities (where E is much much greater than m
0 c
2 ) you have the relationship of pc ~ E ==> you can see where mass can be zero and the object will still have momentum.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
not really, considering FE'ers understand Einstein better than RE'ers.
One doesn't have to look long to find the logical fallacy of generalization... Now say what you just said in light of the fact that the vast majority of the people who understand Einstein better than anyone (research phsysicist, physics professors, you know, those with physics PhD's and Masters), including Einstein, were/are RE'res... lol