what is the difference between linear and non linear law of physics?
818907
Linear means that the relationship between two variables varies in the same way, except by a constant factor (A) and a constant offset (B).  y = A*x + B\n\nThe volume of water in a tank, and its mass are linearly related.  [m = p*V, where m is the mass, p (rho) is the density of water, which is constant (converted to the units of m and V), and V is the volume of water.  The units of m and V are usually kg and liters, or lbs and ft^3.]\n\nAny other kind of relationship is non-linear, which includes most every process in the real world.  Non-linear relationships usually seem to result from friction/entropy/inefficiency or from forces like magnetic fields, electric fields, or gravity, or well pretty much everything real.
307198
It is linear on intervals, on (- infinite, 0) and on (0, +infinite) but not on the whole R. \n\nTry plotting it, you get a reversed V, not a straight line.
493627
You can refer this book:\n\nDifferential equations : linear, nonlinear, ordinary, parial - A.C. King, J. Billingham, and S.R. Otto.
136568
well, we all assume that time flows in one direction and one thing follows another. Maybe that's just the way we see it. Try to imagine that you were a cartoon, 2D on a page, you have no concept of the 3rd dimension. If we could se everything that had happened at once, time wouldn't be linear but I digress. In effect non-linear time means that one thing would not necessarily come after the other e.g. I wrote this 'before' you asked the question.
962302
You tell an equation is linear if there's a simple relationship between "x" and "y".\n\nIf you can say that "y is 2 lots of x, plus some constant number" or "y is half of x plus some constant number", that's a linear relationship.\n\nNote that the constant number can be 0!\n\nWritten formally, that means y = ax + b, where "a" is the simple relationship and "b" is some constant number.\n\nIf you need to transform "x" in any other way, it's non-linear.
140255
A graph of many rates (rate of reaction, population growth, etc.) produce exponential curves (asymptotic).\nThese are difficult to interpret.\nTo linearise the curve plot log y against x, or log y against log x. The properties of the rate can now easily be established.\nHave a look here (note, second reference is PDF format):
503067
Newton's Laws of Motion:\n\nI. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. \n\nII. The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector.\n\nIII. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. \n\nThe link below explains each one very well.
876548
Newton's Laws of Motion:\n\nI. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.  \n\nII. The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector.  \n\nIII. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
566013
Although merry-go-rounds (normally) do not experience any linear motion, they do experience ANGULAR, or rotational motion. Angular equations are the same set-up as linear equations, except for their variables. Here's a table to help:\nd ==> theta (angle in radians)\nv ==> omega (velocity in radians/second)\na ==> alpha (radians/second^2)\n= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\nThe relationship between linear and angular motion is:\nd = theta*r\nv = omega*r\na = alpha*r\nWhere r is the distance from the center of rotation. (This relationship is not the same for other variables, such as force or momentum)
243096
theace0804:  (i) the second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a closed system will tend to a maximum; (ii) what has non-linear dynamics got to do with anything here?\n\ncurious_chemical: the 2nd law implies that the disorder of a closed system tends to a maximum, not the other way round.  You need to start understanding about closed thermodynamical systems or none of it's going to make any sense.  Ice may be more ordered than water, but during crystallisation heat was radiated into the environment and this becomes more disordered.\n\nNot relevant to the discussion here, but a fantastic mind-mangling thought experiment nonetheless, is Maxwell's Demon.  Feynman gives a nice account of it in his Lectures on Physics (IIRC).\n\nEdit:\nWe do live in a very real closed system, called the universe.  But on a more practical / local level, your thermodynamic arguments regarding order need to be referenced against an approximation of a closed system.  Your arguments regarding ice cubes forming are just bung.  You're making the same mistake as thousands of perpetual motion machine designers, and as a result your arguments are invalid.\n\nAnother Edit: So let me get this straight.  At the big bang, an infinitely large space-time was instantly created for the rest of perpetuity, and this space-time is fixed and absolute?  That's abit 19th Century don't you think?  Also,  if the edge of the universe is expanding outwards at the speed of light, then there exists a causation boundary as the interior cannot causally affect the exterior.  So ... the universe is a closed thermodynamic system.\n\nYour grasp of cosmology is pitiful but your grasp of thermodynamics is even worse.  What you say is in direct conflict with the 1st and 2nd laws, two fairly simple laws.\n\nI don' care if it isn't your "idea to make thermodynamics an issue in evolution".  You made a horribly incorrect remark about thermodynamics.  If your physics is so way off, why should your biology be any better?\n\nYou want to argue biology?  Okay, let's start with "Evolution has always been a case-by-case event".  Wrong.  Evolution is about trends not events.  Our "Our ape ancestors" is wrong; apes and humans have a common ancestor, but we most certainly don't have an "ape ancestor".  How about "Evolution [...] guarantees [...] adaptation."?  Adaptation is never guaranteed, as witnessed by the continual extinction of species.  One could probably argue that becoming more adaptable is an "arrow of progress" for the species concnered.  I know you are trying to argue against popular misconceptions of darwinian thought here, but you're doing it really badly.\n\nAlthough it is assumed by most that the same mechanisms are responsible for both macro- and micro-evolution (gene mixing and mutation), the way they are studied scientifically differ.  As a result, it is specious at best and unscientific at worst to claim that "micro is macro" in such a loud voice.  You also fail to show how the same mechanism does result in two very different phenomenom, that genes between species usually diverge and genes within species usually combine, making it very easy for creationists to pick holes in your arguments.\n\nIn short, you haven't got a clue what you are talking about and are thereby doing scientists a large disservice.
18487
A linear equation looks like a line when it is graphed.  The standard form of the equation is y=mx+b where m is the slope, and b is the value of y at the point where the line crosses the y-axis.\n\nA non-linear equation does not look like a line.  It may look like a curve.  A non-linear equation could possibly be a parabola, a circle, a wave, a hyperbola, etc... but not a line!
418207
Both are important, but the proper ratio of each is the most important.  I haven't had physics for so long...maybe you should also try the physics section so that some smart physicist will sit down and figure it out for you.
1042891
They don't call it a Law for nothing you know.\nWherever you look, you will always see an action-reaction paired up.  Newton's 3rd Law fits nicely in with another law which we know holds true in all cases...the Law of conservation of momentum.
935070
Yes.  It is not strictly linear -- Venus has a far higher pressure than Earth does, even though its gravity is slightly less.  But generally it is true.  When you study Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics, you will learn why.  The chemical composition and temperature of the atmosphere are important factors.
848001
Look up Vector Mechanics for Engineers and Scientists.  This deals with basic Newtonian physics as applied to static structures.\n\nBone up on chemistry.  It is easy to forget your chemistry, and as far as I know you will be required to take a few semesters of basic Chem, even if you are not planning on being a Chem Eng.\n\nDo not lose your Maths either!  Grab a pre-calc or a calculus book and keep practicing.
771447
It is an equation, the result of the equation is the function. The result may be plotted and it would be a linear function. The plot is a function of the form (equation). It is linear only if it works out to a stright line, which this does.\n\n"A linear function of x is a function of the form y = ax + b, where a and b are constants.  It's called a "linear" function because a plot of the x and y coordinates for which this equation is true takes the shape of a straight line"
27041
Newtons law is called the Laws of Motions. There are three laws for it. The first law is known as the  "law of inertia" states that if the forces acting upon an object are balanced, then the acceleration of that object will be 0 m/s/s. Basically if objects are not at equilibrium they do not accelerate, they only accelerate if there is a net or unbalanced force acting upon it. The second law is mainly about the behavior of objects. That all existing forces are not balance. It states thatacceleration of an object is dependent upon two variables - the net force acting upon the object and the mass of the object. The third law is known as " for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction " this basically states that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object. The direction of the force on the first object is opposite to the direction of the force on the second object. Forces always come in pairs - equal and opposite action-reaction force pairs.