Is Newtonian Mechanics an advantage or a limitation in astrophysics?

[LaurieAG]

Hello Laurie

 

 

You maybe right.

 

Please expand on alternatives.

 

I think the alternatives lie in the KIS principle, with the first step being an audit and classification of current 'knowledge' with respect to any SI units used and the level of mathematical manipulation of these units. This is to match like with like and unlike with unlike.

 

The decks must be cleared of any rubbish before the real work can begin.

[coldcreation]

I think the alternatives lie in the KIS principle, with the first step being an audit and classification of current 'knowledge' with respect to any SI units used and the level of mathematical manipulation of these units. This is to match like with like and unlike with unlike.

 

The decks must be cleared of any rubbish before the real work can begin.

 

Hi LaurieG, Pluto, Hilton, etc.,

 

Laurie, could you make a list of what you consider rubbish?

 

What do you mean by "classification of current 'knowledge'"?

 

What kind of "real work" could begin?

 

 

CC-Cheers

[Pluto]

Hello All

 

Hello laurie

 

I undertand your point and agree with CC. You need to expand more in order for us not to read your words out of context.

 

I thought Rugby was only played in the land of ozzzzzzzzzzz. Whats going on with the world, next thing they may all become friends and than where would we be.

[coldcreation]

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... :naughty:

 

Hello all,

 

This discussion is becoming increasingly interesting as it proceeds.

 

On the question of rigidness or flexibility of the co-ordinate system: The case for either or has apparently not yet been settled (or has it?).

 

Hilton,

 

Let's get empirical.

 

The narrative of general relativity outlined by Einstein’s schematic geometric properties of spacetime 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, in Einstein's words, “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.

 

So turning to the natural laws...do you believe the notion that the fundamental laws of physics are in a logical sense deduced from experience, from classical mechanics, rather than free inventions of the human mind, abstractions, construed by mathematical means? It was Einstein’s general relativity that showed us “one could take account of a wider range of empirical facts…in a more satisfactory and complete manner, on a foundation quite different from the Newtonian.” (Einstein, 1934, 1954, p. 273-4)

 

Would you not say that our understanding of the natural laws is at present incomplete? And, that a prerequisite to fully coming to terms with those laws is precisely through mathematical constructs? If not, then why can they not all been deduced from empirical facts? Or conversely, why, if all the laws are known, has it not been possible to formulate a standard world model (a theory of everything?) that encompasses all observations, without exception?

 

 

Ilya Prigogine wrote: “We need a new formulation of the fundamental laws of physics.”

 

Do you agree with Prigogine's assessment?

 

 

If so, how, within the scope of classical mechanics, are the current problems in astrophysics, or physics in general, reconcilable. (Note: some of the problems eluded to here are arguably the fine-tuning problem, missing mass, the direction of time, symmetry, black holes, wormholes, non-linear redshift-distance relations, the discrepancy between mechanics at large and small scale, to name a few.)

 

What is missing in our understanding of nature, of physics, of the physical universe and it's evolution in time?

 

 

In my opinion, the question of rigidness or flexibility of the co-ordinate system is at stake.

 

 

 

 

CC

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi all,

 

Pluto said:

I thought Rugby was only played in the land of ozzzzzzzzzzz. Whats going on with the world, next thing they may all become friends and than where would we be.

 

Where indeed, Pluto! Maybe on Hypography, where friends meet and opponents practice respect. You really got me chuckling with this remark. :naughty:

 

Laurie, I like the way you are thinking. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, through the person of his protagonist Sherlock Holmes, declared that in trying to solve any great and troublesome mystery, a good starting point is to first remove the impossible, and then look for the answer in what remains.

 

Best

Hilton

[Pluto]

Hello Laurie

 

You said

 

I think the alternatives lie in the KIS principle, with the first step being an audit and classification of current 'knowledge' with respect to any SI units used and the level of mathematical manipulation of these units. This is to match like with like and unlike with unlike.

 

The decks must be cleared of any rubbish before the real work can begin.

 

How do you move a billion ton train with a wedge at the wheel?

 

and you cannot blow up the train.

 

That is what we have with the Big Bang theory and many cosmologists in the billion ton train.

 

 

I will give my answer on the next post.

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi CC,

Thanks once again for your probing questions. I will try to answer them as completely as possible while remaining true to the essence of this thread. 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.”

 

Posted by CC:

On the question of rigidness or flexibility of the co-ordinate system: The case for either or has apparently not yet been settled (or has it?).

In my mind it has, but most would beg to differ. 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.

 

Posted by CC:

The narrative of general relativity outlined by Einstein’s schematic geometric properties of spacetime 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, in Einstein's words, “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. So turning to the natural laws...do you believe the notion that the fundamental laws of physics are in a logical sense deduced from experience, from classical mechanics, rather than free inventions of the human mind, abstractions, construed by mathematical means?

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. Whether or not the desired verification has been achieved is a vast debate beyond the scope of this discussion, but for those wishing to pursue that thought, chapter 11 of Ratcliffe’s over-priced monstrosity “The Virtue of Heresy” is a good introduction. (The book is available from Hypography Science Bookstore - Books - The Virtue of Heresy: Confessions of a Dissident Astronomer).

 

Posted by CC:

It was Einstein’s general relativity that showed us “one could take account of a wider range of empirical facts…in a more satisfactory and complete manner, on a foundation quite different from the Newtonian.” (Einstein, 1934, 1954, p. 273-4)

 

“…on a foundation quite different from the Newtonian.” Exactly. Whether or not GR “could take account of a wider range of empirical facts…in a more satisfactory and complete manner” than NM is questionable, and is after all the point here being argued.

Quote (again) from The Virtue of Heresy:

There are no black holes, no dark matter or dark energy, no curved space-time, no ultimate speed limits, no beginning and no end. By simply accepting infinity as a fact of life, we avoid all these desperate contortions that scientists have subjected themselves to. The real universe does not run on black magic, yet it is immeasurably more entertaining than the one invented for us by unconstrained mathematical day dreams. 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.

 

Posted by CC:

Would you not say that our understanding of the natural laws is at present incomplete?

Oh yes, I do say that, quite emphatically! In fact, the sum of our knowledge is infinitesimal.

 

Posted by CC:

And, that a prerequisite to fully coming to terms with those laws is precisely through mathematical constructs? If not, then why can they not all been deduced from empirical facts? Or conversely, why, if all the laws are known, has it not been possible to formulate a standard world model (a theory of everything?) that encompasses all observations, without exception?

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.

 

Posted by CC:

Ilya Prigogine wrote: “We need a new formulation of the fundamental laws of physics.” Do you agree with Prigogine's assessment?

No I don’t. 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.

 

Posted by CC:

If so, how, within the scope of classical mechanics, are the current problems in astrophysics, or physics in general, reconcilable. (Note: some of the problems eluded to here are arguably the fine-tuning problem, missing mass, the direction of time, symmetry, black holes, wormholes, non-linear redshift-distance relations, the discrepancy between mechanics at large and small scale, to name a few.)

Well, I guess you’ve gathered by now that 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. The problems you mention specifically:

Fine-tuning – imagined problem.

Missing mass – is slowly being observed, bit by bit.

Direction of time – imagined problem.

Symmetry – don’t know what you mean.

Black Holes, Wormholes, Strings, Green Elephants, etc – imaginary monsters for our zoo of ideas.

Redshift/distance – being refuted by observation.

Mechanics applies mechanically. Like galaxies, atoms are so far out of scale that we cannot know enough about initial (physical) conditions to reliably apply mechanical laws. But we are making progress. I think we will be able to give classical descriptions to everything close enough to measure as soon as our instruments are sensitive enough.

 

Posted by CC:

What is missing in our understanding of nature, of physics, of the physical universe and it's evolution in time?

 

Tough question. 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.

 

Posted by CC:

In my opinion, the question of rigidness or flexibility of the co-ordinate system is at stake.

Yes, I agree.

 

Best

Hilton

[coldcreation]

... “The Virtue of Heresy” is a good introduction. (The book is available from Hypography Science Bookstore - Books - The Virtue of Heresy: Confessions of a Dissident Astronomer).

 

...

 

Does Heresy mention any reason why the USA attained only one point in Pool A?

 

I'll be back with another probing query shortly...

 

 

 

CC

[Pluto]

Hello All

 

Hilton well done.

 

Breath of fresh air reality and down to earth comments.

 

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

 

In the last 30 odd years I have been called names and been controlled on what information I should discuss.

 

Smile,,,,,,,,,,,,even kicked out of some forums

 

Thats life.

[coldcreation]

What is missing in our understanding of nature, of physics, of the physical universe and it's evolution in time?

 

Tough question. 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.

 

Interesting. My own view on the topic is that research should be turned away from high energy interactions (of the type test in particle acclerators, and theorized about in string theory, M-theory, loop quantum gravity, etc.) and focused on the low energy, low temperature regime (Bose-Einstein condensates BEC, superfluidity, superconductivity, ZPE - ZPF, Casimir effects, the third law of thermodynamics (along with the first and second), vacuum physics and other cryogenic interactions, dynamics).

 

At present it is believed that the universe has never been cooler that the observed 2.726±0.010 K. So all experiments performed below that temperature are thought to be unique, i.e., they occur only here on Earth (e.g., novel states of matter - BEC).

 

If modern cosmology is mistaken about the thermal evolution of the universe (e.g., if the microwave background has never been warmer than 2.726 K), then all experiments carried out below that temperature are indicative of very common phenomena that transpire regularly and inequivically accross the vast expanse of the cosmos.

 

 

 

 

In my opinion, the question of rigidness or flexibility of the co-ordinate system is at stake.

 

Yes, I agree.

 

 

Again, in my opinion, there has to be a middle ground between the two differing principles.

 

The problem with our conception of spacetime curvature is a complex one, but the mechanism to explain is simple. There are several aspects that must be taken into consideration, digested, processed and elucidated. One of those is the Euclidean connection (this is perhaps the most important, because from it can be derived all the other features of gravity). Basically the problem can be taken from where Einstein left off.

 

A boundary condition on GR. The physical mechanism behind the gravitational interaction needs to be identified. The physical mechanism for Einstein’s cosmological constant (lambda: originally introduced by Einstein to provide static solutions to the field equations of GR) needs also to be illuminated in physical terms.

 

At the same time, the postulated physical mechanism should be able to describe a 4-dimensional surface that induces a natural symmetry (one of the properties of the vacuum state) that enforces a vanishing gravitational potential while remaining consistent with physical laws.

 

That surface is a 4-dimensional Euclidean or Minkowski manifold.

 

What that means is there is an absolute minimum value of spacetime curvature (or gravitational force that vanishes to a minimum value equal to zero, in the Newtonian mechanical sense) inherent in nature.

 

Minkowski space (the Euclidean vacuum) itself is therfore an irreducible strata. It is thus by nature nonexpandible, i.e., it cannot be stretched or curved beyond an absolute value called Euclidean space, in the classical sense.

 

According to interpretations of GR, spacetime could be theoretically curved beyond the zero point (leading to gross conceptual anomallies, and most importantly, to the masking of what was happening in the real world).

 

So Hilton, it is my view that both the rigidness and flexibility of the co-ordinate system are operational. One cannot be exlcuded without both falling. In another way, neither view alone is sufficient to gain a full understanding of celestial dynamics (to limit the scope of the problem).

 

Finally, to answer the question; "Is Newtonian Mechanics an advantage or a limitation in astrophysics?" my own research formulates the following:

 

Newtonian Mechanics is both an advantage and a limitation in astrophysics.

 

Or said differently: there is a layer of reality governed by Newton's law, and another governed by relativistic mechanics (and yes they do intersect at that fundamental substratum). One without the other remains an incomplete picture of nature.

 

At the same time that a limitation needs to be imposed of GR, an extension needs to be implemented within the framework on Newtonian mechnics making it more general. In the process, explanations regarding the mechanism behind gravity emerge leading to the resolution of the fine-tuning problem (again, to limit the scope) inherent in both NM and GR.

 

The boundary proposal for general relativity does not invalidate or contradict Einstein’s general principle, nor does it spawn the break down of GR somewhere behind an unobservable event horizon. The boundary condition is primordial if we are to understand how Newtonian mechanics fits into the picture, but too, if we are to understand gravity in relation to the other so-called forces of nature, in relation to quantum mechanics.

 

The boundary condition is an extension of GR (or the extension of Newtonian mechanics to include spacetime curvature) that needed to be incorporated if resolution is to be made in the understanding of gravity and it’s relation not just to massive bodies but also to empty space as a generator of stability, equilibrium and symmetry, rather than as a fictitious medium or intermediate state (or even ‘nothing’) halfway between two extremes -- one capable of catastrophic collapse, and the other leading to exponential expansion.

 

Needless to say, this concept is not well received by the mainstream since it appears as a hostile threat. Not because empirical evidence contradicts it (empirical evidence supports it), simply because it signals the demise or fatal flaw intrinsic to the standard model. It reduces the concept of expanding space to a trivial artifact of GR when no Euclidean boundary condition is in place.

 

Unfortunately, without recognition and acceptance of the principle described above cosmology will remain at the cross-roads between metaphysics and high Art (flanked with DE, DM, etc.)., since our understanding of cosmology follows from astrophysics and astronomy, from NM and GR.

 

Clearly, once the fusion of GR and NM is implemented and the resulting ubiquitous property of spacetime recognized, along with the implications, scope and breadth of its relation to all branches of science (including thermodynamics), we will gain insight, knowledge and understanding of the essence of the physical universe and its evolution in time.

 

Then, and only then, will the discrepancy between theory and observation become reconcilable.

 

I hope you don't mind the injection of my own ideas on the subject, but you did ask an important question at the outset of this thread, and that was my attempt to answer it.

 

 

More soon...

 

 

 

CC

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi CC,

 

Regarding USA's position on the log, addendum viii in Heresy deals specifically with North-South points symmetry. Whilst I don't want to detract from your anticipated and soon-to-be-realised life-altering pleasure in reading the book for yourself (many times), here follows the gist (if you find the maths a bit heavy, refer to chapter 16, section 6 "Gravitational Attraction of Disks" in Morris Kline's "Calculus - An Intuitive and Physical Approach" Dover, New York, 1967).

 

Let x = 1.

If f(usa) = y^n, then set limit = 2

Therefore pointsusa < 2.

It is well known that for t = now and r = m/c^2,

pointsusa > 0.

For any prime value of y, 0 < pointsusa < 2

therefore

pointsusa = x.

QED

 

CC said

I hope you don't mind the injection of my own ideas on the subject, but you did ask an important question at the outset of this thread, and that was my attempt to answer it.

 

Your opinions and ideas are refreshing and informative, and they are most welcome here if I have anything to say about it.

 

CC promised

More soon...

CC

 

Good! I look forward to it.

 

Best

Hilton

[coldcreation]

 

Your opinions and ideas are refreshing and informative, and they are most welcome here if I have anything to say about it.

 

 

 

So, Hilton, to sum up my lengthy post above:

 

Newtonian Mechanics is both an advantage and a limitation in astrophysics.

 

 

Do you agree or disagree?

 

 

 

CC

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi CC,

 

So, Hilton, to sum up my lengthy post above:

Newtonian Mechanics is both an advantage and a limitation in astrophysics.

Do you agree or disagree?

 

I thought carefully about this question. On the face of it, my answer is no, I do not agree. As I have pointed out previously, I do not include cosmology in astrophysics for this discussion, because in my view it is not science. In my admittedly agricultural approach to astrophysics, I have apparently suffered no ill effects by excluding Einstein's Relativity from my set of mathematical tools. Despite dire predictions by colleagues and concerned family members that I would go up in a puff of smoke if I dared to suggest that Einstein's Relativity was inconsequential in true empirical science, it seems that I survived intact.

 

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.

4. You asked me earlier whether I agreed with Ilya Prirogine's assertion that we need a new formulation of fundamental physics, and I said that I disagreed. After reading some of your posts in other threads, I would like to change my mind. We do need to revisit some fundamentals, and perhaps the most significant would be the laws of thermodynamics.

5. One of the greatest problems I have to deal with is the massaging of observational data. So many images are subjected to a mathematical "PhotoShop" before concluding analyses are presented. A prime example is the CMBR. This is a spin-off of the methodological approach made famous, but not invented, by Einstein. His Relativity, canonised as it is, made it okay for scientists to practice in this way. So while the original equations of GR prove useful in some cases, what they encouraged science to do has landed us in a mess.

 

Your concept of boundary conditions is interesting. Would you dare to try to define those boundaries? If you can, you may effectially resolve the whole problem! It is a compelling line of thought. My feeling is that we may then find that the universe properly described by SR and GR is less important to astrophysics than that dealt with by NM, and that as a physically relevant theory, Relativity is less important than quantum mechanics. But that is conjecture...

 

Anyone who has gone through a standard university physical sciences and mathematics route to astrophysics will have been firmly directed and conditioned to use relativistic mathematics in his work. By the time I graduated, I honestly could not think non-Relativistically, and was certainly not equipped to do science any other way. What I am hoping to achieve ultimately is to set about a process of change in physical science curricula. NM really is quite painless you know!

 

Best

Hilton

[LaurieAG]

Laurie, could you make a list of what you consider rubbish?

 

What do you mean by "classification of current 'knowledge'"?

 

What kind of "real work" could begin?

 

CC-Cheers

 

Hi CC,

 

The list would be made up of all the things like string theory etc that have a very tenuous link to physics, if there is any link at all.

 

Also, I don't consider any knowledge as rubbish (apart from what comes out of the mouths of politicians, or any scientists paid by 'politicians' to say what the 'politicians' want said), relevant/irrelevant would be closer to the mark.

 

The classification of current knowledge just separates the relevant from the irrelevant through various methods, links to basic physics being one. Likeness to man made (global financial) system operations being another (for irrelevance to true science as opposed to Forensic/Actuarial science) and scaling type problems i.e. laterally a 1/100 scale human would not be a copy of a human unless you reduced the atoms in scale by 100.

 

The 'real work' that could be done is what is not being done at the moment, governments working with business and people to gain equitable solutions to global problems instead of governments beholden to business at the expense of the people who suffer from the induced global problems.

[coldcreation]

...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.

4. You asked me earlier whether I agreed with Ilya Prirogine's assertion that we need a new formulation of fundamental physics, and I said that I disagreed. After reading some of your posts in other threads, I would like to change my mind. We do need to revisit some fundamentals, and perhaps the most significant would be the laws of thermodynamics.

5. One of the greatest problems I have to deal with is the massaging of observational data. So many images are subjected to a mathematical "PhotoShop" before concluding analyses are presented. A prime example is the CMBR. This is a spin-off of the methodological approach made famous, but not invented, by Einstein. His Relativity, canonised as it is, made it okay for scientists to practice in this way. So while the original equations of GR prove useful in some cases, what they encouraged science to do has landed us in a mess.

 

Your concept of boundary conditions is interesting. Would you dare to try to define those boundaries? If you can, you may effectially resolve the whole problem! It is a compelling line of thought. My feeling is that we may then find that the universe properly described by SR and GR is less important to astrophysics than that dealt with by NM, and that as a physically relevant theory, Relativity is less important than quantum mechanics. But that is conjecture...

 

Anyone who has gone through a standard university physical sciences and mathematics route to astrophysics will have been firmly directed and conditioned to use relativistic mathematics in his work. By the time I graduated, I honestly could not think non-Relativistically, and was certainly not equipped to do science any other way. What I am hoping to achieve ultimately is to set about a process of change in physical science curricula. NM really is quite painless you know!

 

Best

Hilton

 

 

Thanks for this Hilton.

 

 

Hello everyone,

 

As you could imagine, Hilton, I have another point to make: First, a quote from Newton’s Fundamental Principles of Natural Philosophy and Four Letters to Richard Bentley: “And so, instead of absolute places and motions, we use relative ones…For it may be that there is no body really at rest to which the places and motions of others may be referred.”

 

Here is another phrase that I found rather humorous: “It is a property of rest that bodies really at rest do rest in respect to one another.” [my italics] “It follows that absolute rest cannot be determined from the position of bodies in our regions.” (Newton 1692, from Theories of the universe 1957)

 

Here is a very brief passage written by Kant in 1778: “Every motion as object of a possible experience can be viewed at will either as motion of a body in a space that is at rest, or as rest of the body and motion of the space in the opposite direction with equal velocity” (From Kerszberg 1989 p.59).

 

 

Do you Hilton agree with Newton and Kant?

 

 

Regards

CC

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi CC,

 

Your questions are intriguing! The great value of this dialogue with you is that your questions compel me to get my ducks in a row, and most importantly, point to areas where I might be going wrong. In contrast to the approach of certain other persons in another thread, I fully accept that there is much I am in ignorance of, and I turn to my peers with questions that I hope will generate answers that guide me on my way forward. Thank you for being one of those peers.

 

The quotes from Newton refer to his conception of relativity. In an infinite Universe with no absolute reference frame (the jury is still out on the aether, as far as I know), we need to choose an appropriate inertial frame from the sequentially bigger and smaller frames that apply to larger and smaller objects being measured. 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.

 

Kant's view in a sense transposes the zeroth law of thermodynamics, or Newton's third law. Motion is relative, and one can define motion and rest states interchangeably depending on an arbitralily chosen reference frame. Again, it makes sense to me.

 

Best

Hilton

[coldcreation]

...Kant's view in a sense transposes the zeroth law of thermodynamics, or Newton's third law. Motion is relative, and one can define motion and rest states interchangeably depending on an arbitralily chosen reference frame. Again, it makes sense to me.

 

 

Hello, again, Hilton, hello all,

 

My question directed towards Hilton Ratcliffe today revolves around the concept of classical mechanics and irreversibility: two apparently contradictory views of the world in which we live.

 

I assume, but may be mistaken, that this topic is discussed in your 'decadent' and controversial The Virtue of Heresy: Confessions of a Dissident Astronomer.

 

 

As rightly pointed out by Ilya Prigogine, in his "Les Loi du Chaos" (1993), the 19th century left us with a double heritage: On the one hand we have Newton's laws, deterministic, the past, present and future predictable with certitude, time-reversibility, time-symmetry, where the same role is played in either direction of time. And on the other, we acquired from the 19th century an evolving world view, where entropy is a nondecreasing property of nature that introduces the 'arrow of time,' irreversibility, according to the second law of thermodynamics, where past and future no longer play the same role.

 

How do you reconcile these divergent points of view?

 

Traditionally, irreversibility has been considered the result of approximations introduced in the application of natural laws. But the study of systems far from equilibrium render this view untenable (again according to Prigogine). Dynamical systems (both classical and quantic) can be either stable or unstable, e.g., chaotic, where initial trajectories can emerge exponentially with time.

 

What happens to the physical laws when chaos figures into the mix?

 

 

Thanks in advance for you input.

 

 

PS. Yes I am obsessed with thermodynamical issuse...

 

 

 

 

CC