Yes, because it covers more extreme situations like black holes. For the same reason that we don't use The Special Theory of Relativity to build bridges: Newtonian Mechanics is absolutely wrong, but it's approximately right; and the approximation is excellent for big, slow stuff like bridges. Galileo and Newton described the motion of objects with respect to a particular reference frame, which is basically a coordinate system attached to a particular observer. A reference frame in which Newton's Laws hold is called an inertial frame. It is a frame that is not accelerating. Assumptions that Einstein used to develop his General Theory of Relativity: The laws of nature are the same in different frames of reference (where acceleration is taken into consideration). Gravitational mass is equivalent to inertial mass. Since Newtonian physics is also mathematically simple, it remains the standard for calculating the motions of almost all objects from machine parts, fluids, and bullets to spacecraft, planets, and galaxies. Special relativity is the mechanics of objects moving at high velocities, near the speed of light, in contrast to Newtonian mechanics, which deals with velocities found in daily life. In physics, relativity refers to Einstein's theory that time and spaces are not absolute. If you believe there are absolute, correct answers to everything, you probably don't like relativity, which is the opposite of absolutism. Newton never considered time to be a part of physics. It, together with space, formed the stage on which physics performed. When you solved a physics equation, you gave the answer in terms of time and space. Einstein showed that physics affected both time and space. Newtonian physics were three dimensional: width, height and depth, Energy comes in tiny lumps, in packets whereas a single packet is a quantum and Planck's ideas were soon called the "quantum theory." Quanta can behave like particles and quanta can behave like waves.

It's not quite true that relativity and Newtonian theories are the only ones with a full set of assumptions. Many well-established physics theories have underlying assumptions, but they might not be as explicitly laid out as in these foundational theories.

Here's a breakdown:

• Relativity and Newtonian Theories: These are indeed very foundational, and their assumptions are crucial because they establish the framework for how we understand motion and gravity. Making these assumptions clear helps ensure consistency and avoids contradictions.
• Other Physics Theories: Most physics theories build on these foundational ideas. They might add their own specific assumptions relevant to the particular phenomena they describe. For instance, the theory of electromagnetism assumes the existence and properties of electric charge.

Lack of Conceptual Cleanliness?

No, the existence of assumptions doesn't necessarily imply a lack of conceptual cleanliness. It's more about setting the ground rules. Strong theories have clear assumptions because they:

• Improve Understanding: Explicit assumptions make the theory's limitations and domain of applicability transparent.
• Facilitate Testing: By knowing the assumptions, we can design experiments to test the theory's predictions within those boundaries.
• Encourage Refinement: As scientific understanding evolves, foundational assumptions can be refined or replaced by more comprehensive ideas (like relativity superseding Newtonian gravity).

In conclusion, having a well-defined set of assumptions is a sign of a strong and well-understood theory. It allows for clear predictions, testing, and potential future advancements.

Dr Murtadha Shukur thank you for your contribution to the discussion

“Relativity and Newtonian are the only theories in physics with a full assumptions guide. Does it imply lack of conceptual cleanless from rest theori?”

- really that isn’t correct. First of all, all standard theories, of course also, an example, say,, classical electrodynamics, are based on clearly for professional physicists sets of basic primary assumptions, which are established in the theories as the theories postulates.

Though secondly – all postulates in mainstream physics – and in any other nature science, though, are based fundamentally only on experimental data, so really principally cannot be proven; and so really are purely ad hoc interpretations of the data. Postulates are formulated as some verbal assertion, say, energy conservation law, or fundamental equations, say, as Newton Gravity law.

Interpretations so can be either correct or illusory, though in last case can be rather adequate to the reality. Rather typical examples are the SR and GR, which are essentially based on illusory, and really fundamentally wrong, postulates. Say, in SR postulates that there is no absolute Matter’s spacetime and that all/every inertial reference frames are absolutely completely equivalent and legitimate,

- and further so in the postulate that letters x,y,z,t in Lorentz transformations, which are only physicists instrument at description and analysis of what is observed in Matter, relate to all/every points of Matter’s spacetime, and so to the postulated “relativistic properties/effects”, say, “space contraction” and “time dilation” are real,

- what is fundamentally wrong, as that rigorously scientifically proven in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model, 3 main papers are

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367397025_The_Informational_Physical_Model_and_Fundamental_Problems_in_Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force,

- Matter’s spacetime is fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct), which fundamentally cannot be “contracted”, “dilated”, “curved”, etc.

Though, because of these theories are based also on correct postulates, say, in the SR on the extremely mighty Galileo-Poincaré relativity principle, in many cases applications of these theories are adequate to the reality.

However when all/every mainstream physics theories address to any really fundamental problem, applications results are either some transcendent fantastic things [say, that are the properties/effects in the SR or rather numerous “holes in spacetime” in the GR], or the theories are based on really too ad hoc irrational postulates aimed at correct description of some objects/effects/processes in Matter, say, that fundamental Nature forces are mediated by some mystic “virtual particles”; etc.

What are real criteria, for any theory be really scientific in accordance with which, see SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/What-criteria-do-you-have-in-mind-while-characterizing-a-scientific-theory/31 , pages 29, 30, 31

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_illusion_of_knowledge2#view=6625410c5d8030b32501bacb/7/8/7/8/6/5/7/8/8/7/8/7/8/8 . SS posts in, say,

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_can_gravity_and_quantum_coexist_in_the_same_theory/4 are relevant to this discussion now.

Cheers