The biggest Newton mistake

 Isaac Newton is arguably one of the greatest scientist who ever lived. To suggest he made a "mistake" seems almost sacrilegious. But he did make one. And it wasn't a small calculation error. It was a fundamental misinterpretation of reality that held physics back for over two hundred years.

The irony of Newton’s legacy is this: he gave us the exact tools required to understand that gravity is an illusion, but he was so deep inside the illusion himself that he couldn't see it.
 

The ghost forces
To understand Newton's mistake, we first need to understand one of his most brilliant insights: the difference between a "true" frame of reference and an accelerating one. Newton established that if you are in a "distinguished frame" (what we now call an inertial frame)—like floating smoothly in deep space—the laws of physics are simple. Objects move in straight lines at a constant speed unless pushed.

But if your frame is accelerating, things get weird. "Ghost forces" start to appear.

Imagine you are sitting in a car and the driver suddenly slams on the brakes. You feel a violent force throw you forward toward the dashboard. Is there an actual, physical rope pulling your chest toward the windshield? Of course not. That force isn't "real." It is an artificial force that only appears because the car is stopping, and your body wants to keep going. The frame is changing, and you feel it as a fake force.

Newton understood this perfectly. He knew that if you see strange forces arising out of nowhere, it’s a sign that *you* are moving unnaturally.
 

The apple and the irony
Here is where the history turns ironic. Supposedly, Newton sat under his apple tree. He feels solid ground beneath him. He is stationary. To his mind, sitting on the surface of the Earth is the ultimate "distinguished," stationary frame. He sees an apple disconnect from the tree and accelerate downward.

Newton applies his own logic: I am still. The apple is accelerating. Therefore, a real force must be acting on the apple. He named that force Gravity. For centuries, nobody questioned this. Gravity was a mysterious, invisible tether pulling everything toward the center of the Earth.

Einstein flips the script
It took 200 years for Albert Einstein to notice the flaw in Newton's premise. Einstein had what he called the "happiest thought of my life." He realized that if you were to fall off the roof (do not try this), you wouldn't feel gravity pulling you. You would feel weightless. If you closed your eyes while falling, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between falling here on Earth or floating in the deepest void between galaxies.

Einstein realized Newton had it precisely backward.

- "The falling frame" is the natural, inertial frame.

- "Standing on the ground" is the unnatural, accelerated frame.

The moment your feet hit the floor, the Earth stops you from following your natural, weightless path. The ground is physically pushing you upwards, every second of every day.

The Spinning Wheel
The irony is staggering. Newton defined an artificial force as something that appears only when your frame of reference is accelerating. Because he incorrectly assumed standing on Earth was "still," he invented the most famous false force of all times: gravity.

Newton is like a person born and raised on a giant, fast-spinning merry-go-round, who has never known what it is like to stand on stable ground. This person feels a constant, mysterious pull toward the outside edge of the wheel. They invent a name for it: "Centrifugal Force." They write complex mathematical laws defining how this "force" dictates life on the wheel. They build their entire reality around fighting this force.

They are completely unaware that Centrifugal Force isn't real. It's just an artificial byproduct of spinning.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

About the definition of angle, from Geometric Algebra

Image
In GA, bivectors represent  2-dimensional directions. Any simple bivector can be written as \[ \theta e_1e_2 \] with \(\theta \in \mathbb{R}\) and \(\{e_i\}\) unitary and orthogonal vectors. The unitary vectors specify the 2- direction itself, and \(\theta\) is the size (analogous to the length of a vector, that is a 1-dimensional direction). Given two vectors \(a\) and \(b\) (that we take to be unitary, wlog) we say that the simple bivector \(\theta e_1e_2\) is the angle formed by them if \[ ab=e^{\theta e_1 e_2} \] where we take as a definition \[ e^A=1+A+A^2 /2+\cdots=\lim_N (1+\frac{A}{N})^N \] Real analysis let us assure that this expression is well defined when \(A\) is a 2-blade. In fact, since \(e_1e_2e_1e_2=-1\), we can write \[ e^{\theta e_1 e_2}=cos(\theta)+e_1 e_2sin(\theta) \] where \(cos\) and \(sin\) are defined by their power series. Oserve that \(b=a e^{\theta e_1 e_2}\) and then \[ b=a(cos(\theta)+e_1 e_2sin(\theta))=a\cdot cos(\theta)+ ae_1e_2 \cdot sin(\theta...
Read more

Spherical, hyperbolic and parabolic geometry

Image
Let's consider the space \(\mathbb{M}^4\), that is, the manifold \(\mathbb{R}^4\) with coordinates \((x,y,z,t)\) but with the pseudo-Riemannian metric given in each tangent space by \[ ds^2=dx^2+dy^2+dz^2-dt^2. \] This metric is left invariant by the group \(O(3,1)\) when acting on \(\mathbb{M}^4\). It also leaves invariant the cone \[ t^2-x^2-y^2-z^2=0 \] so is logical that we pay attention to it. Now, following TRTR from Penrose page 423, we can consider the family of hyperplanes inside \(\mathbb{M}^4\) given by \[ z+t+\lambda(t-z)=2 \] intersecting our cone in different 2-dimensional submanifolds \(P_{\lambda}\) of \(\mathbb{M}^4\). Here we have a picture from that book, where we consider only \((x,z,t)\) for purposes of drawability. If we analyse the case \(\lambda=0\), we observe that we obtain the submanifold \(P_0\), \(E\) in the picture with a shape of a parabola, given by the embedding \begin{align*}   \phi \colon \mathbb{R}^2 &\longrightarrow \mathbb{M}^4\\   (u_...
Read more

PhD Thesis Acknowledgement

Image
In April 2024 I defended my PhD Thesis, entitled: New methods for the integration of distributions of vector fields .  I want to share here the acknowledgement section: In reflecting upon the journey that led to the completion of this thesis, a famous phrase attributed to Isaac Newton comes to mind: "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants". However, in my own judgement, this statement might be more accurately extended to include not only giants: "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants - and ants ". Let me explain. The lesser-acknowledged, yet equally vital, contributions of numerous individuals have been the foundation upon which the academic progress has been built. These ants , often unnamed and unrecognized, are akin to the countless mathematicians whose quiet yet essential contributions have paved the way for larger discoveries. We can think of this using the analogy of the evaporation of a liquid, whe...
Read more