remarkably he was right, it was the cause of orbit and i will explain this using his first law

Explaining how that is responsible for orbits:

Since we now know that an object in motion will always remain so in one direction unless acted by another force, this was the initial condition of the celestial objects.

Moon for example would float directly in a straight line at a constant velocity in the vacuum of space until it comes within the earth's gravitational reach (external force)

So since matter attracts matter (gravity) the earth is attracting the moon towards it but the moon also is travelling straight.

so it has to obey both forces, its initial direction and the second force (earth's gravitational attraction). with both forces at a conflict of supremacy on which direction the moon is to take, the moon takes the part between both forces thus obey both at the same time.

and an orbit is born, it is both falling towards earth and going in a straight path interpreted in a circular motion.

RobinHez:
Lol, johny don turn lecturer

Nice. Piece though...






Anyone know where I can get "for the Love of physics" by Walter lewin? :

johnydon22:
Here sums up our lesson on motion, i apologize for the length and we are open to questions and other submissions that will improve the quality of information passed and knowledge gained.

SirWere:
Ha!! Ironically, Newton's law of motion was one of my first love in Physics.



This is lovely

LoJ:
How many crush have you had since then?

LoJ:

Nice one. Bring it on sir.

The story of the apple of newton is very interesting. It is awesome to see how much progress can be made from a simple observation and some curiosity. At the end of the day, that's what Science is all about: being curious to know how things work... And refuse to fill the gap of what we don't know yet with superstition myth and religious beliefs.

Waiting for the next installment.

Cc. Teempakguy.

johnydon22:


Ironically Newton did just that when he got to the peak of his knowledge just as Ptolemy did.

Ptolemy a brilliant Natural Philosopher (scientist) of Hellenistic era when faced with the motions of celestial objects avowed

" I know that i am mortal by nature, and ephemeral; but when I trace, at my pleasure, the windings to and fro of the heavenly bodies, I no longer touch Earth with my feet: I stand in the presence of Zeus himself and take my fill of ambrosia."

Ptolemy filled the gap left by the mysteries of planetary motions with superstition and his religious belief (Hellenistic) and invoked GOD (zeus) to explain the mechanisms of planetary motions.

Our dear Isaac Newton also after watching the sky, got to the limit of his knowledge. The stability of the solar orbits. The known 6 planets and 9 moons of that time, he could see precision and he couldn't go further so he invoked superstition and his religion (Christianity)

" This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.

And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems:

and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another.”

You see just like Ptolemy filled the gap of his ignorance with his own Hellenistic beliefs, Newton figured out how they worked unlike Ptolemy.

But then as Newton goes he couldn't figure out their stability, he couldn't conceived the natural mechanics behind it so just like Ptolemy, Newton employed his beliefs.

and then A century later, the French astronomer and mathematician Pierre-Simon de Laplace confronted Newton's dilemma of unstable orbits head-on.

Rather than view the mysterious stability of the solar system as the unknowable work of God, Laplace declared it a scientific challenge.

In his multipart masterpiece, Mécanique Céleste, the first volume of which appeared in 1798, Laplace demonstrates that the solar system is stable over periods of time longer than Newton could predict.

To do so, Laplace pioneered a new kind of mathematics called perturbation theory, which enabled him to examine the cumulative effects of many small forces.

when Laplace gave a copy of Mécanique Céleste to his physics-literate friend Napoleon Bonaparte, Napoleon asked him what role God played in the
construction and regulation of the heavens.

"Sire," Laplace replied, "I have no need of that hypothesis."

You see? both Newton and Ptolemy made that blunder by invoking belief where they lack knowledge.

But Laplace figured it out and then the "God" Newton and Ptolemy used to explain both celestial motion and stability became irrelevant and bogus and unneeded and was thrown out of the equation.

I always tell people this, do not bring your beliefs into scientific deductions. If you are only going to hide your beliefs behind the curtain of scientific ignorance like what people are doing now.

Nobody is now saying God(s) moulded the earth

cus that has been answered

the mantra is now "what came before the big bang or what caused it? if you don't know then God(s) did"

Geofavor:

mhen, you need to come live in my area where there are about ten churches in the same street. The bolded is chorused morning, day and night.


the bigbang doesn't seem legit, though. Living organisms couldn't have possibly emerged from an explosion.

CltrAltDelicious:

The bigbang is no really an explosion, it an expansion

Geofavor:

mhen, you need to come live in my area where there are about ten churches in the same street. The bolded is chorused morning, day and night.


the bigbang doesn't seem legit, though. Living organisms couldn't have possibly emerged from an explosion.

SirWere:
Bro............. Where the hell did the Big bang theory say that

Geofavor:

mhen, you need to come live in my area where there are about ten churches in the same street. The bolded is chorused morning, day and night.

the bigbang doesn't seem legit, though. Living organisms couldn't have possibly emerged from an explosion.

Geofavor:

It still doesn't make sense to me. That's one scientific theory I refuse to agree on. I haven't really delved into it, though (maybe because I'm not intrigued by the Idea). I don't really like the Idea that living matter came out of a mass of energy and non-living matter.

RobinHez:
Lol, johny don turn lecturer

Nice. Piece though...






Anyone know where I can get "for the Love of physics" by Walter lewin? :

mrphysics:


I have the video, you can get it by going to ocw.mit.edu go to physic department, undergraduate section then you will see it. I don't know how to transfer it sir.

Jonnydon, you have really done a nice work, anyone can understand it.

johnydon22:




Hahahaha the Big Bang theory first of all is not an explanation of the emergence of living organisms.

- it is not an explosion but a rapid expansion of matter from a point of infinite density and matter.

- Scientific thesis for emergence of organisms is called Abiogenesis that states with the right condition e.g Right sunlight, water, rock, right conditions and presence of the right elements e.g Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen life can emerge from such complex organic situation.

Oxytocin:
Nice piece of work here,still have a lot to learn..
Physics is life mehn




Can anyone recommend a book on astrophysics

Geofavor:
mhen, that's my own understanding of it, for now.

Geofavor:

my oga at the top. How are things going?

Oxytocin:

Lol.. Things are going well
Still prep..ing for the upcoming exams ... I'm not all into it yet, tho..
And you... how have you been holding up! ??

Geofavor:

I see you're taking your time to savour knowledge.

I had a lil bit of necessary distractions, but preparation's still on going slow and steady here, too.