Um, no. Not at all. Newton’s Laws work perfectly in all non-relativistic cases. What Einstein did was fix the relativistic errors that other scientists (not Newton) were making.but like Newton’s 3 laws of motion these “laws” are made to broken. (they were disproved by Einstein)
by the definition as a law of nature they are supposed to apply to all situations because that what is implied when you say a law of nature. so Newtonian physics while it is still relevant and helpful isn’t a law of nature as we once thought it was. thus disproving Newtonian physics as laws of nature.Um, no. Not at all. Newton’s Laws work perfectly in all non-relativistic cases. What Einstein did was fix the relativistic errors that other scientists (not Newton) were making.
If you mean that it applies to all situations, then you must readily admit the absurd position that physics as a whole is not a law of nature as it is proven wrong by each of the three regimes: quantum, classical, & relativistic.by the definition as a law of nature they are supposed to apply to all situations because that what is implied when you say a law of nature. so Newtonian physics while it is still relevant and helpful isn’t a law of nature as we once thought it was. thus disproving Newtonian physics as laws of nature.
and whether or not you agree with me on Newton, all of science is dependent upon the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
you say that “Einsteinian physics is a set of laws of nature for relativistic particles and/or cosmological objects.” before Einsteinian physics what was used to calculate everything associated to “cosmological objects?”If you mean that it applies to all situations, then you must readily admit the absurd position that physics as a whole is not a law of nature as it is proven wrong by each of the three regimes: quantum, classical, & relativistic.
In reality (i.e., everyone’s but yours), we have that:
Newtonian physics is a set of laws of nature for non-relativistic, massive particles.
Quantum physics is a set of laws of nature for infinitesimal particles.
Einsteinian physics is a set of laws of nature for relativistic particles and/or cosmological objects
Before Einstein? Nothing. No mathematical tool was discovered that could readily be applied to cosmological objects. I think your confusion is with the term “cosmological objects.” I am not intending planets & solar systems to be described by this term; I am intending the large-scale structure of the universe to be described by this term. Before Einstein had discovered GR, no one could even begin to describe such larger systems.you say that “Einsteinian physics is a set of laws of nature for relativistic particles and/or cosmological objects.” before Einsteinian physics what was used to calculate everything associated to “cosmological objects?”
Newtonian physics was instigated by Kepler’s 3 laws. Thus, it initially pertained to celestial orbs, not cosmology. Newton and others later discovered that the Newtonian framework worked very well on earth & so-so in the celestial range.So while you may be correct in you statements about the 3 types of physics now. You are incorrect about how things worked in the past. More specifically what Newtonian physics was used for.
I completely agree with you that science can only disprove theories, not prove them. In fact, I never argued against that point. I only tried correcting your near-complete ignorance of Einsteinian and Newtonian physics & the differences therein.this is really what i was getting at at the beginning before you posted Alberti_Devoveo. on your profile you state that you are a philosophy and physics student. i’m assuming that you are in school for physics not philosophy. (i could be wrong) one of the biggest things that people poke fun at Kant for is how he stated that we could be “certain” of different things one of the things that he claimed that we can know for certain was that Newton’s 3rd law of motion. this law in certain circumstances does not work thus proving Kant wrong, and helping me illustrate my epistemological point on how science is based on a logical fallacy know as affirming the consequent. (even though it does not need an illustration i thought that one might be helpful to express my point. apparently i was wrong) whether kant is wrong or not, science is still predicated upon a logical fallacy. that is unarguable!