Welcome to CHROMIUM's very own blog!

Newton's Laws of Motion

Well guys nisha asked me if we can put ideas about any topic so the answer is YES!
So i am putting my theory about Newton laws of motion. I strongly disagree with thrice the laws of motion. why? i got proof.
I changed my ideology back in 2000 when I was in F.Sc and i had to stay quiet as there was no support and everyone was on opposition. Unfortunately i lost my pages where I worked to prove this theory wrong.
Another person from Punjab University, Lahore, Pakistan (i don’t remember the name of that great guy) disproved the same theory through vector method (i hope you all know that once a theory is disproved by vector method… its really means something)

He had the same response…”No Support!!!”

I will try to work on it once again and will try to put it here. I might be wrong, i am not a Scientist or Physicist but let me say it…

anyone among you who agrees with me? i wont ask for proof guys. Just say what you wanna say. You can always start as “I think that…”

<This was originally posted on orkut here.>

This post was viewed (8) times.

13 thoughts on “Newton's Laws of Motion
  • rigor mortis says:

    whats the theory ? lets have it..

  • kamran.khan says:

    Ok guys so you find this topic interesting!!
    Well as I have lost the whole of my numeric work to disprove it, i will need to work on it again.
    For the moment i can tell you how i disproved it on my own. I took Newton’s own derived formulas and integrated them. they finally came up with an un-equalibrium; means where A = A was false.

    Getting me?

    Thrice the laws of motion are lieing in one soul. i mean if we disprove one then thrice will be proved wrong.

    In general we had been saying:
    F = m x a

    Consider this formula for 1st law:
    A body in motion will stay in motion until and unless acted upon by some external force (am i right? its been 6 years since i last read this law somewhere )

    So my main concern is to first prove that a body can change its state of energy. meaning? means if a body is at some height then its having some potential energy.

    So when kinetic energy can be transformed to potential energy so potential energy can be transformed into kinetic. if this is true, then a body can move from rest position.

    K.E = X
    P.E = X

    K.E = Y (the same Y as in above statement)
    P.E = X

    what do u say? I am in office so rest will be discussed later. Till then let me recall hat i did.

  • rigor mortis says:


    a body only has potential energy in the gravitaional field (of the earth in this case) and this field applies a force to the body. If the body is susepended any distance above the earths surfsce, yes it has potential energy and yes it will be converted to KE. but that conversion is only taking place due to the earths attraction to the body (and vice versa)

    if you take an obeject in zero grav… (deep space if you may) then if its suspended there, it has no potential energy. it will continue to be suspended there unless acted apon by another foce. and if its moving, it will continue moving until acted apon by another force.


  • rigor mortis says:

    neither newtons or einstiens laws are accurate for all occourances.

    theyr just convienent to use as the errors are very miniscule…

  • kamran.khan says:

    thanx for the reply harris..
    but dont u think newton’s theory is all based on space? this is a major assumption which should be considered again?

    In other words thrice the laws have no application in real world.

  • Harris Rashid says:

    The Theories
    I strongly disagree your opinion…
    Just take any example of light bodies for Einstein theory and example of heavy bodies for Newton theories…

    You will see .. both are correct and thus hv no ambiguity

  • Harris Rashid says:

    No… Absolutely not…
    Just have a look on ur above eXample…
    You’ll get your answer…

  • Jeevan P .V says:

    @Jasir: As far as I know, there is no point in the known universe where the gravitational field can be absolutely zero. So an object anywhere in the known universe will have some potential energy.
    Again, as far as I know, there is no object in the universe which is at absolute rest (except, possibly, the center of the universe if there is one). So every object in the known universe will have some potential energy.

    @Kamran: A body at rest will stay at rest and a body in motion will stay in motion, until and unless acted upon by some external force.
    When the potential energy in a body is converted to kinetic energy, there has to be some external force involved. This could be as small as a photon or a neutrino (or the elusive graviton) hitting the object. So the body moves from rest position only with some external force, and Newton’s first law is satisfied.

    Still, these are only my opinions and I’d still like to see Kamran’s notes and would welcome any comment.

  • kamran.khan says:

    comeon guys… you are all so much influenced by his theory. have out of the box theory. lets assume this theory is not there and now think of your own opinion. comeon guys you are so much into his theory. all of you are repeating the same concept. i want something out of the box.

    anyway you all get 100/100 for what you rote.

  • kamran.khan says:

    Sir.. at this level? well i am BSCS and working as SQA Engineer in AXIM. This might sound a little to you but.. dont i have the right to think? this community means to provide an opportunity to “say whatever you want”
    so let me say… may I?

    and as i said, when i was driving through his equations, i came at a point where A = A was false. (this is equilibrium property) the most basic property of real numbers ever.

    I showed it to my professor who just got retired those days and had over 30 years of teaching experience. He was somewhat agreeing to my work (not theory)

    i am open for criticism though.

    You know a great scientist/mathematician who introduced the concept of “Functions” ? he wrote many books and proposed soooo many theories. he dies when he was 18 years old. and it is said that nearly half of the mathematics field is his contribution.

    so this made me feel… i might be something. Lets make use of ourselves. feel free to say anything.

  • Gerda Castaldo says:

    Thanks a lot for giving everyone remarkably nice possiblity to read in detail from this blog. It is often so excellent plus packed with a good time for me and my office peers to search your site minimum 3 times weekly to study the latest tips you will have. Not to mention, I’m at all times fulfilled concerning the incredible creative concepts you give. Selected 1 facts in this article are in fact the simplest I’ve ever had.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *