Verified answer

"contradiction" and "not applicable in this case." --- I'd second David.

Laws of Relativity hold at all the cases but Newton's laws don't. They of course are very accurate and applicable in real life instancees but when the speed approaches that of light they deviate badly which means Not applicable.

Newtons Law Of Relativity

Actually, newton's laws can never become obsolete . whenever you see anything around you on earth,

you can use the newton's laws. But relativity is a different aspect like Quantum physics. No person on earth can run with a speed even close to the speed of light. At Newton's time, nobody could even think of such things. So Einstein's theory cannot be used in general world. Similarly newton's laws cannot be applied in Einstein's relativity

Special Relativity adds to and corrects Newton for velocities that are a significant fraction of the speed of light. Einstein knew what Newton did not know: the speed of light was constant for all observers regardless of the motion of the observer and the Maxwell Equations that show that the speed of electromagnetic radiation was a constant. Einstein did know that Newton worked and gave correct answers for velocities that were not a significant fraction of the speed of light. So, Einstein made very sure that the results of special relativity did not significantly disagree with Newton in those cases. Special relativity would have been rejected if it disagreed with Newton in those cases.

Newton is good enough for "government work" as in NASA uses Newton to calculate spacecraft paths because SR is not a significant improvement and the computational overhead to calculate using SR is not worth the extra computer time.

Yes, Newton's laws disagree with the laws of relativity. Basically, they predict different things- Newton's laws give one formula for kinetic energy, whereas Einstein's laws give another. The two formulas do not produce the same results, and only one of them can be correct.

The thing to remember is that Newton's laws are basically an approximation to Einstein's laws. For most everyday scenarios, Newton's laws do give more or less the same results as Einstein's. It's only when you get to very high speeds that the two laws begin to disagree.

Newton's laws are not exactly "obsolete" however, and as Wolf pointed out, they are still in use. This is because, again, they are very good approximations for most situations. Einstein's laws are much more complicated, and while they give the correct answer, for most everyday applications the difference is so small that it doesn't matter. For some situations, however, it does- for instance, if you used Newton's laws to plot the orbits of satellites, the results would be wrong, and noticeably so. Einstein's laws get it right.

In short, Einstein's laws indeed override Newton's laws, and his theory is the more fundamentally correct one, however Newton's laws are still quite sufficient, and generally easier to work with, for a lot of applications.

Incidentally, Einstein first came up with his theories when he found a case where Newton's laws didn't work out. Specifically, when investigating certain properties of electrons and their motion, he found that Newton's laws predicted one thing, while the laws of electrodynamics seemed to predict something completely different. Up until that point, scientists had generally assumed that Newton was correct, and our understanding of electromagnetism was incomplete. Einstein instead concluded that electromagnetism was correct, and that our understanding of the laws of motion was incomplete. For a while, nobody believed him, but the evidence eventually bore him out.

None of Einstein's theories refute any of Newton's.

Newton's laws of motion are still in use by everyone for everything from crane operations to NASA/orbital mechanics and other astrodynamics.

Although physics deals with a wide variety of systems, certain theories are used by all physicists. Each of these theories has been experimentally tested numerous times and found correct - as an approximation of nature (within certain parameters). For instance, the theory of classical mechanics accurately describes the motion of objects, provided they are much larger than atoms and moving at much less than the speed of light. Beyond those parameters is where Einstein comes into the picture.

Classical mechanic theories continue to be areas of active research, and a remarkable aspect of them known as chaos was discovered in the 20th century, three centuries after the original formulation of classical mechanics by Newton.

Edit: (excerpt from 2nd link below) "The fundamental laws of astrodynamics are Newton's law of universal gravitation and Newton's laws of motion, while the fundamental mathematical tool is his differential calculus."

3rd link a NASA site explaining (at a high school level) their use of Newton's laws and calculus.

Yes. Relativity proved Newton's theories on gravity obsolete. However, the differences are slight and for most practical uses not noticeable. This is why Newton's theory is still taught and used.

Contradict? No. Made more accurate? Used to. You see, quite previously, something broke the speed of light, and therefore the theory of special relativity has been proven wrong.

No, the specific concept does not violate Newton's 0.33 regulation. "if a spacecraft is, working example, traveling on the value of light" can't happen. demands limitless skill. %. some velocity that merely demands finite skill. The thruster fires, and all observers see the rocket pass swifter. all of them agree on the acceleration, and that all of them agree on the value. The rocket by way of no skill reaches the value of light, and all observers agree on that too. "Why?" because of the fact none of them agree on how long the thruster fired.

The first day of my first Quantum Physics class the professor said:

"You know all those things that you learned in Newtonian Physics?...

Throw them all out the window because they are not applicable in this class."

BIG difference between "contradiction" and "not applicable in this case."