Is Newtonian Mechanics an advantage or a limitation in astrophysics?

[coldcreation]

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.

...snip....

 

Thanks for responding.

 

Question Pluto:

 

1. The idea you write about above makes sense. Is it your idea? If not, do you have a link or reference to provide?

 

2. Why is the idea not reflected in the HR diagram?

 

3. There are stars do not go through nova or supernova stages. How does the concept work for those objects?

 

 

CC

[kmarinas86]

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?

 

Very old stars are often calculated using radioactive isotopes. If light pressure high enough in some places, it would be able to decay matter back into basic elements, like that which occurs in the accretion disks of black holes

 

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.

 

First of all, light has to be gathered at one place, the only way you can do that is to have very large blackholes or equivalents to it, such as dark energy stars or gravastars. The second law of thermodynamics rules in most cases, since once radiation is out in space, it can be hard to catch all of it back, so gains in thermodynamic entropy are guaranteed. However, with dark energy stars and gravastars, the surrounding entropy is low. By having matter available in larger quantities, it is theoretically possible for light within the billions of light years to be sufficently collected in order to turn heavy element into lighter elements. These masses would have self-gravitation at the scale of billions of light years of radius. Any mass falling into such a massive collection of mass would be bombarded with an exceedingly great radaition field, which would decompose matter into lighter elements.

 

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

 

They can't be normal stars. The would have to be ridicuolously huge, like the objects I just mentioned. So huge that its gravitational redshift would be sufficient to explain the cosmological redshift itself.

 

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)?

 

The claim you mention is based on too many assumptions.

 

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?

 

Well people have tried to explain rogue waves using the Schrodinger equation. Couldn't we expect the same for the elements of stars?

 

6. Is the mainstream astronomical community ignoring these findings.

 

I have no clue.

[LaurieAG]

What is the point?

So far models are at their early stages.

 

Hello Pluto,

 

If a hypothesis cannot be modelled it would be very difficult to determine a test to validate the hypothesis, unless you operate on 'faith' instead of 'reason'.

 

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

 

Our sun is 125,000 light years away from our galactic center and takes 250,000 years to complete the journey. Have you modelled that from the observers viewpoint?

[Pluto]

Hello Laurie

 

You said

 

Our sun is 125,000 light years away from our galactic center and takes 250,000 years to complete the journey. Have you modelled that from the observers viewpoint?

 

Mate you have your facts wrong.

 

Our sun is about 20 to 25000 light years away from the centre. So called centre.

 

How did you get to the 250,000 years to complete the journey.

 

=======================================================

 

I know what models are.

 

The problem with models is like a computer, you feed it what ever and you get mushrooms.

 

Than again some models are close to the mark and supported by observations and not ad hoc ideas.

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi CC

 

Herewith answers to your questions. I will dig out some references in the next few days. Please bear in mind that we deal with an effective bias in the peer review system, resulting in a relative paucity in published non-standard views. This is real, not imagined. I know and acknowledge that peer review is necessary, and no journal could survive without it. However, it should be more transparent, more objectively scientific, and less political if it is to serve as an instrument for real progress in science. I have in my possession a rejection note from A & A citing as the reason for rejection the fact that the opinions expressed in the analysis do not meet with the editorial policy of the journal. No problem was found with the science per se.

 

CC asked

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?

 

1. 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.

 

CC asked

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.

 

2. This question opens a can of worms! In my opinion, observations in space tend to show that we might not be as clever about thermodynamics as we like to think. However, I’m not opening that discussion here. I certainly don’t want to toss reason out of the window and invoke something like Guth’s inflation theory to explain an ostensibly impossible equilibrium. I have always assumed, rightly or wrongly, that mass and energy are equivalent and symmetrical across the equals sign, and that photons, for example, that collide with particles in space can lose energy which is then conserved as mass in the particles they hit. I know of no equations in NM that deal with real particles, although of course classical mechanics for the sake of simplicity is modelled using position, mass, and force on virtual point particles. CC, do you think it would help if I rendered a deeper definition of classical mechanics?

 

CC asked

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

 

3. The microwave background itself is observational evidence against BBT and for ambient radiation. Firstly, it was predicted to be isotropic, and all analysis now is concerned with anisotropies. Contradiction. Secondly, alignments. The so-called Axis of Evil (Magueijo and Land), the cold spot, and other correlations with local astrophysical structures, including the ecliptic of the Solar System, and the Milky Way. It’s a blurred picture of the baryonic universe around us, not an echo of the fireball (see Starkman, Lieu, Verschuur, etc). I can’t see how this relates to NM though, although I know you carefully think about your questions and surely see some link.

 

CC asked

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)?

 

4. Can you give me a bit of time on this question? Like nucleosynthesis and the abundance of elements, it is extremely complex, and depends strongly on what assumptions are made up front. Peer reviewed accounts in mainstream journals would almost certainly be limited to standard model interpretations, but even so, in many cases cannot account for the size of structure that we now see – the Great Wall, the Sloan Great Wall, and the recent Great Void are cases in point. Unfortunately, my conscience won’t allow me to invoke magic wands like DM, DE, inflation, expansion of selected blobs of space, etc, etc, so while I must dot my i’s and cross my t’s, Big Bang theorists don’t have to be as meticulous.

 

CC asked

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?

 

5. I think some of this question was answered in 1 above. 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.

 

CC asked

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

 

6. Gosh, it certainly looks that way to me!

 

Best

Hilton

[coldcreation]

Thanks Hilton for the words above. It seems you have a lucide understanding and outlook of the complex substrate of modern astronomy: a rare trait.

 

... CC, do you think it would help if I rendered a deeper definition of classical mechanics?

 

I think your definition is clear enough.

 

 

 

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

 

6. Gosh, it certainly looks that way to me!

 

 

It is my contention additionally that there is both an overt and covert yearning as manifested in the false vacuum, DE and DM psyche to complement the big bang and repair the deep-seated problems—as if IT actually happened. But in the process the big bang camp circumvented (raped would be more acurate) physics, the fundamental laws of nature. They used whatever artistic license they needed—it was there for the taking—and ignored all the evidence of known physics that contradicted their tangible goal.

 

_______________

 

 

Question, on a different note: Is it possible to be an empiricist and relativist at the same time?

 

 

 

Regards,

 

 

CC

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi CC,

Thank you for your kind words. I take back all the mean things I said about standing on sea urchins! :phones:

 

Posted by CC: It is my contention additionally that there is both an overt and covert yearning as manifested in the false vacuum, DE and DM psyche to complement the big bang and repair the deep-seated problems—as if IT actually happened. But in the process the big bang camp circumvented (raped would be more accurate) physics, the fundamental laws of nature. They used whatever artistic license they needed—it was there for the taking—and ignored all the evidence of known physics that contradicted their tangible goal.

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. There, that’s my 5 cents’ worth!

 

Posted by CC:

Question, on a different note: Is it possible to be an empiricist and relativist at the same time?

 

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. In your question 2 (concerning E = mc2) you have suggested to me what may be a real limitation in my method, although I use it only in cosmology.

 

Regarding my previous post, here are some references to chew on:

 

1. E. J. Lerner The Big Bang Never Happened (Random House, NY, 1991) pp 23 & 28.

2. For a background on galaxy evolution, streaming motions, etc, to compare the Milky Way with HUDF galaxies, see Gurtina Besla, et al, “Are the Magellanic Clouds on their First Passage about the Milky Way?” (for ApJ, online at astro-ph:/0703196).

3. On the supercluster/void network: E. Saar, et al, A&A, vol 393, ppl 23 (2002).

4. On evacuating the voids, Galaxy streaming velocities, see peer-reviewed ApJ references given in E. J. Lerner “Dr Wright is Wrong” bigbangneverhappened.org/wrightreply.html.

5. W. J. Frith, T. Shanks, & P. J. Outram “2Mass Constraints on the Local Large-scale Structure: A Challenge to lambda CDM?” MNRAS, online as astro-ph/0411204. Also by same authors “Large Local Hole in the Galaxy Distribution…” astro-ph/0408011.

6. Formation of gravity wells: Angelo Loinger and Tiziana Marsico, “On the Gravitational Collapse of a Massive Star” physics/0512237. Dr Loinger has written copiously on the mathematical modelling of Black Holes without once, as far as I know, successfully realising one.

7. CMBR: Eric J. Lerner “Intergalactic radio Absorption and the COBE Data.” Astrophysics and Space Science 227; 61 – 81, 1995.

Also Gerrit L. Verschuur “High Galactic Latitude…” ApJ, astro-ph/0704.1125.

8. Method for measuring galaxies: R. Scarpa, R. Falomo, E. Lerner “Do Local Analogs of Lyman Break Galaxies exist?” astro-ph/0706.2948.

9. Distribution: David F Crawford “The Quasar Distribution in a Static Universe” astro-ph/9407028.

 

Best

Hilton

[Pluto]

Hello All

 

It is a breath of fresh air just reading the discussion between CC and Hilton.

 

Hilton thank you for those references, reading for the weekend.

 

====================================================

 

question

 

How do you account for the dating on stars that go through varies phases or stages of their evolution, and than determine the age of the universe?

 

To add to that merging stars and rejuvination.

[coldcreation]

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? ...

 

Totally. The strength of the big bang with its new incarnation (the LCDM-model along with inflation) rests in its capacity to liberate the mind from its constraints by peddling vacuity and imprudence to their extreme limits, until they surpass themselves, where inconsistency is no longer bothersome. The false vacuum, the roll-over, DE and DM are constrained less by the physical properties of a natural origin than by emotional, social and psychological ones.

 

In another way, the big bang event (whatever that is supposed to mean), the false vacuum state, dark energy and nonbaryonic DM combined, more than representing something physical, reflect the grotesquely amusing and unlimited creative potential of the Homoousian psyche.

 

Indeed, all of these variations (DE, DM, etc.) differ trivially; all display genius for dramatic and psychologically insightful narrative, all mysterious details and asserted phenomenon lay conveniently well outside the range of our observable universe. In this way, all potential occurrences brought in to adjudicate the disputes remain forever unresolved: and in the process keep the BBT alive and kicking in the minds of those who believe.

 

 

In that sense, Newtonian Mechanics is certainly an advantage (not a limitation) in astrophysics, since none of that bunk existed within its framework.

 

 

 

Is it possible to be an empiricist and relativist at the same time?

 

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. In your question 2 (concerning E = mc2) you have suggested to me what may be a real limitation in my method, although I use it only in cosmology.

 

Thanks for this.

 

I was referring to a general relativist, not a Galilean relativist. When you write Galilean relativist do you implicate Newtonian relativity, special relativity, Galilean invariance? Would you include Lorentz transformations within the scope of Galilean relativity?

 

So the question should read:

 

Is it possible to be an empiricist and general relativist simultaneously?

 

I assume your answer would remain the same, even though I was under the impression that you saw a contradiction in terms: meaning GR was not an empirical science, but a mathematical stratagem or abstraction. If not, how does your answer change?

 

 

Thanks for the references. Are the ApJ articles are online for the general public or for paying users?

 

 

______________

 

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

 

 

Cheers

 

CC

[Pluto]

Hello All

 

I just don't understand how the Big Bang has become the standard model with so many smart scientists around the world.

 

What the hell is going on?

 

and

 

Why was this allowed to happen in daylight?

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Posted by Pluto:

Why was this allowed to happen in daylight?

 

Because the observational astronomers were asleep. They worked all night!

 

CC, I will reply to your post when World Cup rugby match England vs Samoa, has ended.

 

Best

Hilton

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi CC,

 

Your questions direct one towards some very important principles.

 

Posted by CC:

I was referring to a general relativist, not a Galilean relativist. When you write Galilean relativist do you implicate Newtonian relativity, special relativity, Galilean invariance? Would you include Lorentz transformations within the scope of Galilean relativity?

So the question should read:

Is it possible to be an empiricist and general relativist simultaneously?

I assume your answer would remain the same, even though I was under the impression that you saw a contradiction in terms: meaning GR was not an empirical science, but a mathematical stratagem or abstraction. If not, how does your answer change?

 

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...

 

Posted by CC:

Thanks for the references. Are the ApJ articles are online for the general public or for paying users?

 

ApJ, like its parent AAS, is an exclusive club, members only. All the references cited in Lerner's piece should be available on arXiv.

 

 

Posted by CC:

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

 

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. I write a monthly astrophysical column for the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa, called Breaking News! The September issue is pertinent to this discussion, so please allow me to quote a couple of paragraphs:

 

I was asked the question once, “How is it that all these astronomers—the majority—were persuaded that the so-called CMBR came from the Big Bang?” The answer is that they didn’t need to be persuaded. Their model requires it, so come rain or shine, cosmic the microwaves will be. The mainstream of astrophysics knew (believed) long before the COBE results were in that the radiation picture would be “like looking at the fingerprint of God”, the well-worn remark commonly attributed to leading MB analyst Dr George Smoot.

We will not successfully bring the matter of the CMBR to a useable conclusion unless we first rid the whole affair of investment bias. Nobel laureate Prof Robert Laughlin tells amusingly in his book A Different Universe of the “First Axiom of Science”, attributed to my ACG colleague Dr George Chapline: “It is impossible to persuade anyone of any true thing which will cost him money.” Think about it. With what aim and purpose did the sponsors of COBE and WMAP allocate hundreds of millions of dollars and incalculable man-hours? It was to find observational support for BBT. There was nothing else on the agenda. Consider this—if by some greatly fortunate quirk of happenstance we had no BBT, how would the world of science have dealt with the microwave fog that surrounds us? Would they have sent up hugely expensive orbiting observatories focussed specifically on obtaining microwave pictures at excruciating resolution? Of course not! They would have treated it as the radio noise it is, and probably left it at that bar a few mildly inquisitive glances. But my friends, we have seen the scientific overkill that went into reinforcing a theoretical prejudice. Having made the investment however, the sponsors would expect a return. Their business plan demanded it. And so they threw at it everything bar the kitchen sink! We were presented with Mather’s plot of prediction versus observation, and the choir sang the Hallelujah Chorus. It is, we are continually persuaded, a perfect fit. The fingerprint of God no less! Did not anyone bar my dog and me raise their eyebrows at the arrogant achievement of perfection raised to Biblical standards?

No, Ladies and Gentlemen, it is not a sinister, political conspiracy; it is simply economics, and the currency is the dollar plus, more significantly, exposure of individuals to the diabolical possibility that they might just have been wrong.

 

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.

 

Best

Hilton

[LaurieAG]

Mate you have your facts wrong.

Our sun is about 20 to 25000 light years away from the centre. So called centre.

How did you get to the 250,000 years to complete the journey.

 

I know what models are.

 

Pluto, I hope you understand that science is a repeating cycle of modifications to a model followed by testing to verify the predictions made by the original hypothesis, through the model. The hypothesis, model(s) used and predictions can all change during the process.

 

BTW, I missed ,000 of the end of 250,000 as we have apparently rotated around our galactic center 20 times in the past 4 billion years.

[Pluto]

Hello Laurie

 

Yes you are about right. Models do change. In the last few decades I have noticed great changes.

 

Just waiting for the time that the Big Bang goes out with a bang.

 

One more thing during the rotation, our solar system rotates around the spiral arm and in every cycle our solar system gets closer to the centre. This is final destination or so it seems, than this matter is than recycled back to the land of ozzzzzzzzz.

 

Origin of our solar system,,,,,,varies theories

 

1) Dense cloud matter that originated from supernovas

 

2) Neutron core left from a supernova

 

3) Part of another galaxy that collided with the Milky Way

 

4) Ejected matter from an active neucleon in the centre of the milky way or another galaxy.

 

Who know?

 

I wander if there is more cards on the table.

[LaurieAG]

I wander if there is more cards on the table.

 

There most probably are Pluto, considering the general scientific process. And the benefits of Newtonian Mechanics exist largely in the real world while the alternatives are seemingly an inverse of NM, hard to link to anything in our real world that has an impact (apart from microscopic and macroscopic interpretations of large masses of manipulated data) but theoretically bountiful.

[Pluto]

Hello Laurie

 

 

You maybe right.

 

Please expand on alternatives.

[coldcreation]

Posted by Pluto:

 

 

Because the observational astronomers were asleep. They worked all night!

 

CC, I will reply to your post when World Cup rugby match England vs Samoa, has ended.

 

Best

Hilton

 

I'm in Paris right now. Lot's of rugby in all the bars, and stadiums.

 

The Wifi signal is low so I will respond to your response later, rather than sooner.

 

Best...

 

CC