Beaconator said:
Why do the planets sweep out an area under the arc of orbit which is proportional to time of travel?
Because someone equated the area to the time of travel.
Wrong. Tycho Brahe measured the positions of the planets as a function of time to about 3 digits, without drawing any such inference. Kepler studied Brahe's results and discovered "equal areas in equal times" was one of several laws the planets obeyed. The next question was: why? You have to start here to understand Newton. Why is nature doing this? That's the question that confronted him.
Newton's search for the explanation for Kepler's laws has nothing to do with Einstein's research, which began with explaining the invariance of the speed of light to what was at first believed to be a luminiferous aether. That research began before Einstein was born, if we mark the born-on date as the related work of Fitzeau. Einstein was not the first person to speak of reference frames and time and length contraction and dilation, but in many respects he was the final word. Special and general relativity explained this highly counterintuitive behavior of nature.
Got it... Newton searched for what Kepler already found
No, Newton searched for the reasons the planets were obeying Kepler's laws.
and Newtons laws were not considered in Einsteins research.
No. Einstein was not addressing the laws of mechanics explained by Newton. He was addressing the laws of electromagnetics explained by Maxwell, Gauss, Ampere, Faraday and Coulomb, et al, subject to relative motion, as in the work of Fitzeau, Michelson & Morley, et al, as partly explained by Lorentz & Poincare. Einstein completed the explanation they had not quite finished.
My schools must have been piss poor to miss that one.
You would be in the best position to explain what went wrong. But it's never too late to fix it.
I feel like I'm playing some dictionary game where I get to a word like "constitutional" and it tells me "from the constitution". For maybe a couple words. No explanation is perfect, yet the "ideas" formulated from that explanation are carried "foreword" from them are certainly a great statistical influence upon the new tangent of conceptual thought.
The point you missed by going there was
Kepler's laws had nothing to do with relativity, therefore, Newton's explanation, Universal Gravitation, does not account for any relativistic observations.
Zero for this too. Relativity began as research into the nature of light propagation, with no reference to either Newton or probability theory. See Einstein's 1905 paper. Also see the precedent works by Lorentz, Poincare, Michelson & Morley and Fitzeau, and any of the experiments they refer to. Also see Maxwell, Ampere, Gauss, Faraday and Coulomb for their research in electromagnetics that fomented the questions Einstein answered.
Probably a great history lesson for me one day. I shall remember the names I have not heard of.
The point you missed here is that the work of Einstein rests on the shoulders of the people whose work he assembled into one integrated theory (two if you want to quibble), thus explaining completely the contraction and dilation of space and time which Lorentz and Poincare had only partially answered.
Zero. They had no model that explained the invariance of lightspeed in all frames until Lorentz, Poincare and Einstein began to search for the answers, and began to offer explanations.
Advancements and new discoveries coupled with a completely different view is hardly a reason to separate two ideas of the same "Ideology".
So far the only ideology being expressed here is that the progress in physics, from Newton to Einstein, follows some imagined trajectory you have dreamed up, outside of the actual history of events which correctly explains what happened.
Zero. You can't derive the initial force from the acceleration without knowing the mass.
Sure, but you then have to contend with the initial force of mass.
No, my answer was a correction to your prior statement
You can't derive the initial force from the acceleration without knowing the velocity.
Zero. You can't explain Kepler's laws of planetary motion without first deriving Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation.
Did these things become "laws" before or after the death of their idea maker?
They became laws when the Universe was created out of the Big Bang. There is no idea created that has anything to do with the discovery of natural laws, other than the creative minds that invented new instruments and applied them to collect data. The fact that laws are revealed in data is purely objective.
Is the advancements made to their ideas part of their ideology?
No. Advancements to physics are the result of one generation of scientists trying to answer questions handed down from the prior generation. Newton handed down the question of corpuscular light to people like Fitzeau, who discovered light speed was invariant to a moving medium. Maxwell completed the ongoing discoveries of the laws of electromagnetics, compiling them into a concise statement of the four laws we call Maxwell's equations, which more completely explained the wave nature of light. Michelson & Morley took the work of Fitzeau et al to the final stage, proving that Earth was not moving through any such medium, further invalidating the idea that light waves require any medium. Lorentz and Poincare took all of their results and showed that something once thought purely an abstraction (or artificial)--the projection of coordinates onto an observation plane, under rotation--accounted for the contraction and dilation of space and time due to the invariance of light (ie that it was not dependent upon the velocity of a medium). Einstein inherited all of the foregoing and completed the explanation Lorentz and Poincare had partly answered.
Other than saying "this" is not like "that" and giving a general description of obvious differences your doing a terrible job convincing me
You've done a terrible job of interpreting my remarks in the plain English in which I wrote them. My goal was to convince you that you are operating with an insufficient set of facts, something you could remedy by studying the history of physics from Brahe to Kepler to Newton to Fitzeau to Maxwell et al and Michelson-Morley to Poincare and Lorentz arriving at Einstein's 1905 paper. Otherwise you would just have to take my word that these things happened. Either way, that's the road to being convinced of the facts. Otherwise you're stuck being convinced of something else.
to disregard newton's physics in favor of relativity.
No one said anything about disregarding anything. Mechanics and relativity are two different subjects. If I were you I would try to grasp what the scope of each of them is.
Or even begin to try and pick one over the other.
There is no "pick one over the other". Speak to the application. If you want to know your GPS coordinates, the system can provide them, but only because the data from the satellites, which is warped in space and time by their altitudes and velocity vectors, has been corrected by application of the Lorentz rotations as stated by Einstein. But the orbits of those satellites obey Kepler's laws, as further explained by Newton. Whether you "pick" one over the other is a question of whether you "picked" GPS as an engineering design project, or whether you "picked" satellite deployment as your goal. They are different tasks which require the application of different specific laws.
As far as I know, all we are trying to do is to reduce the urban myths about science that are being used to leverage public opinion for the sake of deregulation and Victorian fundamentalism.
That sounds like a cake walk.
Responding to people's opinions about science is often a game, only one that wants to take the fun out of learning.
Only there is one chair so I don't even have to move. You got a list of common myths mixed with the first confusing response?
I've given you a template for learning the physics, from the geocentric theory through relativity. That's more than most folks have given you.
No, to replace ignorance and fear with knowledge and opportunity.
Most people believe that ideology yet even great minds and countries alike have failed to instill moral ideology into practical applications.
I take it you're an undercover . . . fundamentalist Christian? Change "morality" to "ethics" and you have my attention, but not in regard to physics. The only "ethics" of physics is that there are right answers and wrong answers. Kepler answered Brahe correctly, Newton answered Kepler correctly, and Maxwell et al through Einstein answered Newton correctly. The ethos then, lies in understanding and appreciating the truths revealed through this chain of questions and answers. The challenge of an ethical person is to be truthful, which is either to go discover what these Q&As were, or else at least to say "I don't know". The pathos lies in using subterfuge to bury those truths, usually just to prop up superstition, myth legend and fable--usually with the criminal intent of thwarting public policy decisions, ultimately to increase the profits of the wealthiest people on Earth. So what morality are you promoting?
That might be the dream that inspires great thought, yet it is no great thought.
Greatness is a question of contribution. The people who devoted their lives to discoveries that benefit our lives are therefore regarded as great people. In other words, they achieved that highest standard of ethic: they actually did the hard work necessary to discover the truths that most of the population never bothered to research. So, for example, we pay tribute to the greatness in scientists who cured diseases, or who taught subsistence farmers the value of crop rotation, yada yada. But for all of the physics behind the network of equipment that makes this conversation possible, you would have to thank Brahe through Einstein . . . and that's just for starters.
The first principles of physics are clearly explained in great detail, with copious examples and practice problems, in any typical freshman college text in physics.
That tell you what the first principals "are" not what a "first principal IS"
Unless that's a cryptic reference to God, I have no idea what you are referring to. First principals are all the foundations of math and science which lead to the answer of whether a proposition about nature is true or false. The most efficient way to learn them is with a textbook, good instructors, labs, and tons of homework, tests and papers. You can't get anywhere in science without actually studying it and developing the fluency to solve actual problems.
I learn faster walking than sleeping.
You learning science not by walking, but by working. It requires an education.
I also hate learning something I've already heard in a way that is "supposed to be different" when it might not be.
All of that fear and loathing ends up in the back seat as soon as you have 10 minutes to explain Kepler's laws, in order to stay in school, or else lose your place and go back to dishwashing. Kepler's laws might be worth 3 points on your first quiz. There's boatloads more to go before you're even a novice.
