Spurious, you're showing yourself to be unscientific and in the process, losing credibility. I'd suggest you retract this comment. Newton's Law of Gravity is a law under every known physics condition on Earth. It is a Law on Earth's physics' principles and constraints. Newton's Law of Gravity was proven not to apply to the entire universe by Einstein's Theory of Relativility. Nevertheless, it is still a Law under Earth's physics.
What is Earth's physics vallich? Would that apply to things in NEO? In that case may I advise the relevant authorities to immediately discard the relativistic and gravitational corrections to GPS clocks as an unecessary burden? Will you then take responsiblity when aircraft start crashing into each other in the sky? And you still can't locate your sense of humour, can you?
Newton's Law of Gravity are perfectly applicable when confined to the Earth's physics. Mendel's Laws are perfectly applicable when confined to simple single gene inherited evolutions, as in his experiments with peas. These are Laws under these conditions of physics. A lot of what we even know today, incorporating Einstein's relativity, are in question when trying to define the physics of our known universe and beyond. We just don't know yet. Theories become Laws when they have been proven to be true and applicable after being peer-reviewed by other scientists under a variety of conditions. This makes for a meaningful and helpful discrepancy between a theory and what then becomes a law, in the scientific methodology sense of the word.
Vallich, I have just explained to you that Newton's Laws are not perfectly applicable when confined to Earth physics. GPS systems - you know, the devices that tell us where we are on the surface of the Earth - will not work unless corrected for relatavistic effects. Muons would not be detected at the surface of the Earth if not for relatavistic effects. The colliders used by physicists to study the behaviour of matter would not function ...........etc, etc.
to kind of elaborate on what I was saying earlier, let me think of a hypothetical example. You're walking along, when you suddenly get transported to another time and another dimension. Everything around you are just green blobs of goo that move in a spiraling motion (all of them move exactly the same) and that you call you call "spirogogs" (lol)... so you look all around you and every single spirogogs you see is a green blob of goo that move in a spiraling motion. so you make a "law" that spirogogs are green blobs of goo that move in a spiraing motion. Then you die of starvation, since you cannot eat spirogogs (you found that out the hard way...), Then, other people are transported and gasp they see that spirogogs can also be purple/orange! is the "law" you made false? I'd say so. You can't just say that your law is true because it is applicable only for the green spirogogs you were observing... that just doesn't make sense. I don't know what it's called or how to explain it very well, but saying that law is right doesn't work because you're only looking at where that law IS right... if you know what I mean... it's kind of in the definition itself...
Interestingly, recent experiments suggest that Newton's Law of Gravity may actually break down at around the micron scale. I won't say anymore though, just a little inside information for your amusement. Also, the notion of scientific law has no real place in the modern scientific discourse. If you like, Newton's Laws are really postulates of a sort or basic definitions that define a theory which is extremely useful for everyday work. This was the way Newton intended them. In particular, he was aware of the inherent inconsistencies in his law of gravity (i.e. action at a distance) but nevertheless realized it could be taken as a useful starting point.
Quite to the contrary, you defamed my character by suggesting that I am being silly: "Sure they are applicable in particular cases. can we now be silly and tell valich that Newtons laws aren't all laws either?" I said, Newton's Law of Gravity is applicable on the physics on Earth, and you say I am silly. That's defamation of character! Have I ever defamed you like this? No! I give you respect! And then you post it in big bright red letters. An indication of a violent attitide towards another. "argumentum ad hominem" Explain how.
I think that was one of the Huxleys who said that trains don't need a "force locomotiff", I plainly agree
