Re-Examination of Newton's First Law: Difference between revisions
Remove stray backslash-escaped quotes (\' and \") left by an old import escaping bug |
infobox: unlink bare volume/issue numbers (removes redlinks to numeric titles) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| published = 2008 | | published = 2008 | ||
| journal = [[Proceedings of the NPA]] | | journal = [[Proceedings of the NPA]] | ||
| volume = | | volume = 5 | ||
| number = | | number = 1 | ||
| num_pages = 2 | | num_pages = 2 | ||
| pages = 46-47 | | pages = 46-47 | ||
Latest revision as of 09:18, 21 July 2026
| Scientific Paper | |
|---|---|
| Title | Re-Examination of Newton's First Law |
| Read in full | Link to paper |
| Author(s) | Mitch Emery |
| Keywords | Newton, Motion, Inertia, Gravitation, Equivalence Principle |
| Published | 2008 |
| Journal | Proceedings of the NPA |
| Volume | 5 |
| Number | 1 |
| No. of pages | 2 |
| Pages | 46-47 |
Read the full paper here
Abstract
Trouble with Newton's First Law was found in my original study, but the trouble is not easy to see. In fact, most readers fail to see it. Old ways of thinking stand in their way, and so the purpose of this note is to reexamine Newton's First Law, and to put its trouble in perspective with the state of modern physics.