Is Newtonian Mechanics an advantage or a limitation in astrophysics?

[Tormod]

3. Newton indeed could easily have predicted the time shift adjustments for GPS signals. Tom Van Flandern, while he was at the US Naval Observatory did just that, using classical physics (see his seminal book “Dark Matter, Missing Planets, and New Comets”, and his web site Meta Research (innovative astronomy research)).

 

Why was I expecting Flandern to pop up here... :shrug:

 

His denial of the role of relativity in GPS has already been refuted by many others, and I am not skilled enough to repeat it here.

 

I can't take Van Flandern seriously - even as a layman I find his theories about artificial structures on Mars surprisingly non-scientific (like his obsession with the Cydonia structure, which was recently photographed and documented by the Mars Express spacecraft, but ignored by Van Flandern). But that is another topic...

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi Tormod,

 

You are right. Tom's obsession with Cydonia seriously damages his credibility. I mention it in my book, and describe it as "like a great big wart growing out of my head that people can point at and laugh." When Tom read that, he emailed me and suggested we correspond to sort it out, and I agreed, anticipating that he would also have seen the Mars Express images and realised that artificiality requires far more convincing arguments than those he raises. No such luck. So he very unfortunately has all his good work tainted and even ignored because of that mound of rubble, and associates himself in many minds with Saturnists, Velikovskians, conspiracy theorists, and other fringe groups that he has not the remotest connection with. It really is a great pity, he is an excellent scientist, but it is in the end a self-inflicted wound.

 

Notwithstanding the wart on my head, I can use Tom's equations to give me the right adjustments for GPS data. That is what is important.

 

Best

Hilton

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi CC and Tormod,

 

We have covered a lot of ground in a few days. Thank you both. I deliberately left out the words “used exclusively” after “Newtonian Mechanics” in the title question, to see if they are thought to be mutually exclusive in practice. We seem to agree that they are not, although not necessarily for the same reasons. Here is a progress report and summary:

 

1. Since both NM and GR are in daily use in applied science, it would seem they are complimentary.

2. NM is easier to master, GR has better resolution. In this sense, GR may be considered an improvement on NM, but at the cost of mathematical intricacy.

3. They explain untestable ideas differently, e.g. GR explains gravitational lensing within the limitations of a Big Bang Universe, NM explains it with the background light source much further away.

4. Allowances for words used need to be made for Newton’s preoccupation in divinity.

5. Cosmology is a line of thinking that uses some scientific premises, so cannot be excluded from the physical sciences, but should preferably be categorised as philosophy.

6. The problem of fine-tuning remains whether one uses GR or NM.

7. NM cannot answer questions regarding the expansion of space. The issue is whether it needs to.

Hilton: No, NM does not account for time dilation (or the expansion of space and any other of its consequences) because it does not need to. It does not assume these things in the first place, and does not postulate a model that requires them. I repeat, classical mechanics is used to quantitatively assess what we are sentiently aware of, in the space that we see, ie a 3-D Euclidean universe with a separate axis of time. It does not formally address conjecture, although it is useful and amusing in that respect. Classical, mechanical relativity can be raised to a fair level of abstraction, although nowhere near the heights aspired to by Einstein.

8. NM needs to be modified in order to describe galaxy and cluster rotation.

9. Dark Matter is the second craziest idea in astronomy.:D

10. We do not agree that GR is flawed.

Coldcreation: I would'nt say that general relativity is flawed (it has, after all, passed every test, save for gravitational waves), but that it has an unrecognized boundary condition (not at spacetime horizon) at both the upper and lower bounds of mass-energy density, of curvature, thus. Ultimately, Einstein felt that observations alone would determine the boundary conditions, not extrapolations to infinity based on aberations of the field equations.

11. GR may hold more usefully at great extremes.

Sanctus: Also in GR you can always choose a local frame where SR holds and we all know that for some approximations and condition on the speed of considered objects you can approximate SR with NM. So eventually using NM instead of GR is locally very acceptable. When you want to describe something not locally I don't know, there NM seems more a limitation.

12. Tom Van Flandern has shot himself in the foot.

Tormod: I can't take Van Flandern seriously - even as a layman I find his theories about artificial structures on Mars surprisingly non-scientific (like his obsession with the Cydonia structure, which was recently photographed and documented by the Mars Express spacecraft, but ignored by Van Flandern). But that is another topic...

But he should still be heard.

Hilton: Notwithstanding the wart on my head, I can use Tom's equations to give me the right adjustments for GPS data. That is what is important.

13. “The Virtue of Heresy” is available from the Hypography bookstore. Fight hunger!:D

 

Have I missed something?

 

Best,

Hilton

[coldcreation]

...

 

3. They explain untestable ideas differently, e.g. GR explains gravitational lensing within the limitations of a Big Bang Universe, NM explains it with the background light source much further away....

 

Helo Hilton,

 

Thanks for the summery. It helps to gain a clear picture in condensed form of the scope of this thread so far covered.

 

My question revolves around the quote of number three above. You write: "GR explains gravitational lensing within the limitations of a Big Bang Universe."

 

What do you mean by that sentence? That GR implies a big bang, that gravitational lensing (GL) only occures in the BBU, that the BBU is untestable, that GL is not testable outside the BBU, what do you mean by "within the limitations of a Big Bang Universe"?

 

Could you elaborate? I was under the impression that GL was independent of BB theory, since it was predicted and observed very early on (1918 if I recall, the deflection of light from a distant star, as it grazed the Sun and passed through the field (observed during a solar eclipse)).

 

Thanks

 

 

CC

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi CC,

 

Thank you for your questions. My statement no. 3 certainly isn't clear. 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.

 

Specific answers: GR as solved by Friedmann implies Big Bang; GL as modelled by GR probably fits in a BB universe, probably not by NM explanation (for many, that would rule out the NM explanation); both BBU and GL are untestable without ad hoc assumptions; the supposed limitations of BBU are explained above.

 

I would be interested to learn - I may have to do the sums myself, but it would be more credible coming form a Standard Model personality - if there is consistency in the redshifts of the "ring" segments themselves, and more importantly, between the ring redshift (being that of the background object) and the remoteness of the background object obtained geometrically using GR or NM. :shrug:

 

Best

Hilton

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi again CC,

 

I'm sorry, I overlooked your last paragraph.

 

Could you elaborate? I was under the impression that GL was independent of BB theory, since it was predicted and observed very early on (1918 if I recall, the deflection of light from a distant star, as it grazed the Sun and passed through the field (observed during a solar eclipse)).

 

You are referring to the two-pronged expedition led by Eddington to the island of Principe and Sobral in Brazil. This is an extremely important example of procedural violations in experimental verification of Relativity. (Aside: I spell Einstein's relativity theory with a capital R and classical relativity in lower case; likewise, Universe means everything, and universe means observable or known). It is well worth investigating in detail for any student of Relativity, relativity, and the psychology of science. May I recommend an excellent and comprehensive treatment given in chapter 11 and elsewhere in Ratcliffe's 428-page rip-snorter "The Virtue of Heresy"?:shrug:

 

Cheers

Hilton

[Tormod]

Sorry I have been unable to follow this thread at all these past few days, I'll try to catch up later. I wonder if there is a book about theories by this Ratcliffe heretic? ;)

[coldcreation]

... May I recommend an excellent and comprehensive treatment given in chapter 11 and elsewhere in Ratcliffe's 428-page rip-snorter "The Virtue of Heresy"?:)

 

Cheers

Hilton

 

Is anyone out there selling a signed, dedicated [by the author] limited edition?

 

B) ;)

 

 

 

CC

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi Guys,

 

Tormod: I wonder if there is a book about theories by this Ratcliffe heretic?

 

Not that I know of, Tormod, but there is a very nice storybook "The Virtue of Heresy" starring a spherical space shuttle chauffeur named Haquar that you might find amusing. If you like science fiction, that is... :)

 

CC: Is anyone out there selling a signed, dedicated [by the author] limited edition?

 

Well, CC, when you get tired of your duckpond, and want to swap it for some REAL sun, on a REAL beach, next to a REAL ocean, come to the East Coast of South Africa with your copy of Heresy and I will sign and dedicate it with pleasure. It is not a limited edition though, so is it ok instead that the author is limited? (He practices NM after all). ;)

 

Best

Hilton

ps CC, I have a Pdf of Andrews' first paper - should I send it to your email box?

[coldcreation]

...

Well, CC, when you get tired of your duckpond, and want to swap it for some REAL sun, on a REAL beach, next to a REAL ocean, come to the East Coast of South Africa with your copy of Heresy and I will sign and dedicate it with pleasure. It is not a limited edition though, so is it ok instead that the author is limited? (He practices NM after all). :eek:

 

Best

Hilton

ps CC, I have a Pdf of Andrews' first paper - should I send it to your email box?

 

As a matter of fact, I will shortly be pondering the sea turtles and the Indian Ocean coral caves along with that bright stellar object located directly above-head (I'll have plenty of sun-screen, 50% protection and mosquito spray too) viewed for the Seychelles islands for the next two weeks.

 

That's not quite South Africa but its closer than here and now.

 

 

More soon

 

 

CC

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi CC,

 

The Seychelles is a special place (or rather, lots of special places) so I'm sure you will find it a fairly reasonable substitute. And no, before you ask, my green pallour is not jealousy, it's the midnight tan that astronomers get from looking at the Moon too much. :weather_storm:

 

I'll hold off on sending Tom Andrews' paper until you get back. I calculated the probability of your receiving a signed copy of Heresy (to read while digging sea urchin spines from the soles of your feet) if I set it adrift in a bottle from Durban. Taking currents, hurricanes, and ship traffic into account, I find that you might receive it. It's not impossible. Statistically, it is more likely than, say, that a Big Bang occurred, but less likely than that Isaac Newton was grumpy and had long curly hair. Now I don't know what to do. I think I will sit on the beach and seek inspiration from the dolphins. ;)

 

Best

Hilton

[coldcreation]

Hi CC,

 

The Seychelles is a special place (or rather, lots of special places) so I'm sure you will find it a fairly reasonable substitute. And no, before you ask, my green pallour is not jealousy, it's the midnight tan that astronomers get from looking at the Moon too much. :)

 

I'll hold off on sending Tom Andrews' paper until you get back. I calculated the probability of your receiving a signed copy of Heresy (to read while digging sea urchin spines from the soles of your feet) if I set it adrift in a bottle from Durban. Taking currents, hurricanes, and ship traffic into account, I find that you might receive it. It's not impossible. Statistically, it is more likely than, say, that a Big Bang occurred, but less likely than that Isaac Newton was grumpy and had long curly hair. Now I don't know what to do. I think I will sit on the beach and seek inspiration from the dolphins. :snow:

 

Best

Hilton

 

I just GoogleEarthed Durban. Nice beaches. It looks alot like Barcelona sitting there on beachfront property. Any nets out in the water, or do you mingle fearfully with the great whites and tigers on your periodic dips in the big old blue?

 

I do have an on-topic question before I go sand-castle-building under the lazy Takamaka palms aside massive protruding megalithic-sepulture-like granite slabs.

 

 

(a) Do you treat gravity as an attractive force, the action-at-a-distance of which passes through or acts through a field-free space? (:D What if anything, then, is the cosmological constant? A repulsive force? © Was there not an equivalent to lambda in classical mechanics? (c,bis) Traditionally, the cosmological constant has almost exclusively been regarded and treated as a repulsive force that counteracts the attractive force of Newtonian gravitation, where ? is in a sense the opposite of gravity: do you agree with that interpretation?

 

(d) The visible universe in Newtonian mechanics is Euclidean, not quasi-Euclidean, correct?

 

If that is the case then (e) how do you justify Olbers Paradox (an idea that only holds in an expanding universe, or in a universe that is non-Euclidean).

 

 

More in a couple of weeks.

 

Cheers

 

 

CC

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi CC,

 

Thank you for the questions. I will answer them a to e as asked.

 

a. Yes, my observation is that gravity is a non-polarised attractive force. It would appear to be action-at-a-distance, but the faster-than-light propagation of gravitation leads me to think that it is a tensioned field. Some of my colleagues are interested in Le Sage "push" gravitation, but quite frankly, I'm happy with Newton. It works.

b. The cosmological constant is nothing more than a mathematical term to balance the sums of a non-static universe model. IMO, it is not a real thing.

c. There is no lambda equivalent in classical mechanics, because the mechanical universe refers to what we see around us. We do not see an expanding universe - in fact we do not see any property that could be said to apply to the Universe as a whole - it is merely inferred from a mathematically expressed concept.

c bis. I may be wrong, but I don't think the cosmological constant was used, or intended to be used, to callibrate properties of Newtonian gravitation. I'm scratching my head. Bear with me because I don't use these terms myself, and last dealt with them formally probably as far back as my university days. As I recall, the cosmological constant (lambda) was proposed by Einstein in the later development of GR as a response to the bad news he got from Friedmann. It is thus a geometrical term applicable to curvature in GR. I don't agree with the lambda idea because it belongs only in a fictional universe, at least as far as I can see. Please note that I neither observe nor assume universal expansion, so I thankfully don't have the need to tune it mathematically.

d. The Newtonian universe is indeed classical 3-D Euclidian with a separate time axis. That is what makes it so appealing to me - the Newtonian model applies in the universe in which we live and breathe, and which has Seychelles and poisonous sea snakes in it, not an imagined world idealised to fit with concepts. That of course is the percieved limitation of NM - as Ratcliffe says in the epilogue of his irritating book "The real universe does not run on black magic, yet it is immeasurably more entertaining than the one invented for us by unconstrained mathematical daydreams. In reality physics we explain a far smaller chunk of the Universe than mathematical theories do, but we understand it in a fundamentally better way." My colleague at the University of Minho Jose Almeida proposes a fascinating (for maths-heads like me) model called 4-D Euclidian or 4 Dimensional Optics (4-DO).

e. 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. (If you have not already done so, try Verschuur's fascinating and well written book "Interstellar Matters - Essays on Scientific Curiosity". Brilliant!)

 

Enjoy.

 

Best

Hilton

ps Yes we do have shark nets. The Natal Sharks Board is a world leader in this field. There are opportunities here to dive and interact with both sharks and dolphins.

[Pluto]

Hello All

 

Hilton said

 

"The real universe does not run on black magic, yet it is immeasurably more entertaining than the one invented for us by unconstrained mathematical daydreams. In reality physics we explain a far smaller chunk of the Universe than mathematical theories do, but we understand it in a fundamentally better way."

 

Well done,,,,,,,,,,you write like a poet.

[coldcreation]

Thanks Hilton for you speedy response.

 

Just a note: Lambda was introduced (c. 1916, 1917)(before the Friedmann equations). If I recall, it was to prevent his model from imploding, to counter the attractive nature of all the mass in the universe, an outward pressure opposed to gravity.

 

How did Newton's world model prevent all the mass from aglomerating in ther center of the celestial sphere?

 

 

 

 

PS. You have two weeks to answer that. I'll be back!

 

PSS. Are there really poisonous sea snakes in the Indian Ocean?

 

Regards.

 

 

 

 

CC

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi CC,

 

Yes, you are right about lambda, I remember now. I will take up your question on Newton's world view when you come back. Yes there are sea snakes in the Indian Ocean, and they are the most venomous reptiles in the world. But don't worry too much about them, they are unlikely to bite you. If you are really going to be diving in coral caves, watch out for Moray eels - they can strip the flesh right off your finger, glove and all, as you reach in to catch what you think is a crayfish! And trust me, you don't want to stand on a sea urchin! Apart from that, watch out for undersea volcanoes, tectonic jumps, tsunamis, and crashing airliners.

 

Have a nice holiday. ;)

 

best

Hilton

[coldcreation]

Hi CC,

 

Yes, you are right about lambda, I remember now. I will take up your question on Newton's world view when you come back. Yes there are sea snakes in the Indian Ocean, and they are the most venomous reptiles in the world. But don't worry too much about them, they are unlikely to bite you. If you are really going to be diving in coral caves, watch out for Moray eels - they can strip the flesh right off your finger, glove and all, as you reach in to catch what you think is a crayfish! And trust me, you don't want to stand on a sea urchin! Apart from that, watch out for undersea volcanoes, tectonic jumps, tsunamis, and crashing airliners.

 

Have a nice holiday. :hihi:

 

best

Hilton

 

I stepped on an urchin. Ouch!!!

 

Good thing I had some tweezers and some rubbing alcohol (96%).