The chain of events that led to Newton getting bonked by the apple

[RJT]

For those of you who don’t “know” me, it is a given that I am not a Science guy. So, if this question is stupid or if the answer is obvious then let me know.


How do Newton’s laws of motion (particularly his first law – inertia – an object at rest will remain at rest…) relate to Science’s theories of the origin of the Universe?

For example, inertia - does the Big Bang Theory necessitate a “Prime Mover” if Law I is true? For that matter, does any origin (if the Universe did not always exist) necessitate a "Prime Mover" given Law I?

N. B. By Prime Mover I do not mean to assume therefore (a) God.

[madnak]

I don't believe Newton's laws of motion actually apply in the real world. I know many of his mechanics don't. I think Newton's ideas might be best-described as useful and relatively accurate abstractions of various mechanics that aren't actually very stable at all.

I think even the laws of thermodynamics aren't necessarily "laws" depending on your interpretation of quantum mechanics. And I don't believe it's even meaningful to speak of an object "at rest" except with respect to a certain frame of reference. But things like the size, speed, and position of an object seem to be regulated by relative mechanics, and things like energy levels seems to be regulated by quantum mechanics.

I don't know much about the mathematics of any theory, but I think the big bang, in the first place, represents an inductive "point of no return" rather than an actual "beginning of the universe" per se. Also I'd imagine a quantum coincidence could account for it, because quantum coincidence could account for virtually anything in theory. But at its heart, based on what I've heard, physics in the modern world is poorly understood. There are mathematical models that describe "something," but nobody seems to know what that "something" is...

[chezlaw]

I think the parable of the apple was a eureka moment for Newton when he realised that planetary motion and more earthly matters like stuff falling to earth could all be explained by the same rules.

I don't think its the precise nature of the laws that matters, but that there appear to be few of them. Everything (within the universe) can be explained with a few understandable laws of physics is the hope.

chez

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the parable of the apple was a eureka moment for Newton...chez

[/ QUOTE ]


I was trying to be cute with my subject line, for the record. You phrased that nicely and very courteously so as not to make me look like a total idiot (in case I did not know this). Nice touch, chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the parable of the apple was a eureka moment for Newton...chez

[/ QUOTE ]


I was trying to be cute with my subject line, for the record. You phrased that nicely and very courteously so as not to make me look like a total idiot (in case I did not know this). Nice touch, chez

[/ QUOTE ]
No suggestion you are an idiot implied or intended.

Just an introduction to my thought that there is a chain linking newtons 'eureka' and the very idea of scientific theories explaining the universe back to the beginning.

I don't think there's any mileage in the first law implying a prime mover. It just sounds a bit too much like the first cause argument.

chez