What is a Creationist?

I'm not sure what you mean. Einstein derived the theory from Maxwell's field equations.

Tidhare Law #1
Every body continues in its state of rest,
or of uniform motion in a straight line,
unless it is compelled to change that state
by forces impressed upon it.This is a result of experiments done before Newton by Galileo in using inclined planes.Galileo found that if he set up inclined planes opposite each other and released a steel ball from certain height up one incline the ball would roll up the other incline to the same height. As he lowered the recieving inclines angle he found that the ball would again travel to the same height even though it had to go farther in order to accomplish this.So the idea was generalized that if the recieving plane had no incline the ball would continue forever trying to reach the height of the opposite incline unless acted upon by outside forces.Of course the ball comes to rest and we go from there to trying to determine what forces,if any, are at work.Have you ever been in an accident in a car? There you will find Newtons first law working quite well.I would go into the other two laws but I am pressed for time as I must go to work.

---

'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.'
(Daniel Patrick Moynihan)

BS. Going on observations, objects in motion tend to come to rest as was noted by Aristotle. Are you saying the observations of Newton were supplanted by Einstein’s THEORY of relativity? Newton’s laws were written well before the laws of electrodynamics and hundreds of years before anyone even knew about radioactivity. How do Newton’s laws ASSUME forces which were unknown in Newton’s time? All magnetic forces are caused by electric charges in motion (At least as far as our understanding goes). Whatever you care to use it for. Please tell me how exactly you would verify or test Newton’s laws. Magnetism explains the APPERENT contradictions in Newton’s laws? It was these REAL contradictions which lead to the theory of relativity. The entire idea of conservation of energy is ad hoc. It is ad hoc when it is derived from and only explains what has been said by old theories.Sincerely
Tidhare

If he could DERIVE it from Maxwell’s field equations it isn’t really a new theory is it?

And if you can’t determine any I guess you’ll just make up a new one.
Sincerely
Tidhare

Newton's laws of motion still hold for electromagentic forces. The laws of gravitation hold separately from that.
(all within non relativisitc conditions)Tidhare is mixing up the laws of motion and theory of gravity. Gravitational theory does not include electromagnetism.If this can be said to make Newton 'wrong' in anyway it is simply a matter of not getting all his basic assumptions correct. One being that there are no other forces acting on the bodies in question. However, that is an easy one to overlook in Newton's time since occurances of either electrical forces or magnetic forces with any magnnitude where not an issue.

---

Common sense isn't

Yes, a new one is "made" up. When there is evidence of another force acting after all other conditions are controlled that becomes a reasonable conclusion.This is the kind of reasoning that has resulted in the dark matter and dark energy hypothoses. What exactly is your point?What is being held constant is the idea that for accelerations to take place a force is necessary. That is, Newton was right.

---

Common sense isn't

You are, of course, kidding. Right?And what would be the point of deciding it is not new?And it has new descriptions of behavior so how would you possible try to think it isn't 'new', what ever that means.

---

Common sense isn't

Tell me, Tidhare, did the Rover get to Mars?

---

Common sense isn't[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-21-2004]

Sorry for contributing to this. This is all waaay off topic.I think tidhare, if you wish to continue the discussion you should open a new topic and copy some of this to it.I;ll open it for you. "Newtons Laws"

---

Common sense isn't[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-21-2004][This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-21-2004]

Then please tell me how Newton’s laws are testable or verifiable. Could you please tell me how you would prove he was wrong.

I meant exactly what I said. It is NOT derivable from a preceding theory.

Any theory that is derivable from preceding theory without adding anything is a part of the preceding theory, not a theory on its own. If you insist on theories being derivable from preceding theories without adding enything, then by your definition there can be no new theories.Special relativity can be completely derived from:1. The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion.2. All uniform motion is relative.3. The behavior of light is correctly described by Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism.4. The speed of light is the same for all observers in uniform motion.#1 is a fundamental if implicit postulate of all physical theories. #2 is from Galilean dynamics. #3 is from Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism. #4 is unique to relativity.Therefore, special relativity is derivable from preceding theories by adding one new postualte.General relativity is derivable from special relativity by adding one more postulate, the equivalence of acceleration and gravity.

Take it out of this thread. I opened one for this topic.You're questions are answered there.

---

What goes? The Nose Knows!

TidhareI want to clear something up that you pointed out before concerning a magnetic force acting upon charges being equal and not opposite.
The answer to the puzzle is this. Positive charges moves perpendicular to the magnetic force in one direction while negative charges move perpedicular to the magnetic field in the oppositwe direction.You can check it out here. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/...netic/forchg.html#c1You also seem to think that science knows why inertia works in the tendency of an object in motion or at rest to remain so. Science has no idea why.Newton merely states what is observed in nature.That we can calculate the effects of a force acting upon an object according to Newtons laws is the evidence that favours the use of its methods.When I used the example of Galileos experiment I was trying to show that if you think about real inclined planes done the way Galileo did it then the obvious result is not that the ball continues on forever but that something is impeding it in order for it to stop which is the observation made.Doubtless he[Newton] was aware of the friction and gravity that made the ball eventually stop.But to generalize it to the point where free of forces the ball would follow the first law is a stroke of genius and behold our generations in space confirming that such events do occur.AnywayI just wanted to see if that clarifies the situation or if there is some further issue you wish to address..

---

'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.'
(Daniel Patrick Moynihan)[This message has been edited by sidelined, 01-22-2004]