Museum of the science of future
Philosophy of evolution, history and life
Newton’s three laws in 1687 are the principles upon which classic dynamics or the study of movement is based: first law or Law of Inertia, second law or Law of Force and Newton’s third law or Law of Action and Reaction.
Newton’s laws in 1687, first law or Law of Inertia, second law or Law of Force and Newton’s third law or Law of Action and Reaction, are the laws upon which classic dynamics or study of movement are based in relation to their causes.
Actually, Newton’s Physics provided the causes for being at rest more than those for motion. I don’t know if Newton liked to ski and eliminate friction much, but what he needed were forces that counteract the omnipresent force of gravity in order to explain why an object remained at rest.
Wikipedia points out that while, according to the ancient Physics of the Greeks, the natural state of bodies was to be at rest, for Modern Physics, it is conserving the state of movement that they are in if the causes for being at rest, such as friction, are eliminated.
If Newton’s Laws developed the dynamics of being at rest, the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, both of which were around the beginning of the last century, have developed the kinematics of movement. That is, they are scientific theories that describe movement but not the causes for it, just its mathematical representation.
Einstein’s General Relativity tries to add some causes, such as the geometric effect of the space-time continuum, but it is still a mathematical explanation, always biased and with many odd singularities.
As far as Quantum Mechanics, which is incompatible with the aforementioned, it does not even attempt to explain the causes for motion. Quantum Mechanics is so abstract that some of its lines of argument end up stating that reality does not exist and that mass or matter are made of emerging waves, or something of the sort. So much kinematics or science without the support of physics causes is obviously closer to a type of mathematical philosophy than mechanistic Physics of Newton’s laws.
Nor has Modern Physics managed to explain the causes for what are called fictitious forces of gravity, in spite of Newton’s express wishes; but it has allowed reaching the conclusion of vibrating Physics by determining that the natural state of things is to be vibrating.
The String Theory makes an attempt to explain this state of vibration but from an entirely mathematical, relativistic, and quantum perspective, and with physics dimensions that have magical powers.
Lastly, the development of Global Mechanics provides us with the reticular structure of gravity (globine) and the composition of elementary particles, mass, and normal matter. The composition of matter in the broad sense (globine) has given way not only to establishing the atractis causa for gravitational force and electromagnetism, as well as the unification of both forces, but also the distinction between movement due to these real forces of the gravito-magnetic field, and movement due to the displacement of the reticular structure itself, or globine.
From the abovementioned, we can gather that in order to thoroughly understand the changes to Newton’s laws proposed by the Theory of Global Equivalence it is recommended to read the free online book, Global Mechanics. In other words, the attempt is to understand physics principles and the properties globine has regarding motion and acceleration, which support the Global Equivalence Principle, or the gravity-energy-mass equivalence.
Perhaps the example of the piano of my friend Gema can help explain, in broad strokes, the different perspective of the theories involved:
Intuitive example of Gema’s piano.
First of all, we have Newton’s Laws that describe movement on the flat part of the surface of the piano. The big advance in Classical Physics in relation to the Greeks is proposing that a piano on an icy surface will make it so that the bodies remain in their state of rest or motion due to lack of friction.
Later, we have Relativistic Mechanics which denies the existence of the poor frozen piano, and the differences between the anticipated movement and the observed movement are adjusted in making the abstract piano surface stretch or shrink in another dimension, which, by the way, would be quite strange. Time, besides being the additional dimension that was mentioned, also does something similar but, in this case, with itself.
A rather different perspective is that of Quantum Mechanics, which analyzes the motion of an atom of the abstract piano by imposing a limit to what is known about it; given that there is enormous uncertainty regarding what it is made of and why it moves.
A more modern unifying focus would be that of the String Theory that would add music to the scene by allowing the small strings of the piano to vibrate in nine or more dimensions with their corresponding stretching, dances or magical powers.
Other quantum theories suggest there are many parallel worlds or trips back in time in their eagerness to unify physics forces. It is a strange way to unify them by creating additional worlds.
The Theory of Global Equivalence and its Global Dynamics try to understand motion on top of a piano of ice in a pool of water, ripples in the trajectory of the objects due to the vibration of the piano by the pool being on the rooftop of a very tall metallic building, the joint dynamics of the objects on top of the piano and the same floating piano. Lastly, it aspires to understand the variations in all the previous movements caused by the changes in temperature and saline concentration, including changes in the physical state of normal matter.
The new physics paradigm includes, on one hand, returning to Euclidean space and to absolute time and, on the other hand, defining different types of movement according to whether they refer to the dynamics of the reticular structure of gravity or motion upon this structure due to globine being a means of support for energy and mass with their respective peculiarities.
Likewise, Global Mechanics provides us with the clues for new types of energy as far as the aspect of their material support, or rather, reticular support.
The relationship of the new theory with Classical Physics of Newton's Laws and Modern Physics could be condensed into the following points:
Along general lines, the physics model associated with the change of the current paradigm of Modern Physics is a more in-depth model of Newton's Laws in terms of a greater definition of its scope of application and its clarifications, corrections or developments of the corresponding laws and physics principles.
As regards Einstein's Theory of Relativity, it only supports the concept of relativistic mass or mass-energy equivalence, yet with the necessary conceptual precisions. The relativity of time and space in Relativistic Mechanics is considered altogether wrong.
In Quantum Mechanics, a large part of the description of physics reality is allowed, not like with the concepts related to it. Nonetheless, it is worth pointing out that this discipline is mostly descriptive and with functional or mathematical principles that are no longer necessary once they are replaced by characteristics or properties of matter (globine) and, to a lesser extent, by physics principles in the alternate model.
Given the enormous importance of the historical evolution of this topic, I am going to present each one of Newton's three Laws of Dynamics in the following sections in order to make it clear how convenient it is to update the Laws of Dynamics to the current development of Physics, especially the new paradigm that Global Physics proposes.
Thanks very much for your visit,
your comments, wikitos