Is Newtonian Mechanics an advantage or a limitation in astrophysics?

[Mike C]

What geocentric theory? Lemaitre's solution to Einstein's field equations is not at all geocentric. Or are you saying that without GR Hubble's law implies geocentricism. How would that help your case? I'm not sure what you are saying here.

 

What observation would satisfy you that there is more to gravity than Newton's law? Would gravitational time dilation do it?

 

-modest

 

I thought I would be banned but it did not happen. An infraction Craig imposed on my opinion about nuclear research.

 

I said Lemaitrae came up with the idea of the space expanding and subsequently, the universe expanding.

I think that Slipher was the first one to start the redshift observations.

So Lemaitrae was probably aware of these observations to come up with his idea of an expanding space.

Einstein did not predict an ‘expanding space’. Remember his remark commenting his blunder of a static universe that he thought would collapse.

 

Yes, Hubbles Law implies an expanding space/matter universe. Since this universe is expanding equally from our point of view all around us, the implication is obvious.

That is why Lemaitraes (A PhD priest) idea was accepted

 

The Expansion of the Light Waves creates the same illusion.

 

Mike C

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi All,

I’m back from my travels and recovered from English bronchitis. Thank you all for your contributions to this thread while I was absent. Here is a rather lengthy update of some salient points that may require further discussion. Since the last summary, some important issues have been discussed, and the following suggestions and remarks mark our progress:

1.

Hilton said: I feel it would be useful first to give a down-at-the-farm set of definitions.

Astronomy is the pursuit of knowledge of celestial objects by means of observation. Astrophysics attempts to explain what the astronomers see using physical science. Cosmology addresses the philosophical aspects inherent in and emerging from astronomy and astrophysics; it seeks to discover the origin, destiny, and “equation of state” of the Universe.

The question we wish to answer here: “Is Newtonian Mechanics an advantage or a limitation in astrophysics.” Without diverting this thread to a rigorous criticism of either NM or Relativity, I would like to know if one system is preferable to the other in applied astrophysics. The problem, it seems to me, is that for all the lip-service that Einstein pays to the blessedness of empirical science, he did not practice it. Newton’s method, resting upon the geometry of Euclid, was to describe effects, and only postulate a cause if it was comprised of a previously described effect. He thus dealt with what he knew and measured. Einstein’s method, resting upon the geometrical iniquities of Gauss, was to postulate a cause framed as a conceptual, imaginary pattern, and then suggest that it be empirically verified. He thus dealt primarily with mathematical concepts unrestrained by reality checks.

2.

CC said: You write: "GR explains gravitational lensing within the limitations of a Big Bang Universe." What do you mean by that sentence?

Hilton said: The point I was trying to make is that using GR to put numbers to GL, the background source object is far closer than the distance obtained with NM, and therefore appears not to violate the distance (time) constraints of BBT. I know that time and distance are adjustable parameters in BBT, and that there is a great deal of latitude allowed in the "diameter" of the observed universe, but there is still a constraint on the time taken for the known universe and its structures to form. Using NM in some cases puts the background object too far away for a comfortable fit with BBT. Of course, another variable is distance to the foreground lensing object, which is derived from a very unreliable standard, redshift-based distance ladder.

3.

Hilton said: Ah, Olbers' Paradox! Where to begin? For all sorts of reasons, some known and some unknown, light loses energy as it travels. There is an (extremely vague!) systematic redshift seen in light proportional to age. This means that eventually, radiation becomes invisible. Furthermore, light is completely or partially absorbed by matter in space. Radio astronomer Gerrit Verschuur formalised the earlier work of pioneering astro photographer E E Barnard, and thus became the father of the Inter Stellar Medium. What they discovered was that the "dark" patches in the Milky Way were not voids but clouds of obscuring matter. Background light was completely blocked by the ISM. Then the discovery went further, and with the newfound ability to "see" molecular hydrogen in space came the discovery of the Inter Galactic Medium. In an endless Universe, there are infinite sources of light along any given line-of-sight, yes, but of course also infinite clouds of IGM.

4.

Volantis said: Could you clarify a bit more on the definition of "Newtonian mechanics?"

Hilton said: Classical physics by my definition is concerned with physical interactions in conventional Euclidean space of 3 dimensions, evolving from cause to effect along a separate axis of time, described geometrically by rigid Cartesian axes subject to Galilean transformations.

5.

CC said: Let's just say that according to Newtonian theory of gravity, all the mass in the universe (being attractive gravitationally) should aglomerate in the center of the celestial sphere (to use the expression of the times). It is my understanding that Einstein's curved spacetime approach to gravity (rather than an attractive force) did little to eliminate the problem. That is one of the reasons he introduced lambda. But even with lambda the universe seemed unstable.

Hilton said: What we see is what we get. We observe and measure cohesive gravitational systems that to the limits of our ability to measure are in orbital equilibrium. This equilibrium is beautifully described by the Kepler/Newton equations. Does NM allow for a Universe that is static? Yes it does. Given that Newton did not attempt in his science to describe infinity (and co-invented differential and integral calculus to try to cope with it), one can by extrapolation say that it does allow a static Universe. If the ‘static” structures we see and measure are components of ever bigger (or smaller) structures, each in non-expanding equilibrium ad infinitum, then the problem of a mechanically stable, spatially infinite cosmos is solved. How could we test such a supposition? The only way, and I mean the only way to test a theory is by observation and experience. It cannot be done mathematically. In this case, observation of ever larger and larger structures with no discernable limit empirically supports my suggestion quite definitely.

Conversely, let us examine the FLWR model. Does GR allow an expanding (real) Universe? No it does not. The Hubble expansion as described in GR can only work in an isotropic and homogeneous Universe. Is the Universe in reality such a place? All observation without exception shows anisotropy and heterogeneity in all directions and at all measurable distances in space and time. The theory fails catastrophically because of this. It is falsified by observation…[]…What I am saying is that mechanical gravitation, with of course no lambda, will not necessarily cause the universe to collapse.

6.

CC said: Why do we not find stars in the universe that appear older than, say, 15 to 22 Gyr old (Sandage). According to the HR diagram some stars can emit light for trillions of years. In an infinite universe (or even a universe that is considerably older than the one we observe) should we not see very old stars?

Hilton said: I believe we do see stars at all ages, but of course only those able to get measurable radiation to us. At the outset, if Sandage’s calculations are correct, we have conflict with the now firmly determined absolute age of the Universe of 13.7 GY. There is a great deal of controversy in the methods being used to calculate star and galaxy ages. To avoid embroiling this discussion in those matters, perhaps all we need to do is look at galaxies in the HUDF. There is no correlation between redshift and morphological maturity. Last year, Richard Ellis’s team at STScI published a paper entitled “Evidence for a Massive Post-Starburst Galaxy at z ~ 6.5”. They named the object HUDF-JD2. It is in every sense a mature, very large galaxy at extremely high redshift. It takes only one confirmed observation to debunk a theory. Other, more general indications of age, like metallicity and colour, are also prevalent at high z. There is a tendency for stars at great age to become duller, the temporary exception being SNe, and they are therefore less and less visible to us. Malmquist bias means that we are statistically less aware of these stars than younger, brighter ones. I think there are many more stars that die quietly than go supernova.

7.

Hilton said: Metallicity is only general as an age indicator, partly because we can only get spectra from the photosphere of stars. We can use nuclide evidence, of course, and it is one of our most reliable clocks, but it kicks back at us when we apply the same method to the Sun and find measurements indicating that it is >60% Fe, something Eddington and Hoyle agreed upon in 1940. Bear in mind also that in terms of the standard redshift distance ladder (which I don’t subscribe to), we must add to the age of high z galaxies the travel time of the light to get to us. If a galaxy is calculated to be 13 GY old, and the information took 12 GY to get here, the sum is 25 GY.

8.

Hilton said: You are right. The problem with science is actually a psychological one. Cosmology combined with meta-mathematics is a lethal cocktail. Since when is it scientifically and socially acceptable to be irrational? When I sit with my chums, poring over data on multiple screens, sometimes we need to clear our heads. Some of us go outside and look up at the stars. That’s when it becomes clear to me that we really know very, very little about those real things out there. All we know a lot about is our own ideas. The cosmos should humble us, not provide a suitable background for our own Theory of Everything. When some of these self-opinionated individuals read your post, they are going to get mad as hell with you, trust me. It’s amazing how courageous some people become when they are safely insulated by the distant anonymity of the Internet, and how it seems to free them from civility and good manners.

9.

CC said: Is it possible to be an empiricist and a relativist at the same time?

Hilton said: Absolutely. In fact it’s essential. One cannot be a true relativist without first being an empiricist. In my view, our theories need to be based upon, and emerge from, real experience. But that leaves us up the creek without a paddle, unless I am correct in the assumption behind the implication of the question heading this thread: We can do astrophysics (excluding cosmology) with classical mechanics (including Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics) and Galilean relativity.

10.

Hilton said: I do not include either SRT or GRT in classical physics. I define the essential difference between mechanics and relativistic relativity as the rigidness of the co-ordinate system. The inertial frame in mechanics has rigid axes and Relativity has flexible axes that shrink and expand to accommodate absolute light speed. Consequently, Lorentz transformations are absurd and forbidden in classical mechanics. I doubt we have enough time to fully settle the issue of whether flexible axes are empirically verifiable or not...

11.

CC said: Does the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect pose a problem for stationary universe models, in your opinion?

Hilton said: The S-Z effect is one of the filters used to analyse the CMBR, and is used nowhere else to my knowledge. I have found no need for it in my work, probably because the MB is not that important to me. The S-Z effect, like the Reese/Sciama effect, the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect, neutrino flavour-changing, etc etc are systematic filters applied to data to get the "right" result. They use circular reasoning, and cannot be objectively tested because they apply to measurements taken at only one end of a process.

12.

Hilton said: The hunt for the Theory of Everything is an arrogance worn only by mathematical theorists. Empiricists do not do such things. Stephen Hawking alludes to ToE. Roger Penrose called his >1000-page door-stopper “The Road to Reality – A Complete Guide to the laws of the Universe”. Both are mathematical theorists. Isaac Newton, for all his personality problems, was given to far less boastfulness in his publications.

13.

Hilton said: My thesis is that we have in classical physics the laws to describe what we can observe and verify by measurement, given that the laws are incomplete, and that we have in remoteness greater uncertainty due to 1. Exponentially increasing variables, and 2. Inability to measure locally. 3. Invisible (normal) stuff.

I say that classical physics and empiricism are slower but better. With maths we can have a theory about the beginning or the end of everything, whereas empirically, we go only as far as we can measure. I would say that we really need to learn a lot more about electrical field dynamics in the cosmos. Is it really scale invariant? How much of lab results can we extrapolate to the wider universe, and what formulae can we use to measure electrical effects? Given rotational effects in electromagnetic fields, and the physical influence of plasma in z-pinch, and further that there are vast swathes of plasma everywhere we look, this should surely be top of the list in astrophysics. We should strive for a better, more generalised quantification of spin. N-bodies are another interesting research opportunity. A greater understanding of force (not geometry) would help us a great deal. But first we must revert to Euclidean geometry. S & G Relativity have given us some amazing results (but so did epicycles!). What we can never know is where science would have gone had there been no revolt against Euclid.

14.

Hilton said: However, it is important to note several conditions:

1. Classical relativity is substituded for Relativity in calculations of relative motion.

2. There are exceptions to the Newtonian rule (as there are to SR and GR), but they are not significant problems in my view. Much is made of Mercury's perihelion shift, but it hasn't ruffled my feathers much. Galaxy and cluster rotations seem to be the same type of problem but exagerated by uncertainties of remoteness.

3. In general practice, applied astrophysics employs both NM and GR as required, and the reasons for this have been discussed. I have no problem with this, because all I'm interested in really is measuring accurately and truthfully. After about 1920, practically all emphasis in the development of macro-level theoretical physics followed Einstein's model, to the detriment of extracting further useful tools from NM.

15.

Hilton said: So yes, Newton is stating principles of relative motion that I feel (intuitively) are correct. Using this conception of relativity I can take measurements with acceptable accuracy at any scale that I work with. Remember that I believe that although infinite space cannot be observed, it is a logical certainty.

16.

Buffy said: I think a lot of the answer has to do with one's view of how "chaotic systems" work: I get somewhat exasperated by the "they just look chaotic because we can't see enough detail to see the causes and effects" excuse.

Hilton said: I do not share this interpretation of Newtonian Mechanics. Newton assumed the unidirectional passage of time as an axiom, and did not, as far as I am aware, use time as a geometrical dimension (ie he used time in the Euclidean sense). Both time and space are used in classical physics as we experience them, not as we imagine they might be or become. No further abstract inflections are used or indeed permitted. Reversibility or symmetry in time is certainly not part of a mechanical, cause-and-effect description of the world, and are considered impossible in reality. The notions of entropy and chaos came later on, when physics had become intimately bound to mathematical freedom. Personally, my troubles begin at Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism, which for me exist at the cusp of relativistic physics. So, although I share your great interest in thermodynamics (and am about as interested in chaos theory as I would be in last week’s breakfast), I do not see a Universe that blatantly verifies the broader implications of thermodynamics. There is ubiquitous evidence of cycles involving reversibility, and none that I know of that indicates a universal linear decay to entropy and heat death. Are we not with these theories trying to explain something that does not really exist? Elsewhere, I used the analogy of the ball on a roulette wheel: If we knew enough about the initial and ambient circumstances, we could predict its destination with precision. In my view, the same would hold for galaxy rotation. It is a machine and an engine, so a galaxy’s behaviour is the effect of the sum of causes. We find the so-called “anomaly” in galaxy rotation because we are leaving something out of the calculation, that is, it is a function of our ignorance, as chaos is. Think carefully about the anomalous perihelion advance of Mercury. Doesn’t it make you uneasy that GR arrives at a fairly precise prediction by considering Mercury’s motion as a 2-body? Get my drift? Oliver Manuel and I are setting up collaboration with Richard Mackey of the Australian National Astronomical Observatory to investigate the effects within the Solar System of solar inertial motion (SIM). The shifting barycentre of the Sun causes it to follow an epitrochoid orbit that is intrinsically random, and which in turn results from n-body interactions within the Solar System. This solar orbital shift will interactively affect the orbital dynamics of planets, and probably most noticeably of Mercury because of its proximity. However, as I recall, this mechanism was built into neither GR nor NM precession calculations. We can suggest that NM was wrong because it left something out, but can we explain why GR was right?

17.

Hilton said: In terms of the Standard Model, cosmological redshift is not a Doppler effect. It is curve broadening because of the expansion of space (itself ad hoc physics). There are other factors affecting measured redshift of astrophysical objects, like gravitation (or magnetism as some recent studies show), scattering, and arguably intrinsic shift. We measure the shift in spectra obtained at only one end of the journey. It is impossible from that to know what happened along the way. It is commonly accepted that Relativity finds application over NM only at extremes of measurement, and so we are faced with the difficulty of testing the results against each other (in practice, not theory). Furthermore, I contend that measurements at such extremes are of interest to cosmologists rather than astrophysicists.

18.

Modest said: What I said above about SRT cannot be said about GRT. Now I could ignore you here and say that GRT has nothing to do with relativistic Doppler effect (see arguments 1 and 2 above). But, I won't do that. GRT is obviously not simple. It is ridiculously more difficult than Newton's gravity. But, a distinction has to be made. Are you comparing GRT to Newtonian physics or to some other theory that could explain the cause of gravity. Newton made no attempt to describe gravity's cause (nor did he know it). GR gives different answers than NM. So far (where testable) GR comes out on top. But we might be able to supplant a different theory in GR's place that gives GR's answers. We could create an aether that has GR's properties. I believe this is what Van Flemming did to whom you refer. A quantum theory with gravitons might one day give GRish answers that are a simpler solution to gravity's questions. But this is entirely different from saying Newton's equations of gravity are always right. They are not. As I said before - GPS rather disproves this. Without relativity there is no redshift to brightness correlation - well, unless we live in a privileged part of the universe. So, when you say "The fact is, there is no systematic correlation between redshift and brightness" you are making the correct assumption based on NM. A cosmologist who believes whole-heartedly in NM without exception will make this assumption. The assumption is wrong. Less-bright, smaller (angular size) galaxies are more redshifted. Doubtless. The correlation is not as neat as cosmologist want it to be - but it is nevertheless true. As to the other thing - obviously relativistic doppler effect is not the same as cosmic expansion. My point is that relativity in doppler shift must be taken into account when dealing with redshift data. Certainly at large distances. Or, perhaps when accuracy is needed - for trying to discern the mass of a planet circling a star in our galaxy (this may not be the case I'd have to look into it). The point is - it is the correct theory in some aspects of astronomy and must be used to get anywhere near the correct answers.

I will pick up on the nucleosynthesis question later if that is still current.

Best

Hilton

[coldcreation]

I’m back from my travels and recovered from English bronchitis. Thank you all for your contributions to this thread while I was absent. Here is a rather lengthy update of some salient points that may require further discussion. Since the last summary, some important issues have been discussed, and the following suggestions and remarks mark our progress:

 

Hello all,

 

Hello Hilton,

 

I hope your excursion to the old continent was fruitful and that you have now fully recovered.

 

 

We discussed the following very briefly, but I thought it would be useful to bring up the topic once more, in the form of a question:

 

 

(1) How, in light of what has been discussed, has astronomy and astrophysics deviated so far from a natural description, to such nonsensical abstraction?

 

 

This trend toward augmented non-objectivity is not exclusive to cosmology, or physics in general. This process has been developing alongside, first and foremost, in visual arts (impressionism, cubism, abstraction, dada, surrealism, etc), literature (Beatniks, etc), and music (free-open jazz, rock, techno, etc.), very often with the same lack of positive reception by those not directly concerned with the concepts, by the opposition, the non-mainstream.

 

Of course nothing prevents anyone from elucidating some random list of postulates or assumptions and proceed to prove them by recourse to mathematical abstractions. But the probabilities of those assumptions having any sensible relevance in the field of science are certainly minimal. For astronomers to implement a certain archetype of theoretical ideas, the assumptions must be functional, intuitively credible, and based on observable phenomena. In contrast with these features, the underlying mathematical corroboration, or proof, seems of nominal significance: a single morsel of contradictory experimental or observational evidence would immediately overturn (or at least put into serious question) the entire hypothesis.

 

In a way, the ideological comparison of the arts, religion, and philosophy with astronomy (and in particular with cosmology) is almost humorous. The undeniable overlap among these otherwise separate schools of thought have led to a prosperous stream of creativity in all of the fields - a kind of unification. This primordial synthesis will unquestionably continue to blend, expand and blossom; especially if the developmental trends in technology, visual arts, music, literature, and science in general, continue accelerating at the exponential rate observed in recent years.

 

There is no guarantee that the postulations of the scientific academia are on target, though claims continue as if real. The fact is, there isn’t any inkling of an idea as to whether they are true or not. We don’t know. After all, no telescope or particle accelerator will ever be able to test some of their predictions. Those that have been tested clearly show ambiguous results, and this despite obstruction of due-process within uncertain predetermined strictures (e.g., Hubble’s law) that are founded on nothing but some bogus initial conditions, spurious interpretations, pure speculation, and all under the umbrella of general relativity that Einstein was no longer holding.

 

 

(2) So another question to you Hilton, could be: Optimistically, will the barrage of incoming data enable future generations to discover the truth empirically?

 

Einstein, the relativist, found no room in the wide range of his activities for intangible hypotheses and their self-validating core of modern admirers, then so strongly in evidence as a new avant-garde phenomenon. It could be significant too in this connection that it was then that these self-proclaimed new-relativists introduced more quirky, individualized ceremonial vocabularies, by no more than asserting the presence of geometry, of whatever kind, to replace the sharp coolness Newtonian mechanics, or of Einstein’s original geometric stance. Clearly this was a movement that amplified the reductiveness of abstract or non-objective science with all that it signified: the search for the mobile, the absolute, significant only as a carrier or embodiment of an idea, a universal fallacy.

 

With the process of sanitization that characterized the development of late relativity there went a tendency to close off other avenues, or to turn back to Newton for support rather than to look ahead for new challenges. Where the special relativists looked at other alternatives either with noticeable hostility or with, at best, a stringently limited interest, the radical empiricists tended to look at anything new openly, confidently, optimistically and without instantly applying restrictions of questionable laws.

 

The narrative of general relativity outlined by Einstein’s schematic geometric arrangements was the result of an abstracting process based on “axiomatics.” These axiomatic abstractions, however - which by themselves contain no assertions as to the reality that can be experienced - were intended to be used “only in combination with the physical laws.” In another way, geometry “predicates nothing about the behavior of real things, but only geometry together with the totality of physical laws can do so.” Though axioms may be free creations of the human mind, the laws of physics are founded on clear and unambiguous empirical facts that can be experienced.

 

 

(3) My ultimate question is: Can it be reconciled the contradiction between observations taken from the natural world and the standard models rendered synthetically in a process of idealization invented by our contemporaries?

 

 

 

 

CC

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi CC,

 

Thank you once again for your courtesy and extremely interesting questions. I have recovered from the nasty bug I probably picked up on the plane, thank you. My trip to England was rich beyond my expectations, and it has certainly given me impetus towards a more focussed future in astronomy. I have two book collaborations with Sir Patrick Moore going now, bringing the total of books-in-progress on my word processor to four! During my trip I visited a number of science institutions, met several leading scientists from various disciplines—astrophysics, atomic chemistry, nuclear chemistry, nuclear physics, and biology—and was received everywhere with the utmost courtesy and respect.

I came back with a gut feeling that my timing is right. The response to The Virtue of Heresy has been overwhelmingly positive, even from those who do not agree with all of my ideas, and I deduce from this that there is a subterranean uneasiness (verging on guilt even) amongst scientists generally. Those practicing applied or empirical science especially are generally unhappy with the direction and method of theoretical investigation, but typically are unsure when and where would be appropriate to voice their misgivings. I discussed with one of my profs the idea of forming an association of formally educated physical scientists who are retired, unemployed, or otherwise independent of political restraint on their ideas. This is a vast and unbelievably rich resource, and perhaps we can bring that wisdom to bear on educationists and others so that we can halt the decline of student interest in physics particularly. The number of leading researchers who are jumping ship and coming over to the Alternative Cosmology Group is staggering and very encouraging to my colleagues and me. The tanker is turning…

 

Your questions are:

(1) How, in light of what has been discussed, has astronomy and astrophysics deviated so far from a natural description, to such nonsensical abstraction?

(2) So another question to you Hilton, could be: Optimistically, will the barrage of incoming data enable future generations to discover the truth empirically?

(3) My ultimate question is: Can it be reconciled the contradiction between observations taken from the natural world and the standard models rendered synthetically in a process of idealization invented by our contemporaries?

My answers:

(1) It is my firm belief that it was the abandoning of Euclidean realism, the development of meta-mathematics like Gaussian topology and Riemannian surfaces, and the eventual emergence of “theoretical physics”, that led to the problems that we find ourselves in. Theoretical physics is not physics at all, but rather mathematical conjecture unrestrained by reality checks. Of course, those practicing the dark arts I mention do not always agree that there is a problem! They are quite happy that their systems are working and apparently producing results that are meaningful to the human race. To the mathematician, internal consistency is the acid test, not observation. To me, the crucial question always is, “But is that what really happens?” It seems that these are mutually exclusive ways of examining the Universe.

(2) The tidal wave of information is a huge problem. Have you tried to keep up with publications on arXiv? One has to be selective, and that is a form of censorship. In practice, scientists are exposing themselves to data that are filtered for empathy with preconceptions. What I am doing to cope is choosing two or three investigators in each field of interest, and pursuing their progress interactively. As a result, I am pretty close to the work of Gerrit Verschuur, Chip Arp, Dave Russell, Jack Sulentic, Chuck Gallo, Oliver Manuel, Michael Mozina, Angelo Loinger, Franco Selleri, Eric Lerner, Geoff Burbidge, Frank Potter, Sean Leaning, Jerry Jensen, Stephen Crothers, and maybe a dozen or so other contemporaries, and a couple of dozen investigators who are no longer with us. Anyone outside of that group is not arbitrarily excluded, but I have to find the time to assess new work with the required attention. It is very hard, and I know I am missing a lot.

(3) My goal is reconciliation, not capitulation. If we can meet others of differing opinions with respect and attentiveness, and still shake hands afterwards though we may categorically disagree with them, then we can progress. It seems that this thread has shown that there is some merit in even the most outlandish and unorthodox ideas, provided they are presented reasonably and rationally. We can cross-pollinate ideas and come up with some very useful hybrids, if only we would listen to one another. My recent experiences with many great scientists gives me—at last!—some reason to be optimistic.

 

Here are some references you may find interesting:

(1) Chuck Gallo, "Redshifts of Cosmological Neutrinos as Definitive Experimental Test of Doppler versus Non-Doppler Redshifts".

IEEE Trans Plasma Science, vol 31, #6, pp. 1230-1231, Dec 2003.

(2) IEEE Plasma Science Conference - Jun 4-8, 2006, Traverse City MI.

Conference Record - Abstracts. 06CH37759.

Chuck Gallo, "Dynamics of Rotating Spiral Galaxies Modeled with Plasmas, Molecular Hydrogen, and Ellipsoidal + Disk Mass Distributions".

7B8. p.372.

(3) Short Abstract submitted to CCC2:

"Ordinary Dark Matter versus Mysterious Dark Matter in Galactic Rotation" C. F. Gallo and James Feng (Superconix Inc).

To theoretically describe the measured rotational velocities of spiral galaxies, we assume Newtonian gravity/dynamics and successfully find (via computer) mass distributions in bulge/disk configurations that duplicate the measured rotational velocities. NO speculations re Gravity Deviations NOR "Massive Peripheral Spherical Halos of Mysterious Dark Matter" are necessary. However, there exists ordinary Dark Matter within galactic disk distributed towards the cooler periphery.

ACG newsletter:

ACG Newsletter

 

Best

Hilton

[snoopy]

(1) It is my firm belief that it was the abandoning of Euclidean realism, the development of meta-mathematics like Gaussian topology and Riemannian surfaces, and the eventual emergence of “theoretical physics”, that led to the problems that we find ourselves in. Theoretical physics is not physics at all, but rather mathematical conjecture unrestrained by reality checks. Of course, those practicing the dark arts I mention do not always agree that there is a problem! They are quite happy that their systems are working and apparently producing results that are meaningful to the human race. To the mathematician, internal consistency is the acid test, not observation. To me, the crucial question always is, “But is that what really happens?” It seems that these are mutually exclusive ways of examining the Universe.

 

Hilton

 

I do think NM is an advantage in astronomy rather than a limitation, but I am a firm beleiver in using the simplest physics that works.

 

But we are still left with problems like most microchips now take advantage of electron tunneling effects in their design and no one can deny these objects work. ie there is a practical application there that we can see at our macroscopic level.

 

Unfortunately NM cannot account for these type of things and sends physicists spiralling off in directions that they might not want to happily follow.

 

I also believe a quantum theory of gravity will happen and quantum theory will win out in the end over other theories like strings etc.

 

The obvious problem with this is we will be left with a theory that most of us do not understand that well or we understand in some small part but not others.

 

But interesting thread sorry to come at it so late, it took me a while to read it all too.

 

Did you get a chance to come to Scotland or was it just England ?

 

 

Peace

:)

[coldcreation]

... (1) It is my firm belief that it was the abandoning of Euclidean realism, the development of meta-mathematics like Gaussian topology and Riemannian surfaces, and the eventual emergence of “theoretical physics”, that led to the problems that we find ourselves in. Theoretical physics is not physics at all, but rather mathematical conjecture unrestrained by reality checks. Of course, those practicing the dark arts I mention do not always agree that there is a problem! They are quite happy that their systems are working and apparently producing results that are meaningful to the human race. To the mathematician, internal consistency is the acid test, not observation. To me, the crucial question always is, “But is that what really happens?” It seems that these are mutually exclusive ways of examining the Universe.

...

 

The questions then remain: Is history repeating itself? Have the new avant-gardes, the divergent opposing camps, moved too dangerously into a similar position on the margins of acceptability? Are they too left aside by the twentieth-century cosmology boom, as the natural philosophers had been before, vis-à-vis the Bureaucrats? There is too little doubt that this had been the case for those involved in the revolutionary non-Euclidean geometric deliberations.

 

Several centuries ago began a conflict that is possibly still unfolding today underneath are very noses: a clash between an academic system and all those who, from specialists to the layman, wish to tear it down and replace it with something altogether radically different.

 

It took mathematicians two thousand years to seriously question the axiomatic fundamental nature of Euclid’s fifth or parallel postulate (correspondingly: parallel lines are everywhere equidistant). Compelled by intuition, Saccheri (1667-1733), Gauss (1777-1885), Lobachevsky (1793-1856), Bolyai (1802-1860), amongst others, independently worked to find solutions that would accurately describe the ‘real world.’ For fear that his reputation would suffer if he were to articulate that non-Euclidean geometry’s were possible, Gauss withheld his early discoveries from early publication.

 

Lobachevsky recognized the universal characteristics of his new geometry, yet nevertheless thought it essential to establish experimentally which geometry truly occurs in nature.

 

In 1826, Lobachevsky noted in On the Principles of Geometry that if one were to measure cosmic triangles of great dimension, it would be possible to determine the deviation from the usual 180° experimentally.

 

In my opinion, the SNe Ia data are the only observations capable of providing a solution to the problem of Euclid's fifth postulate. I.e., Only since the late 1990s has it (arguably) become evident observationally the degree to which ‘curvature’ of the spacetime manifold deviates from Euclidean linearity on the largest scales visible. Note: If time dilation is real, then spacetime is curved hyperbolically.

 

So it appears Lobachevsky’s inspiration regarding the fundamental geometry of the universe and the concept of hyperbolic space was apparently on target, if not a bulls-eye. The new observations (SNe Ia) are clearly consistent with a non-Euclidean continuum - consequently, reducing Euclid’s geometry to a special case of a more general system. Lobachevsky proved that for all triangles in the Lobachevskian plane the sum of the angles is less than 180 degrees. This led him to the idea of space geometry, where the radius of a sphere is considered as purely imaginary (consisting of coordinates x, y and the imaginary coordinate z), and appears to be a hyperboloid (*). The construction of this model proves to be non-contradictory in nature, if the SNe Ia data is taken at face value.

 

There is a fundamental question we must ask ourselves today: How does one measure the large distances between two points of a curved manifold; correspondingly, how does one measure the rate of clocks with respect to a sufficiently large neighborhood of points starting from the base metric of ordinary Euclidean space, and how is differentiation possible between large-scale special relativistic motion and global general relativistic curvature of the spacetime continuum?

 

 

Final question Hilton: How do you (or anyone else) determine empirically "Euclidean realism" regarding the fifth postulate?

 

 

CC

 

*Lobachevsky, N. 1973, Dictionary of Scientific Biography, Gillispie, C.C. Volume Vlll, Lane, J.H., Macquer, P.J. 428-435

[Erasmus00]

It is my firm belief that it was the abandoning of Euclidean realism, the development of meta-mathematics like Gaussian topology and Riemannian surfaces, and the eventual emergence of “theoretical physics”, that led to the problems that we find ourselves in. Theoretical physics is not physics at all, but rather mathematical conjecture unrestrained by reality checks. Of course, those practicing the dark arts I mention do not always agree that there is a problem! They are quite happy that their systems are working and apparently producing results that are meaningful to the human race. To the mathematician, internal consistency is the acid test, not observation. To me, the crucial question always is, “But is that what really happens?” It seems that these are mutually exclusive ways of examining the Universe.

 

As someone who practices the "dark art" of theoretical physics, this brought me up rather short. I also feel that you are largely unfamiliar with the practice of theoretical physics as practiced by the majority of physicists- internal consistency is a far lesser concern than correct empirical prediction.

 

In my own field, high energy physics, the theorists have developed a standard model that (due to renormalization) cannot be proven consistent, BUT, it always seems to give the right answer. How do we know it gives the right answer? We build giant particle accelerators to check! Theory always rises and falls on empirical testing!

 

Similarly, GR doesn't stand as only a mathematical edifice- a tremendous amount of effort has gone into testing it, from lunar ranging experiments, Shapiro time delay type experiments, Pound-Rebka measurements of gravitational redshift, and more recently, gravity probe b, etc. So far, it hasn't failed. If it did fail- back to the drawing board- it hasn't. A great deal of EMPIRICAL science is done on GR.

 

Further, to bring this back to Newtonian mechanics- I practice science under the philosophical assumption that the same laws that govern things here on Earth govern things in the cosmos. Millions upon millions of empirical tests of special relativity are done everyday at the Tevatron, and soon the LHC, so special relativity, in my mind, is a necessary extension of Newton. Further, gravity does exist, and GR is the simplest theory of gravity that is in accordance with SR.

 

Why then does Newton work so well? Because for weak gravitational fields (Phi/c^2 <<1), and slow velocities (v<<c), Newton and GR are the exact same theory. This is probably the correct limit for much of what you may be studying, but it certainly provides completely wrong answers for what I do. I think we should avoid whenever possible separating science into different realms. We have one theory that covers both realms (SR/GR), and hasn't failed empirically. Why throw it out? In the weak field limit, GR is no more complicated then Newton (they are the same theory!)

-Will

[modest]

I agree completely with what Erasmus00 just said. I would only add that one cannot compare the underlying theory of GR with Newtonian gravity. While GR is a theory, meaning there is some explanation behind the math, Newtonian gravity is only a law. There is no theory there to compare to GR. So it is an incorrect assumption that NM seems more real or realistic than GR. It is an incorrect assumption that NM better explains gravity. If one is truly looking for a reason (as Hilton said) for what we observe (rather than just getting correct answers) we cannot look to NM for an explanation - there isn’t one there.

 

- modest

[snoopy]

I agree completely with what Erasmus00 just said. I would only add that one cannot compare the underlying theory of GR with Newtonian gravity. While GR is a theory, meaning there is some explanation behind the math, Newtonian gravity is only a law. There is no theory there to compare to GR. So it is an incorrect assumption that NM seems more real or realistic than GR. It is an incorrect assumption that NM better explains gravity. If one is truly looking for a reason (as Hilton said) for what we observe (rather than just getting correct answers) we cannot look to NM for an explanation - there isn’t one there.

 

- modest

 

 

I agree completely with this too NM doesnt provide any real explanation of Gravity its just some unknown downward force while Relativity explains it as curvature of spacetime.

 

Good point and good post !

But NM is still very useful and easier to use than Relativity so why get rid of it... there is no reason for that but for normal astronomers NM works well... so use it.

Peace

[coldcreation]

I agree completely with this too NM doesnt provide any real explanation of Gravity its just some unknown downward force while Relativity explains it as curvature of spacetime.

 

Good point and good post !

But NM is still very useful and easier to use than Relativity so why get rid of it... there is no reason for that but for normal astronomers NM works well... so use it.

Peace

 

Neither GR nor Newtonian mechanics describes the physical mechanism behind the gravitational interaction.

 

In that sense, both GR and Newtonian mechanics are lacking.

 

CC

[snoopy]

Neither GR nor Newtonian mechanics describes the physical mechanism behind the gravitational interaction.

 

Soo in that sense, both GR and Newtonian mechanics are lacking.

 

CC

 

 

Yes again I agree a theory of quantum gravity would be even better but brings up problems which I mentioned in a previous/earlier post.

 

But we dont yet have a QM theory of gravity so we have to make do.

Peace

:)

[Mike C]

Yes again I agree a theory of quantum gravity would be even better but brings up problems which I mentioned in a previous/earlier post.

But we dont yet have a QM theory of gravity so we have to make do.

Peace

:)

 

See my site on this issue below:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-cosmology/11640-grand-unified-theory.html?highlight=Grand+Unified+Theory%2C+GUT

 

Mike C

[truth_united]

Hilton

Theoretical physics is not physics at all, but rather mathematical conjecture unrestrained by reality checks. Of course, those practicing the dark arts I mention do not always agree that there is a problem! They are quite happy that their systems are working and apparently producing results that are meaningful to the human race. To the mathematician, internal consistency is the acid test, not observation. To me, the crucial question always is, “But is that what really happens?”

 

Yes, the crucial question indeed is, "what really happens". But it is often confused by the die-hard empirics as observation. The important thing is what is the real truth; but the die-hard empirics give more importance to the verification of observations.

 

It is not that observations are not important. However, one must understand the limitations of observation. There are several fallacies: the observer effect, limitations of the tools of observations, limitations of our sensory perception, and sometimes our faulty interpretaton. So much so that we cannot ely on our observations to give accurate estimate of entities at the extremes of scale: very very small and very very large.

 

Observations can be means to get to the truth, but it is a real danger to science when it becomes the end-point in itself.

 

truth_united

[snoopy]

 

Observations can be means to get to the truth, but it is a real danger to science when it becomes the end-point in itself.

 

truth_united

 

Yes but I am sure you agree experiment is important,

and really Einsteins ideas were largely accepted before any experimental evidence was in because it looked so right and explained so much.

 

If anyone has a similar theoretical breakthrough, it will largely be adopted in this way too, that explains the initial excitement over string theories.

 

But your theory should explain a lot with economy and mathematically it should look right too.

 

If you can do all this then go for it !!

 

But I accept theories like QM has been largely led by experiment and although incredibly accurate theories have come about by this approach they are not as philosophically as satisfying as Einsteins ideas.

 

Peace

:)

[modest]

Relativity has predicted observations subsequently observed. We don’t have to treat it as mathematics without a physics or physical backbone. Observation and experiment are strengths of the theory. Given that relativity is observed, only by ignoring it do we ignore observations of the real world. In fact, relativity should be held up as an example of such a thing in a way that string theory very much is not.

 

If a law, such as the Lorentz transformations, could be derived solely from observation and experiment (which is the case) then what argument could be made that it is not seated in observation of reality or that it is not what is "really happening". In addition to this it can be derived mathematically from 2 simple postulates. In this, I don't think an attack on the derivation or materiality of the theory is substantial.

 

- modest

[Mike C]

Relativity has predicted observations subsequently observed. We don’t have to treat it as mathematics without a physics or physical backbone. Observation and experiment are strengths of the theory. Given that relativity is observed, only by ignoring it do we ignore observations of the real world. In fact, relativity should be held up as an example of such a thing in a way that string theory very much is not.

 

If a law, such as the Lorentz transformations, could be derived solely from observation and experiment (which is the case) then what argument could be made that it is not seated in observation of reality or that it is not what is "really happening". In addition to this it can be derived mathematically from 2 simple postulates. In this, I don't think an attack on the derivation or materiality of the theory is substantial.

 

- modest

 

The corrections that GR makes are so 'miniscule', that I claim it can be 'spiritually' manipulated.

I know that science does not believe in spirit, but I do, because I have

witnessed events that have proven this reality to me.

 

The power of religion can be enormous because when advanced scientists accept the BBT that has no real evidence for its support, than you can realize that Einsteins GR can also be accepted.

 

What would happen to GR in a SSU? Well, Einstein himself answered that question because his universe would collapse.

 

Mike C

[snoopy]

 

What would happen to GR in a SSU? Well, Einstein himself answered that question because his universe would collapse.

 

Mike C

 

 

I think that the steady state universe has been well put to bed and you dont need einstein to tell you that, observation has refuted SSU's over and over again.... including the microwave background radiation that we observe all around us.