In 1687, newton published the mathematics of natural philosophy, extracting the inertial law sheet as the first law, but it was just a special example of the second law that he himself derived at f=0. How do you calculate an invisible absolute space from a beijing laboratory to a planet of hundreds of millions of light years away? The controversy has been raging for 350 years and remains inconclusive。
Why must the law of inertia be separate
Newton wrote the first law before the second law, which is not redundant. What the first law really wants to do is to establish the physical meaning of the concept of force — power is not the reason for maintaining movement, but the reason for changing the state of motion. There is no external force and the object maintains a flat-speed straight-line movement or static. If this premise is not established, the f=ma-ma end loses the frame of reference, and the second law cannot be discussed。
The challengers often say that f=ma already covers a = 0 f = 0 and that the first rule is superfluous. But the problem is that f=ma is only formed in inertia, and what is inertia is defined by the first law. This is a logical sequence: the boundary of the inertial system is drawn first, and the stage of the second law is carried out. Over this step, the foundations of the entire mechanics system are suspended。
Absolute space is an a priori hypothesis, not an empirical object
Newton's "absolute space" is not a laboratory on earth, it's not a solar heart, it's not a cosmic heart. It is a logical starting point for a priori: to think about any physical problems, to build an empty, undisturbed space in which everything exists and moves. It is not part of the world of experience, it is an intellectual tool for building the scientific system and, strictly speaking, a concept that exists in the mind。
When the general relativism was established, einstein also needed to introduce such a static site into his mind as a stage for the existence of celestial bodies and objects before establishing a system of coordinates, defining substances and field movements. It's a move that is often seen as a natural and ignored act. But newton, from the point of view of theoretical rigour, wrote it explicitly into the public domain for the first time, laying the floor for the next 300 years of physical calculations。
The cosmos are not absolute space
A lot of people turn absolute space into the universe's cylindrical system, thinking that all galaxies go around it. But the coordinates of the cosmos are determined by the weighted position of the entire galaxy, which is defined as "to space." if a few years later observations show that the universe's hysteria itself is accelerating, we have to find another reference system. Absolute space does not vary with any material distribution, and the two are completely different in nature and cannot be equated。
Talking in data: whether the earth's cylindrical system, the solar cylindrical system, or the cosmic cylindrical system, is the point of "measurable" coordinates in experience, and it moves with the matter. Absolute space is an a priori framework that is independent of all external substances and is not distorted by the existence of a black hole and not altered by the dissipation of a nebula. Combining the two amounts to mixing the length of the ruler and the measure of the ruler。
Time and space cannot be materialized
The idea that space and time are dependent on the surrounding material is essentially materializing. It means that there is something that determines the survival of time and space, and that material destruction takes place. But ask: can these things exist before time? There's no room. Where's the point? Where's the line? There's no dotted altimeter. Where does everything start? Logically, time and space must be a prerequisite before everything can be discussed。
Philosophy, whether or not time and space depend on matter depends on where you stand to argue. However, the logical chain of physics is rigid: sometimes it is empty, then the coordinates are constructed, then the coordinates and fields of the substance are defined, and finally motion and evolution are calculated. Time is the stage, not the actor. The stage cannot be left to the actor to decide his or her own life, otherwise physical calculations would be confused from the first step and the theoretical system would not be compatible。
Sameness and inertia are fundamental to universality
A set of time and space for studying physics in beijing must be changed to new york — and that is obviously absurd. The laws of physics are suitable for all things in the universe, and the future has existed in the past and is rooted in the assumption that "absolute space will always be the same and the same." it is this assumption that stands on the planet today to predict the evolution of the universe over billions of years ago and predicts its evolution. Without it, cosmology turns to theology rather than science。
There are two hard tests of this assumption: first, the physical patterns established on earth must be equally correct to move to a planet of hundreds of millions of light-years away; and second, the calculations have reduced the mass of black holes to zero, and all results must go back to the flat minkowski space without any deviation. Both are satisfied and the theory stands. The universality of newton mechanics, relativism and quantum mechanics is, in the final analysis, anchored on both。
From two to two
With this empirical anchor in the universe, we can define inertia, and thus introduce inertia, relativity, equivalence, regulation, in turn, into physics, which is "second in life." with these fundamental physical principles, a vast theoretical system can be built to determine the structure, motion and evolution of all things in the universe. The logical chain is chained in a loop, can't jump, can't mess up。
Finally, everything in the universe is put in the air, using theory to tell its past and its future. Newton placed the law of inertia at the "first law" level, laying the foundations for the entire building: first, standing up a place where you can't move, then moving around, and then building the floors of quantum mechanics, relativity, cosmology. The foundations are weak, all of them are airborne and all calculations are sand towers。
If future observations confirm that the cosmology is actually accelerating, do you think physics should modify the assumption of "absolute space" or modify our measurement of the cosmology? You are welcome to write your judgment in the comment section, and to say a few words of inspiration and share them with friends who are equally curious。
