Is Newtonian Mechanics an advantage or a limitation in astrophysics?

[coldcreation]

My question, Hilton, revolves around cosmology again, of course. But particularly with respect to the close relation between big bang cosmology and Newtonian theory. After all, Modern cosmology describes a Newtonian world of events as a dynamic inertial picture changing in time and hurled onto the background of three-dimensional flat Euclidean space, rather than as a static (nonexpanding) picture on the background of a four-dimensional general relativistic spacetime continuum.

 

Does not present and future cosmology (astrophysics as well) depends on Einstein’s discovery: the general postulate of relativity (with lambda)?

 

My answer is resoundingly yes. And so, in answer to the question set out in the title of this thread, Newtonian Mechanics must be a limitation in astrophysics (and cosmology alike).

 

Is my assumption incorrect?

 

 

Thanks in advance for your response...

 

 

CC

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi CC,

 

Maybe I'm suffering from sleep deprivation, but I can't locate your email address. Could you send me a blank email so I can get the return address?

 

Thank you.

 

Hilton

[coldcreation]

 

The Universe I try to explain is that mainfestation I am sentiently aware of (what I observe and experience), and I therefore use observation and experience as the basis of my method. I also explicitly exclude mathematical arguments from my explanation of that infinitesimal fraction of the Universe that I claim to understand. As an astronomer, I use classical physics (Newtonian mechanics) to figure out what it is I am looking at. That may be considered by some to be a self-imposed limitation; I view it as an advantage.

 

 

The questions this thread asks include whether or not a mechanical explanation of the observed universe is deficient or inferior to a (Einstein) relativistic explanation; if pure mathematical modelling assists or detracts from astrophysics; if one can draw realistic conclusions from gedanken experiments; whether mathematically-derived hypotheses like Black Holes and Big Bang theory enhance or detract from our quest for real-world answers to observational curiosities; and finally, if cosmology should even be part of the physical sciences rather than a subset of theology.

...

 

 

I had to re-read your initial post to make sure I wasn't too far off-topic. I see cosmology is in, not out, so I will continue posting. And since you ask a number of questions, I will attempt the answering of a couple of them, with a final question, again, at the end of this post.

 

 

I mention here Stephen Hawking since he best represents the old school big bang cosmology movement, and since Hawking has had a big impact on the post-1980s image of big bang cosmology, because of both his best seller and his privileged disposition: the chair at Cambridge (once occupied by Newton without wheels).

 

 

Throughout much of the 20th century the point had been made by Hawking (and others) that all attempts to understand the origin of the universe were doomed to failure: there is no "north of the north pole," only an uncertainty principle. “We find ourselves in a bewildering world” he wrote, as if more concerned with the question of why the universe exists. He wrote in the final sentence of the conclusion of his 1988 bestseller; finding an answer to that question “would be the ultimate triumph of human reason?for then we would know the mind of God.”

 

This scholarly method, in somewhat anthropomorphic terms, does not perhaps agree with the inventiveness today demanded by our sensibility. It seems rather to be a servile pastiche or satirized mixture of ideas borrowed from Newton and/or Kant. His fallacious elevation of a singular ideal (black hole, big bang or God) is the outcome of an archaic and obsolete confusion between science and religion (even if only for pure provocation). This is not criticism, simply an observation. So far so bad.

 

 

Two particularly important points took his discourse further into philosophy (not to use the words religious conviction; even if not his own) than should have been necessary: Hawking tackled the central problem of cosmology, of the Sublime too. Both views, though, were doomed from the outset as they shared a common flaw. They were both above the level of the knowable; they were subjective, untouchable, and therefore antiscientific, fictional, invented.

 

He merely exposed the failure to clearly distinguish beauty, elegance, geometry and the universal, from the repulsive, inaccessible, and the unmeasurable: the elitist uncertain conviction. His concepts on black holes, amongst others, were a manifestation of the infinite depth not of a gravitational field, but of the unlimited profundity of the imagination.

 

 

Does not present and future cosmology depends on Einstein’s discovery: GR?

 

 

My guess is that GR is not the problem. It is the interpretation of such that has gone astray. It is the quest to unify GR with QM at high energy and small scale that is of no fundamental use; at all (e.g., the search to describe the state of an event that never happened, that does not exist in nature).

 

 

 

 

To be continued...

 

CC

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi CC,

 

Thank you again for your important contributions to this discussion. My colleague and mentor Oliver Manuel has given me many guidelines from his 50 years of teaching science, and I'm pretty sure it was he who told me that when answering a question, don't try to give a smart answer; just tell the truth, and if you don't know, there's know shame in admitting it. What we don't know far exceeds what we do.

 

The cosmology you talk of is a grand scheme. If we have a philosophical horizon, it would take us there. It gets unrealistically beyond its factual base. Perhaps Hawking's treatment of cosmology best illustrates why I do not want to go there, and why (so I thought) I excluded cosmology from this thread.

 

The Universe I try to explain is that mainfestation I am sentiently aware of (what I observe and experience), and I therefore use observation and experience as the basis of my method.

I also explicitly exclude mathematical arguments from my explanation of that infinitesimal fraction of the Universe that I claim to understand.

The questions this thread asks include whether or not a mechanical explanation of the observed universe is deficient or inferior to a (Einstein) relativistic explanation;

and finally, if cosmology should even be part of the physical sciences rather than a subset of theology.

 

To me, my meaning was clear, but I accept that it may not be to others. My intended aim was to discuss whether or not classical physics would suffice to adequately explain what is discovered in practical astronomy. That explicitly excludes cosmology. The final question quoted above has the retorical implication that cosmology is essentially unscientific, that is, unconstrained by everyday reality.

 

So my guess then is that GR is indeed the problem. Like ptolemy's epicycles, it gets right answers for the wrong reasons, assumes physically baseless propositions like the kinetic and morphological properties of space, and relies on an observer-dependent reality. The universe is a real thing, not a mathematical model.

 

Please, CC, don't think I am trying to muzzle you, or worse, evade your questions. Continue to comment on the philosphical side of astrophysics as much as you like, and I will continue read your posts with great interest. As long as you understand that I am somewhat selfishly trying to get to get a real-world answer to the practical problems facing astronomers. Empiricism rules! :phones:

 

Best

Hilton

[LaurieAG]

His concepts on black holes, amongst others, were a manifestation of the infinite depth not of a gravitational field, but of the unlimited profundity of the imagination.

 

Hello CC,

 

I've just been re-reading Stephen Hawking and Robert Penrose' book, The Nature of Space and Time, and I am getting an impression that the models and modelling methods would not produce the same results if infinity wasn't 'built in'.

 

Newton didn't have anything infinite in his mechanics did he?

[LaurieAG]

As long as you understand that I am somewhat selfishly trying to get to get a real-world answer to the practical problems facing astronomers. Empiricism rules!

 

Hello Hilton,

 

Sorry about the diversion. Have you tried modelling what our solar system would look like from 400,000 light years away?

[coldcreation]

... My intended aim was to discuss whether or not classical physics would suffice to adequately explain what is discovered in practical astronomy. ...

 

 

Let's get down to the problems faced by classical physics (and, as it turns out, by non-classical physics) when it comes to explaining what is discovered, observed in the universe.

 

The fine-tuning problem. Much of the equilibrium problem revolves around an apparent cancelation amid gravity and cetrifugal force. The general-relativistic approach to the relationship between inertia and gravitational force reduces the physical phenomenon to the same constant, i.e. equality of inertial and gravitational force. Centrifugal forces are exactly like the force of gravity, proportional to the masses of the bodies.

 

That is, from mechanics, it is thought that the existence of stable orbits depends on the distance, the mass, and the angular momentum of given bodies (stemming from some ad hoc initial condition); where centrifugal force exactly counters the tendency of gravitational attraction.

 

How does classical mechanics (or non-classical mechanics) explain the observed equilibrium (or quasi-equilibrium)? Trick question, I know. Everyone one knows the answer to that question. This is why the fine tuning problem persists.

 

So to date it seems there is no advantage or disadvantage to classical mechanics over, say, GR. In other words, both have failed to explain what is observed (without the attribution of some ficticious initial condition).

 

Right or wrong?

 

 

So my guess then is that GR is indeed the problem. Like ptolemy's epicycles, it gets right answers for the wrong reasons, assumes physically baseless propositions like the kinetic and morphological properties of space, and relies on an observer-dependent reality.

 

The "observer-dependent reality" was one of the consequences of quantum mechanics: exactly what Einstein detested in QM. I was under the impression that GR was entirely based on experience, observations, natural laws.

 

It was Einstein who wrote: “Turning to the theory of relativity itself, I am anxious to draw attention to the fact that this theory is not speculative in origin; it owes its invention entirely to the desire to make physical theory fit observed fact as well as possible. We have here no revolutionary act but the natural continuation of a line that can be traced through the centuries. (Einstein 1921)

 

The universe is a real thing, not a mathematical model.

 

Good point. "GR is a class of “principle-theories” as its inventor called them. “These employ the analytic, not the synthetic, method. The elements which form their basis and starting-point are not hypothetically constructed but empirically discovered ones, general characteristics of natural processes, principles that give rise to mathematically formulated criteria…” (Einstein, 1919).

 

I'm not trying to push GR down anyones throat. I simply point out that the arguments you use against it seem more based on subsequent interpretations, or models, or worse, gross extrapolations of it. The original version of GR (Einstein's) was merely an extension of classical mechanics.

 

He knew, for example that "One may…not assume the validity of the equations for very high density of field and matter, and one may not conclude that the “beginning of expansion” must mean a singularity in the mathematical sense." (Pais 1982)

 

 

... I am somewhat selfishly trying to get to get a real-world answer to the practical problems facing astronomers. Empiricism rules! :D

 

Hilton

 

I agree. But where is the real-world answer to the fine-tuning problem related not soley to solar system dynamics, but to galaxy rotational curves, and a host of other observed phenomena (yes, including, by extrapolation, the stability problem of the visible universe, or even the entire Universe, whatever that means)?

 

 

 

Thanks

 

 

CC

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi LaurieAG,

 

Welcome to this humble thread. I have been following your posts elsewhere with interest.

 

Have you tried modelling what our solar system would look like from 400,000 light years away?

 

No I can't say I have. I don't do modelling, at least not seriously. Sometimes I play trivial mind games and calculate how far you and I travel in a day, using sequentially larger frames, for example. Why do you ask?

 

Best

Hilton

[Pluto]

Hello All

 

Did someone ask for a model

 

The Universe within 500000 Light Years - The Satellite Galaxies

 

Have fun,,,,,,,,,,,,,zoom in and out

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi CC,

 

I’m going to backtrack a bit and see if I can’t nail the principles down.

 

Let's just say that according to Newtonian theory of gravity, all the mass in the universe (being attractive gravitationally) should agglomerate in the centre 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. That was the short (and so inexact) version.

Question then: How could anyone today possibly articulate that the universe is nonexpanding?

Are you Hilton claiming the universe is static? And if so, how can that be, since both Newtonian and Einsteinian theory do not allow it?

 

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.

 

Does not present and future cosmology (astrophysics as well) depend on Einstein’s discovery: the general postulate of relativity (with lambda)? My answer is resoundingly yes. And so, in answer to the question set out in the title of this thread, Newtonian Mechanics must be a limitation in astrophysics (and cosmology alike).

Is my assumption incorrect?

 

Incorrect.

 

Does not present and future cosmology depend on Einstein’s discovery: GR?

 

No, definitely not.

 

The fine-tuning problem. Much of the equilibrium problem revolves around an apparent cancellation amid gravity and centrifugal force. The general-relativistic approach to the relationship between inertia and gravitational force reduces the physical phenomenon to the same constant, i.e. equality of inertial and gravitational force. Centrifugal forces are exactly like the force of gravity, proportional to the masses of the bodies.

That is, from mechanics, it is thought that the existence of stable orbits depends on the distance, the mass, and the angular momentum of given bodies (stemming from some ad hoc initial condition); where centrifugal force exactly counters the tendency of gravitational attraction.

How does classical mechanics (or non-classical mechanics) explain the observed equilibrium (or quasi-equilibrium)? Trick question, I know. Everyone one knows the answer to that question. This is why the fine-tuning problem persists.

 

No, this is not a trick question. In the short time I’ve known you, I have realised that you are not the kind of person who asks trick questions. You seek answers, not victory. The answer is really not that puzzling. In a random distribution of objects within a gravitational field only those few objects that strike the right balance of momentum between the centripetal effect (the force of gravity) and the centrifugal effect (a pseudo-force resulting from Newton’s first law) will remain in orbit. The rest will go on their way. Their status does not have to be tuned. Nature simply takes its course. Where fine-tuning really is a problem is in setting the free parameters so that BBT might work. It is so difficult in fact that no one has succeeded yet.

 

So to date it seems there is no advantage or disadvantage to classical mechanics over, say, GR. In other words, both have failed to explain what is observed (without the attribution of some fictitious initial condition).

Right or wrong?

 

In my opinion and experience, wrong.

 

The "observer-dependent reality" was one of the consequences of quantum mechanics: exactly what Einstein detested in QM. I was under the impression that GR was entirely based on experience, observations, natural laws.

 

No, Einstein completely changed his position on this principle for his debate with Bohr. For both SRT and GRT the principle is definitely “I think, therefore I am.” When he was faced with the weirdness of QM he quickly converted to empiricism. He talked the talk but didn’t walk the walk. This aspect of Relativity is well illustrated in chapter 11 of Ratcliffe’s sickening and argumentative book “The Virtue of Heresy”. :D

 

I'm not trying to push GR down anyone’s throat. I simply point out that the arguments you use against it seem more based on subsequent interpretations, or models, or worse, gross extrapolations of it. The original version of GR (Einstein's) was merely an extension of classical mechanics.

 

No Sir, it was not an extension of classical mechanics. Quite the opposite. It was a refutation of and replacement for classical mechanics, using fundamentally different principles. I’m sure you must have read Einstein and Infeld’s wonderful little book called “The Evolution of Physics.” The ideas leading to Relativity are laid out in a sequence (see the Table of Contents): 1. The rise of the mechanical view. 2. The decline of the mechanical view. 3. Field, relativity. 4. Quanta.

 

That's enough to chew on, I reckon. B)

 

Best

Hilton

[LaurieAG]

No I can't say I have. I don't do modelling, at least not seriously. Sometimes I play trivial mind games and calculate how far you and I travel in a day, using sequentially larger frames, for example. Why do you ask?

 

Hello Hilton,

 

If you look at the light paths that would be generated from our solar system and flow to a stationary viewpoint that is further away in light years than the time it takes our solar system to rotate around its galactic center, you will find that the spiral galaxy form is what you see. I think that this illusion is due to the galactic scales becoming equivalent (to a certain extent) to the quantum scales that we cannot observe correctly because we lack the technology, as yet, to scale downwards accurately (i.e. with certainty).

 

I feel that the current method of modelling and conceiving spiral galaxies (and anti/dark matter etc) is more akin to how the Lloyds names ramped up the original Piper Alpha loss many times, via a re-insurance merrygoround.

 

In this respect there are still many unresolved issues with regards to our conception of the universe's basic structures and how to model them.

[Pluto]

Hello All

 

 

I always read the posts.

 

Sounds very interesting, but! I think you left me back at the ranch.

 

What is the point?

 

So far models are at their early stages.

 

One more thing there is no original shape of any galaxy. They are in motion of change in a never ending story.

[coldcreation]

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.

 

True.

 

This equilibrium is beautifully described by the Kepler/Newton equations.

 

Can you tell me where. I was under the impression, as I mentioned before, that Newton had not been able to attribute a “natural” cause that “could give the planets those just degrees of velocity, in proportion to their distance from the Sun and other central bodies, which were a requisite to make them move in such concentric orbs about those bodies.” The “blind and fortuitous” divinity that fine-tuned and adjusted the various celestial bodies, had to be “very well skilled in mechanics and geometry.” Newton felt himself forced to “ascribe it to the council and contrivance of a voluntary Agent…a divine arm.” (Newton 1692: I can get the page numbers if you like)

 

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.

 

Again, true, regarding the universe itself. But the problem remains for celestial bodies. It wouldn't be until 1772, when Lagrange formulated his limited two- and three-body solutions, that something resembling an answer to the observed equilibrium would emerge. But that would not yet be the end of the story...

 

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.

 

Excellent point.

 

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.

 

True yet again. For example there is no general solution for a 3-body problem (let alone n-body problem) that is not restricted. So we are far from understanding the dynamics of, say, an average globular cluster, to say the least.

 

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.

 

Technically speaking Hubble expansion is not described in GR, but I know what you mean: the FLWR model describes a nonstatic metric. True too that an inhomogenous nonisotropic distribution leads to a violation of Hubble's law. The problem is not GR.

 

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.

 

Yet again, Hilton is correct.

 

 

 

In a random distribution of objects within a gravitational field only those few objects that strike the right balance of momentum between the centripetal effect (the force of gravity) and the centrifugal effect (a pseudo-force resulting from Newton’s first law) will remain in orbit. The rest will go on their way. Their status does not have to be tuned. Nature simply takes its course.

 

I suppose MOND says something about this. I'll look into that. But the short answer you give could not explain very large complex distributions of stars, say, eliptical galaxies or spherical galaxies that are not rotating fast enough to maintain the balance between centrifugal and centripedal (due to gravity) force.

 

Where fine-tuning really is a problem is in setting the free parameters so that BBT might work. It is so difficult in fact that no one has succeeded yet.

 

Yes, true, true, thrice true, and that is why 96% of the universe must be composed of "dark" bunk (DE and nonbaryonic-DM), and like the Loch Ness Monster (affectionately known as Nessie or nessiteras rhombopteryx by serious aficionados, the legendary beast said to lurk in its peat-darkened depths of the massive loch) remains elusive and spurious. hihihi

 

 

 

No Sir, it [GR] was not an extension of classical mechanics. Quite the opposite. It was a refutation of and replacement for classical mechanics, using fundamentally different principles. I’m sure you must have read Einstein and Infeld’s wonderful little book called “The Evolution of Physics.” The ideas leading to Relativity are laid out in a sequence (see the Table of Contents): 1. The rise of the mechanical view. 2. The decline of the mechanical view. 3. Field, relativity. 4. Quanta.

Hilton

 

Hmm, we disagree here. That is like saying that cubism, even though an extension of classical Cézanne and primitive african art, is something altogether different than what is was derived from. You are both right and wrong simultaneously.

 

You seem to say that it is entierly new (e.g., GR replaces classical mechanics, as in cubism replaced classical impressionism, along with its principles). I say that GR did not entirely replace GR. Proof is that Newtonian mechanics is still used today (and it works, at small velocities and low densities).

 

 

 

CC

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi CC

 

Posted by Hilton:

This equilibrium is beautifully described by the Kepler/Newton equations.

 

Posted by CC:

Can you tell me where. I was under the impression, as I mentioned before, that Newton had not been able to attribute a “natural” cause that “could give the planets those just degrees of velocity, in proportion to their distance from the Sun and other central bodies, which were a requisite to make them move in such concentric orbs about those bodies.” The “blind and fortuitous” divinity that fine-tuned and adjusted the various celestial bodies, had to be “very well skilled in mechanics and geometry.” Newton felt himself forced to “ascribe it to the council and contrivance of a voluntary Agent…a divine arm.” (Newton 1692: I can get the page numbers if you like)

 

As we have seen, Newton did not (in his science anyway) get involved in causes or whys and wherefores, and as your quotes show, was quite open about his inability to do so. He gave us formulae to quantify behaviour. Perhaps I should bring up another aspect of trying to extrapolate NM to cosmology, or even to the physics of extragalactic objects. Newton's laws applied exactly to what he could measure (the Solar System), even though we apparently don't know enough about the initial conditions to be 100% accurate in the case of Mercury. As you point out, n-bodies is a problem, and the Solar System is after all an n-body system, albeit low density. For as far as we can "mechanically" measure distance (triangulation), NM gives us the right answers. At greater distances, we hit problems, but it's too easy to blame NM. Variables increase exponentially with distance, and when we come to consider galaxy rotation, we need to know firstly, whether our techniques of measurement are appropriate on that scale, and secondly, something few astrophysicists seem to contemplate, whether there are other well-known rotational forces at play besides gravitation, for example electricity. There are numerous possibilities that don't need DM, but our understanding of those effects is inexact. Something is wrong out there, and it isn't neccessarily or even obviously Newton.

 

I think I expressed it badly in my original quote. What I am saying is that mechanical gravitation, with of course no lambda, will not neccessarily cause the universe to collapse, which is what I understood your original question was asking.

 

Posted by Hilton:

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.

 

Posted by CC:

True yet again. For example there is no general solution for a 3-body problem (let alone n-body problem) that is not restricted. So we are far from understanding the dynamics of, say, an average globular cluster, to say the least.

 

Absolutely right.

 

Posted by Hilton:

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.

 

Posted by CC:

Technically speaking Hubble expansion is not described in GR, but I know what you mean: the FLWR model describes a nonstatic metric. True too that an inhomogenous nonisotropic distribution leads to a violation of Hubble's law. The problem is not GR.

 

Uhhhh, ok, I won't argue. I think we agree on the principle, though we may have different names for it.

 

Posted by Hilton:

In a random distribution of objects within a gravitational field only those few objects that strike the right balance of momentum between the centripetal effect (the force of gravity) and the centrifugal effect (a pseudo-force resulting from Newton’s first law) will remain in orbit. The rest will go on their way. Their status does not have to be tuned. Nature simply takes its course.

 

Posted by CC:

I suppose MOND says something about this. I'll look into that. But the short answer you give could not explain very large complex distributions of stars, say, eliptical galaxies or spherical galaxies that are not rotating fast enough to maintain the balance between centrifugal and centripedal (due to gravity) force.

 

Yes that is so, which tells me that there is something (quite normal!) affecting the balance, and until we find out what it might be, we can use MOND to calculate the numbers.

 

Posted by Hilton:

Where fine-tuning really is a problem is in setting the free parameters so that BBT might work. It is so difficult in fact that no one has succeeded yet.

 

Posted by CC:

Yes, true, true, thrice true, and that is why 96% of the universe must be composed of "dark" bunk (DE and nonbaryonic-DM), and like the Loch Ness Monster (affectionately known as Nessie or nessiteras rhombopteryx by serious aficionados, the legendary beast said to lurk in its peat-darkened depths of the massive loch) remains elusive and spurious. hihihi

 

Well put! You express yourself well, have you written any books? You should.

 

Posted by Hilton:

No Sir, it [GR] was not an extension of classical mechanics. Quite the opposite. It was a refutation of and replacement for classical mechanics, using fundamentally different principles. I’m sure you must have read Einstein and Infeld’s wonderful little book called “The Evolution of Physics.” The ideas leading to Relativity are laid out in a sequence (see the Table of Contents): 1. The rise of the mechanical view. 2. The decline of the mechanical view. 3. Field, relativity. 4. Quanta.

 

Posted by CC:

Hmm, we disagree here. That is like saying that cubism, even though an extension of classical Cézanne and primitive african art, is something altogether different than what is was derived from. You are both right and wrong simultaneously. You seem to say that it is entierly new (e.g., GR replaces classical mechanics, as in cubism replaced classical impressionism, along with its principles). I say that GR did not entirely replace GR. Proof is that Newtonian mechanics is still used today (and it works, at small velocities and low densities).

 

I was about to launch into a counter-analogy, but changed my mind. The real essence of this thread is that at normal working distances NM and GR give the same answers, but NM is far, far easier to use. So we use it. That wasn't Einstein's plan, though, as I understand it. GR and SR are not mechanical, and were invented to replace mechanics.

 

Best

Hilton

[coldcreation]

hello Hilton,

 

In the post above there are sections where it is written Original post by Hilton Ratcliffe, underneath, in the same block, there is a paragraph by CC.

 

 

I'll see if I can ask you a pointed question shortly.

 

 

CC

[coldcreation]

Hello Hilton,

 

A few quick question:

 

1. 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?

 

2. It is well known that mass can be converted to energy. Can energy (e.g., in the form of radiation) be converted to mass, and still concord with the first law of thermodynamics? If so, what equations (in classical mechanics) would be used to describe such interactions if GR is not involved.

 

3. What observational evidence suggests that the microwave background is a benign background of the radiating stars that surround us?

 

4. Superclusters and the huge voids are calculated to have required 55 to 65 Gyr to form. Is that correct, empirically based? If so, would you care to provide a (peer reviewed?) source, or link regarding the evidence for our viewers (both mainstream and non-mainstream proponents)?

 

5. Regarding massive metal rich stars/galaxies/objects at high-z, near the visible horizon, observed in the HUDF: Is it considered empirical evidence that some of these objects have to be older than, say, 10 Gyr, in order to sustain, or to have obtained the kind of metallicity observed?

 

6. Is the mainstream astronomical community ignoring these findings (in the sense that the evidence undermines the standard model)?

 

 

CC

[Pluto]

Hello All

 

If I may repond to CC

 

A few quick question:

 

1. 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?

 

We know that stars go through varies phases of evolution. Every time they go super nova the dating process restarts. Part of a recycling process. Same principle with oceanic plates a Few hundred million years recycle) compared to continental plates (a few billion years) and the dating restarts.

 

The only problem with dating is that we are unable to date compacted matter that has an event horizon, not a theoretical Black Hole. Some of these have an expected life of about 10^65 they are called supermassive black holes.

 

 

4. Superclusters and the huge voids are calculated to have required 55 to 65 Gyr to form. How can that be in a universe thought to have existed a mere 13.7 Gyr?

 

Its better to leave the Big Bang theory aside and think of reality based on observations rather than ad hoc ideas supporting foundations without footings.

 

But its funny that many sites such as hubble and chandra refer to the big bang as the bible. God know why?

 

as for questions 2 and 3. a maths problem.