#1
Well, I'm not in physics at my school, but one might say I "dabble" a bit by myself. Could anybody tell me the difference between Newtonian mechanics and Einsteins Relativity? Also, I believe I read that Einsteins theory is better for large objects, in the magnitude of planets and other large objects; whereas Newtonian / Classic mechanics are better for small particles (photons, atoms, I don't know about quarks or waves?) (Just kidding, I remembered wave equations are for waves) (/parenthesis)
#2
Which relativity theory are you talking about?

Quote by hazzmatazz
youmakemesmile...

Quote by sebastian_96
Today I stole a girls tampons for being such an annoying bitch.





MUFC


My love for you
Is like a truck
Berserker.
#3
yeah, you have absolutely no idea bro... Newtonian physics only works on the large scale, but has no real concept of what gravity actually is and how its influence exerts itself. quantum mechanics works at the small (subatomic level)...
you need to look into this stuff MUCH more if you want to have any understanding... you have NO idea bro
#4
I'm pretty sure Einstein's had something to do with hair

Watch Jimmy Neutron, its pretty much all there.
I want to work in revelations, not just spin silly tales for money.I want to fish as deep down as possible into my own subconscious in the belief that once that far down, everyone will understand because they are the same that far down.
#5
Quote by tremeloud
I'm pretty sure Einstein's had something to do with hair

Watch Jimmy Neutron, its pretty much all there.


And it's awesome.

As to TS's post, I didn't understand any of it.
Quote by alteredstates
If you are rowing down the road in your canoe and your wagon wheel falls off. How many pancakes does it take to make a doghouse?

Green, because a vest has no sleeves.

Can't we all just get a bong?
#6
Quote by tremeloud

Watch Jimmy Neutron, its pretty much all there.


+1.

You need to do a little more research before delving into this sort of stuff. I'm only just scratching the surface right now...
#7
Quote by Travlembo
yeah, you have absolutely no idea bro... Newtonian physics only works on the large scale, but has no real concept of what gravity actually is and how its influence exerts itself. quantum mechanics works at the small (subatomic level)...
you need to look into this stuff MUCH more if you want to have any understanding... you have NO idea bro


Well, BRO, I posted this thread so as to obtain an idea. Bro. I just got my new haircut, and decided to learn some quantum-physics, bro. After this, I'm gonna go shower in Heineken and grind on every piece of pussy that walks through that door, bro.

Quote by Zero-Hartman
Which relativity theory are you talking about?


General Relativity, I suppose.
#8
Quote by GregMisiakk
Well, BRO, I posted this thread so as to obtain an idea. Bro. I just got my new haircut, and decided to learn some quantum-physics, bro. After this, I'm gonna go shower in Heineken and grind on every piece of pussy that walks through that door, bro.

I want to work in revelations, not just spin silly tales for money.I want to fish as deep down as possible into my own subconscious in the belief that once that far down, everyone will understand because they are the same that far down.
#9
Eh, the theory of Relativity doesn't clash so much with Newtons laws as they do with quantum mechanics. That is where the big problem lies.

Every physicist HATES quantum mechanics
WILDCARD, BITCHES!!

Call me Patrick! My username sucks anyway
#10
Nobody is explaining anything! Arghhhhhhh!


So what you're saying, zippidyduda, is that Newtons laws don't actually clash with Einsteins theories?


If I could package the amount of un-sleep I derive from my interest in science, I'd make millions. Seriously.
#11
I read about this yesterday actually

Hang on, I'll read through again.

Edit: I read about Einstein's theories, but it has no mention of Newton, only that it's a wonder that Newton never thought of an expanding universe.

Quote by hazzmatazz
youmakemesmile...

Quote by sebastian_96
Today I stole a girls tampons for being such an annoying bitch.





MUFC


My love for you
Is like a truck
Berserker.
Last edited by Zero-Hartman at Nov 12, 2008,
#12
here you go bro

General relativity is a theory of gravitation developed by Einstein in the years 1907–1915. The development of general relativity began with the equivalence principle, under which the states of accelerated motion and being at rest in a gravitational field (for example when standing on the surface of the Earth) are physically identical. The upshot of this is that free fall is inertial motion: In other words an object in free fall is falling because that is how objects move when there is no force being exerted on them, instead of this being due to the force of gravity as is the case in classical mechanics. This is incompatible with classical mechanics and special relativity because in those theories inertially moving objects cannot accelerate with respect to each other, but objects in free fall do so. To resolve this difficulty Einstein first proposed that spacetime is curved. In 1915, he devised the Einstein field equations which relate the curvature of spacetime with the mass, energy, and momentum within it.

and if you wanted to start learning physics, i would suggest you start off with classical mechanics, then move your way up
Quote by happytimeharry
you're asking UG for advice on what to do with your life? Prepare to have a career as a fluffer in the porn industry...
Last edited by Primate-Primus at Nov 12, 2008,
#13
Quote by GregMisiakk
Nobody is explaining anything! Arghhhhhhh!


So what you're saying, zippidyduda, is that Newtons laws don't actually clash with Einsteins theories?


If I could package the amount of un-sleep I derive from my interest in science, I'd make millions. Seriously.


Newtons laws tells us what gravity does, and Einsteins relativity tells us how it works. Mostly, Einsteins theories back up Newton more than it contradicts him.
WILDCARD, BITCHES!!

Call me Patrick! My username sucks anyway
#14
Both Einsteins and Newtons theories work on both small and large scales I believe. I'm not really sure what you mean since Newton and Einstein were kind of from different periods so I think they really cover different topics. Newton was very focused on classical mechanics where as Einstein focused on energy-matter equivalence and relativity.
Mr. Butlertron are you A handsome B smart C scrap metal or D all of the above
Scangrade thats easy I'm A and B but not C, so it can't be all of the above, but you can't fill in two ovals Nooo!
Mr. Butlertron the answer is C... you fuckwad
#15
Quote by zippidyduda
Every physicist HATES quantum mechanics


Pfft, I love quantum. (Just as long as I'm not handing in homework on it or studying for a midterm.)

To answer the TS's question:

Newtonian Mechanics
Scale most effective on: What humans are used to. On the order of a meter for length.
How good is it?: Not very. What you see in Intro texts comes from an empirical theory, meaning its mostly derived from observation, not first principles. A slightly different field, Analytical Classical Mechanics, is analytically exact, but only good for the length scales mentioned above.

Quantum Mechanics
Scale most effective on: Angstroms and nanometers. Atomic scales.

How good is it?: Really f***ing good. Exact for simple systems. Precise to 14 decimal places, at least.

Relativistic Mechanics
Scale most effective on: Really large, really fast, and really massive.

How good is it?: Also pretty damn good. It's been tested to death for almost a century, too.
#16
Well... I admit I didn't pay much attention in my physics lectures... but I thought the theory of relativity was to do with the effect that distance and velocity has on time relative to an observer. I could be way off with that crazy idea though.
MaKing thE possiBlE...
...totaLlY impossible
#17
relativity is needed for objects moving very close to the speed of light.

Oh god, i took a 2 semester relativity seminar (1 semester on SR, one on GR) a few years ago, it was just way too much math to handle for me at the time (I was still in HS at the time), and after that year of pain, and a final that required me to sit in front of a computer running models on MATLAB for literally close to 7 hours straight, the 29 I scored was still the 3rd highest grade in a class of about 20. apparently I wasn't the only clueless one.

That being said, special relativity is actually pretty simple if you like doing matrices, general relativity literally made me want to kill myself multiple times over, even with the pedestrian undergrad approach I had (I certainly didn't want to inquire any further, I absolutely despise physics)
Last edited by al112987 at Nov 13, 2008,
#18
My professor in college is ****ing Michio Kaku! yeah, the guy on tv and he explained it to us.

Just google newton vs einstein and you'll find something.

BROOOOO!!!
#19
One has something to do with length/time being relative to the viewpoint(i think thats this anyway). They(cant remember who) did an experiment with 2 stopwatches set at exactly the same time, one on the ground and another in a plane which then flew around the world. When the plane landed they didnt show the same time (like a thousandth of a second off)

I think thats what your talking about, not really sure. I wasnt listening properly in class
#20
Quote by zippidyduda
Eh, the theory of Relativity doesn't clash so much with Newtons laws as they do with quantum mechanics. That is where the big problem lies.

Every physicist HATES quantum mechanics

I did high school physics and although I found it fascinating, I hated studying it because it's damn near impossible to get your head around.

Quote by GregMisiakk
Nobody is explaining anything! Arghhhhhhh!


So what you're saying, zippidyduda, is that Newtons laws don't actually clash with Einsteins theories?


If I could package the amount of un-sleep I derive from my interest in science, I'd make millions. Seriously.

Not exactly. It's more quantum physics (Einstein basically) clashing wiht classical physics (everyone else). We're always led to believe that light is a wave with no mass, but in quantum physics, we're led to believe that light is released in discrete "packets" of light called photons (I think) rather than as a continuous thing, and they also behave more as particles.
#21
Quote by GregMisiakk
Well, I'm not in physics at my school, but one might say I "dabble" a bit by myself. Could anybody tell me the difference between Newtonian mechanics and Einsteins Relativity? Also, I believe I read that Einsteins theory is better for large objects, in the magnitude of planets and other large objects; whereas Newtonian / Classic mechanics are better for small particles (photons, atoms, I don't know about quarks or waves?) (Just kidding, I remembered wave equations are for waves) (/parenthesis)


because newton's stuff literally doesn't work anymore the moment you get up to speed comparable to the speed of light
#22
Things are very chaotic at the sub atomic level, which requires quantum physics...Einstein's theories are actually closer to Newtonian physics than to quantum physics. Although they are all different.

Newtonian stuff is good at large scales, such as describing planetary motion or even everyday life, like driving your car.

Relativity is needed to explain the space-time continuum, or how moving affects your point of view and the flow of time itself.

Quantum physics is needed to describe things at very small, sub atomic levels.

PS Newtonian physics does a poor job of describing how energy is actually used/converted/transferred. Quantum physics explains how energy moves at discrete multiples of the least amount possible, or quanta.

A classic example of relativity is, if you were in space and moving with zero acceleration, and you saw another person flying towards you with zero acceleration, then either you could be moving and the other person stationary, or the other person could be moving and you could be stationary, or you both could be moving. But either way, it would look the same to you.
Quote by FrenchyFungus
Hey y'all!!! Me and my friend were over at her house. I we were wonder what guys think when they see a hot girl at the mall or whatever walk by. (We're both pretty as y'all would say "blonde" sometimes).


Quote by rabidguitarist
I just look like some homo.
Last edited by yoshixxx7 at Nov 13, 2008,