Is Newtonian Mechanics an advantage or a limitation in astrophysics?

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi Wigglie,

 

I'm sorry I haven't responded to any of your posts, but I am not sure who you are asking or telling as the case may be. Your first post followed one of CC's, and I just assumed that you were talking about CC's post and were asking him your question. I could be wrong. Could you clarify this for us?

 

If your question is posed to thread contributors generally, or to me specifically, what do you mean by "your theory"? Newtonian Mechanics?

 

Best

Hilton

[modest]

I appreciate and share your desire to learn. Like you, I am fully open to being proven wrong.

Hilton

I do not use Lorentz transformations. How can you show that Galilean relativity would give the wrong answer? Compared with what or tested how?

 

Yes, relativistic doppler effect is a fact of nature. You will find a bibliography here of experiments in the 50’s and 60’s that focus on exact measurement of relativistic doppler effect carried out by military and government necessary as we entered the space age. The findings are irrefutable. But, focusing on something more current: It is built into the GPS system (SR and GR). If relativistic doppler effect is wrong then planes crash into runways and people die. It is as such proven. It is engineering fact. Engineering facts trump disregard for theory.

 

So, given that - any speed or distance calculation you make of most of the observable universe will be wrong. The larger the distance, the greater the error. How do you deal with this?

 

I maintain that the redshift-based distance scale is unreliable and misleading. I do not know what the distances to cosmological objects are, and do not want to mask my ignorance with theory. I have not derived a scale factor, and use standard triangulation with high certainty for close objects, and other methods like period-brightness with less certainty for objects a bit further away, and beyond that make no claims about remoteness in space or time.

 

Without getting into how apparent brightness is also subject to relativity let's just say that I find this reasoning very suspect. If you think Newtonian mechanics can give close-to-the-right answers then there is no need to ignore doppler shift as a tool (arguably the most powerful tool astronomers have). If you refuse to make measurements about the parts of the universe moving at relativistic speeds then you recognize at some level your methods do not work everywhere. Why avoid these tools or observations if you do not doubt your methods? You apparently know the limit of Newtonian mechanics and stay within it purposefully.

 

-modest

[wigglieverse]

what do you mean by "your theory"? Newtonian Mechanics?

What I mean is your adoption of Newton's explanation as the observational 'limit'. You seem to be implying that the theories of Einstein, Schrodinger, Dirac et al. are wrong or can be discounted, hence my question about observation (of things that appear to indicate a problem with 'universal gravitation')

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi Modest,

 

Thank you for your post. Right off, let me say that I find your statement, “Engineering facts trump disregard for theory” interesting in the light of this discussion. They don’t actually. Newton’s laws of motion and gravitation provide an engineering solution to those problems in our directly measurable environment without regard to what causes the gravitational effect or mass or inertia. They are formulae that apply mechanically irrespective of underlying theory. Engineering systematically deals with mechanical problems in our mechanical environment, and I tend to trust the analysis of engineers because of this. Of course I understand relative motion, the problems of measurement from inertial frames, and the need to make relativistic adjustments to GPS signals, and concede the usefulness of Relativity in deriving formulae. I have made it clear from the start that I am not attacking Relativity, but question its real usefulness in applied astrophysics.

 

Whether or not GPS and terrestrial navigation forms part of astrophysics is a moot point, but we needn’t argue about that. The fact is that relativistic adjustments need to made to these signals so that we avoid crashes, and now the question needs to be asked, do we do it using Einstein’s Relativity maths, or is there a simpler, better way? Despite his idiosyncratic interest in artificiality on Mars, Van Flandern made a very real contribution to space science and celestial mechanics while he was at the US Naval Observatory, and his (non-Relativistic) formulae are still being used today for space travel. He is able to derive the correct adjustments to GPS signals using classical relativity. Are we directed to use SR and GR exclusively because of our education and training (as I was) or is it a carefully made choice resulting from an investigation of alternatives? Ask yourself the question, why are we still using NM every day alongside GR in space science? Is GR only partially right? Are we, because of conditioned bias, ignoring the failures of GR? Are we not granting ourselves permission because of a favoured theory to invent ad hoc physics? We say that quasars are extremely remote because of their redshift, and conveniently ignore that they would then be impossibly bright. Geoff Burbidge argues that if Edwin Hubble had been able to resolve quasars, he would not have been able to derive his correlation (and if you look at his original data, you would wonder how he made it anyway). The fact is, there is no systematic correlation between redshift and brightness, or redshift and age given by standard stellar ageing benchmarks.

 

In terms of the Standard Model, cosmological redshift is not a Doppler effect. It is curve broadening because of the expansion of space (itself ad hoc physics). There are other factors affecting measured redshift of astrophysical objects, like gravitation (or magnetism as some recent studies show), scattering, and arguably intrinsic shift. We measure the shift in spectra obtained at only one end of the journey. It is impossible from that to know what happened along the way.

 

It is commonly accepted that Relativity finds application over NM only at extremes of measurement, and so we are faced with the difficulty of testing the results against each other (in practice, not theory). Furthermore, I contend that measurements at such extremes are of interest to cosmologists rather than astrophysicists. You make a very important point when you say

You apparently know the limit of Newtonian mechanics and stay within it purposefully.

That is not quite true, I am still discovering the practical limits, but your point is good: I do recognise my own limitations and those of the methods I use.

 

Do you?

 

Best

Hilton

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi Wigglie,

 

One question (actually several but I'll pose it as one): 1. how do you acccount for observation? 2. Is your theory able to explain the apparent recession of distant galaxies, which appears to be proportional to their distance, or 3. to the apparent impossibility of measuring anything at very small scale?

 

Although I have read your posts several times, I'm afraid I don't understand the context of your questions. I will therefore answer them superficially, and hope that will do. I've a feeling in my bones that this is leading to a pre-drawn conclusion from you, so let's see if that happens, and if so, if it is pertinent to this thread.

 

I have inserted numbers in your text to organise my answers:

 

1. Observation is light coming in from the environment, forming an image on my retinas, and being interpreted by my logic.

2. I don't see the apparent or actual global recession of galaxies. What I do see in the study of galaxy collisions is galaxies apparently moving towards each other in significant numbers.

3. As I stated in my opening post, astrophysics and NM apply to the macro universe, so the answer is no, NM does not attempt to explain subatomic uncertainty.

 

Best

Hilton

[coldcreation]

Fair enough. Just be sure to add "predictions may be wildly off in cases where systems are at least potentially divergent" to your list of limitations! :shrug:

 

 

Unless a systems dynamics (in the 'direction' of time) are fully defined by initial conditions, predictions may be wildly off in most cases where nonlinear systems are at least potentially divergent; whether it be using mathematical derivations or physics derived from GR, QM, or classical mechanics.

 

That would be true for most exponential growth of perturbation systems, but also for celestial mechanics. Even the extent to which convection currents, eddies and vorticies may be created are difficult to predict (though not impossible).

 

One thing that can be predicted using classical or Newtonian mechanics (with a little help from the likes of Lagrange, Euler or Laplace, and without the need of GR or QM), even though the systems may be potentially divergent (not chaotic specifically) are the formation of mean motion resonance patterns (as mentioned in a previous post) and unambiguous geometrical configurations that permit the development of complex ordered arrangements. So systems that were previously randomly distributed, i.e., a cloud of atomic hydrogen, molecules and dust may with time (and without regard for quantum mechanical inter-atomic or molecular interaction), become increasingly structured, deterministic, and predictable.

 

General relativity fairs no better (or worse) than good old fashion classical mechanics when predicting the future behavior of potentially divergent systems.

 

So the score is: advantage Hilton, with Hilton serving for set point.

 

 

 

That which is static and repetitive is boring.

 

Au contraire cher Buffy.

 

It is from the study of systems near equilibrium that we learn the most about nature.

 

 

 

That which is dynamic and random is confusing. .

 

 

That is relative.

 

The above Lagrange-Euler-Laplace example sheds at least some light on the nature and evolution of dynamic (initially random) systems.

 

 

In between lies art...

 

 

 

 

"After a certain high level of technical skill is achieved, science and art tend to coalesce in esthetics, plasticity, and form.

The greatest scientists are always artists as well."

Albert Einstein

 

 

 

 

 

 

CC

[modest]

Hi Modest,

 

Of course I understand relative motion, the problems of measurement from inertial frames, and the need to make relativistic adjustments to GPS signals, and concede the usefulness of Relativity in deriving formulae. I have made it clear from the start that I am not attacking Relativity, but question its real usefulness in applied astrophysics.

 

I've seen you say this before. It doesn't stop you from attacking relativity though (i.e. the rest of your reply following this statement you made)? You obviously have 2 main arguments:

 

1 - How can you prove relativity anyway?

2 - Doesn't Newtonian mechanics give close-enough answers for astronomy?

 

Whether or not GPS and terrestrial navigation forms part of astrophysics is a moot point, but we needn’t argue about that. The fact is that relativistic adjustments need to made to these signals so that we avoid crashes, and now the question needs to be asked, do we do it using Einstein’s Relativity maths, or is there a simpler, better way? Despite his idiosyncratic interest in artificiality on Mars, Van Flandern made a very real contribution to space science and celestial mechanics while he was at the US Naval Observatory, and his (non-Relativistic) formulae are still being used today for space travel. He is able to derive the correct adjustments to GPS signals using classical relativity.

 

Is this part of your not attacking relativity theme? The fact is Van Flandern's theories have been laid to rest. But, even if we give him all the credit in the world he is still using the Lorentz transformations - he actually is not even proposing a different theory to special relativity. He is just questioning it's assumption (and supplanting some of his own). This is a similar theme you'll find all through the opposition to relativity. See Paul Dirac. These people are using different methods to derive the same thing. This is perhaps sometimes quite valid (or could be seen as valid). The problem you have above is implying that Van Fleming's method is a "simpler, better way". It is not. Einstein makes 2 postulates in SRT - neither of which have been found wrong. It is, by far, the simplest way to derive the relativistic doppler effect (where our discourse started). But, the old saying is true - irregardless of how you get E=mc^2 atom bombs still blow up. Einstein's method happens to be the simplest way to get to this universal fact of nature.

 

Are we directed to use SR and GR exclusively because of our education and training (as I was) or is it a carefully made choice resulting from an investigation of alternatives? Ask yourself the question, why are we still using NM every day alongside GR in space science? Is GR only partially right? Are we, because of conditioned bias, ignoring the failures of GR? Are we not granting ourselves permission because of a favoured theory to invent ad hoc physics?

 

What I said above about SRT cannot be said about GRT. Now I could ignore you here and say that GRT has nothing to do with relativistic Doppler effect (see arguments 1 and 2 above). But, I won't do that. GRT is obviously not simple. It is ridiculously more difficult than Newton's gravity. But, a distinction has to be made. Are you comparing GRT to Newtonian physics or to some other theory that could explain the cause of gravity. Newton made no attempt to describe gravity's cause (nor did he know it). GR gives different answers than NM. So far (where testable) GR comes out on top. But we might be able to supplant a different theory in GR's place that gives GR's answers. We could create an aether that has GR's properties. I believe this is what Van Flemming did to whom you refer. A quantum theory with gravitons might one day give GRish answers that are a simpler solution to gravity's questions. But this is entirely different from saying Newton's equations of gravity are always right. They are not. As I said before - GPS rather disproves this. Perhaps you could fall back here to number 2 above.

 

We say that quasars are extremely remote because of their redshift, and conveniently ignore that they would then be impossibly bright. Geoff Burbidge argues that if Edwin Hubble had been able to resolve quasars, he would not have been able to derive his correlation (and if you look at his original data, you would wonder how he made it anyway). The fact is, there is no systematic correlation between redshift and brightness, or redshift and age given by standard stellar ageing benchmarks.

 

In terms of the Standard Model, cosmological redshift is not a Doppler effect. It is curve broadening because of the expansion of space (itself ad hoc physics). There are other factors affecting measured redshift of astrophysical objects, like gravitation (or magnetism as some recent studies show), scattering, and arguably intrinsic shift. We measure the shift in spectra obtained at only one end of the journey. It is impossible from that to know what happened along the way.

 

This is exactly right. Without relativity there is no redshift to brightness correlation - well, unless we live in a privileged part of the universe. So, when you say "The fact is, there is no systematic correlation between redshift and brightness" you are making the correct assumption based on NM. A cosmologist who believes whole-heartedly in NM without exception will make this assumption. The assumption is wrong. Less-bright, smaller (angular size) galaxies are more redshifted. Doubtless. The correlation is not as neat as cosmologist want it to be - but it is nevertheless true. As to the other thing - obviously relativistic doppler effect is not the same as cosmic expansion. My point is that relativity in doppler shift must be taken into account when dealing with redshift data. Certainly at large distances. Or, perhaps when accuracy is needed - for trying to discern the mass of a planet circling a star in our galaxy (this may not be the case I'd have to look into it). The point is - it is the correct theory in some aspects of astronomy and must be used to get anywhere near the correct answers.

 

 

It is commonly accepted that Relativity finds application over NM only at extremes of measurement, and so we are faced with the difficulty of testing the results against each other (in practice, not theory). Furthermore, I contend that measurements at such extremes are of interest to cosmologists rather than astrophysicists. You make a very important point when you say That is not quite true, I am still discovering the practical limits, but your point is good: I do recognise my own limitations and those of the methods I use.

 

This is exactly where I was heading as well. You may not work in an area that is exact enough to use relativity (i.e. atomic clocks). Or, you may not work with distances or speeds great enough. So, you may have no practical need for relativity. That is fine. If that is the case then simply say there is no practical need for relativity in my work. There is no need to cast doubt on the theory because of it. There are disciplines where SR and GR are very necessary and I wouldn't be dismissing them either. It is a matter of application.

 

"It is commonly accepted that Relativity finds application over NM only at extremes of measurement" --> also a matter of application as you point out.

 

This is fine with me. I'm not going to tell you that you need relativity to do your work. I don't know what tools you need to do your work. I don't even know what your work is. But - that is not the real theme of this thread. We don't look to Van Flandern when we are looking for limits of applicability. This thread has served only to cast doubt on the validity of relativity. You may say that is not your intention - but most of what you write has just such a result. This is why I point out arguments 1 and 2 above - they are entirely different, but you make them both. You fall back on one or the other as needed. The only result is that people walk away saying "Well, if Hilton Ratcliffe doesn't believe in relativity and he can do his work without it then it has to be wrong". You have to realize this is the effect your writing has.

[Erasmus00]

Are we directed to use SR and GR exclusively because of our education and training (as I was) or is it a carefully made choice resulting from an investigation of alternatives?

 

I can only answer for my field of research (high energy physics where SR is much more important than GR). Special relativity is quite literally the only starting point that gets you anything resembling good predictions. Without both special relativity and quantum mechanics (both of which differ with standard Newtonian mechanics) there would be no way to calculate and understand much of what I do everyday.

 

Now, I philosophically believe that the same laws that govern the very small must also govern the very large(especially the symmetries), so I feel it is important to extrapolate that if special relativity is a deep property of the very small, it is also a deep property of the macroscopic objects. Generalizing special relativity to large length scales leads natural to general relativity.

 

Ask yourself the question, why are we still using NM every day alongside GR in space science? Is GR only partially right?

 

This is easy. In the "everyday" limit [imath]v << c^2[/imath] and [imath] r<<\frac{GM}{c^2} [/imath] Newtonian mechancis and GR are identical. Using newtonian mechancis IS using GR.

-Will

[Mike C]

Modest

 

Einstein is wrong on 3 counts that I can see.

 

His mass/energy formula is wrong.

 

IMO, his GR can be wrong because Zwicky's 'dark matter' problem would WARP space since it is 10 times stronger than Newtons gravity. So how does GR explain the 'dark matter' gravity where no warping of space is detected around the galactic clusters that Zwicky detected since Einstein says gravity bends space?

 

He refuted Plancks Quantum physics that is/has been proven beyond any doubt.

 

His tiny corrections to prove his math can be 'mind' manipulated because the mind CAN influence the physical realm. I had this proven to me with my own observations of how spirit CAN influence the physical.

 

Of course, science does not believe in spirit but I do.

 

Mike C

[modest]

Modest

 

Einstein is wrong on 3 counts that I can see.

 

His mass/energy formula is wrong.

 

IMO, his GR can be wrong because Zwicky's 'dark matter' problem would WARP space since it is 10 times stronger than Newtons gravity. So how does GR explain the 'dark matter' gravity where no warping of space is detected around the galactic clusters that Zwicky detected since Einstein says gravity bends space?

 

He refuted Plancks Quantum physics that is/has been proven beyond any doubt.

 

His tiny corrections to prove his math can be 'mind' manipulated because the mind CAN influence the physical realm. I had this proven to me with my own observations of how spirit CAN influence the physical.

 

Of course, science does not believe in spirit but I do.

 

Mike C

 

I'm sure somebody is getting a kick out of you lumping dark matter and spirits in the same category. Personally, I don't know how much mass either would have. Did you take experimental data on your spirit? I don't think a question/answer format would work with determining a spirit's mass. Not because it wouldn't answer you - because spirits often lie about their weight. It's the same way with people. A doctor will take your word on your entire medical history yet insists on weighing you because they know people can't be trusted with that kind of thing. No, a spirit cannot be trusted with telling you its true mass. You're going to have to weigh it personally. Your best bet is to grab the spirit then jump on a scale. Next you would subtract your weight and the weight of any remaining ectoplasm that has oozed all over your favorite shirt. You know..

 

Now that I think about it....

 

this may not be the best place for this discussion.

 

-modest

[coldcreation]

Yea, both of you are way off topic.

 

The astronomical pursuit of the essence of things by use of shifting viewpoints from Newtonian mechanics to the multiple perspectives of general relativity (and the notion of expansion as an innovative conceptual reality) has now taken such a dramatic turn that to use the term cosmic-insurrection would be the understatement of the century.

 

Why? Kind of like the Push-Me-Pull-You in Dr. Doolittle, astronomers now have heads pointing in two directions: One toward the past, the other toward the future. And at the present, Limbo seems to be the rule…

 

 

Where's Hilton when you need him...?

 

 

 

 

CC

[Mike C]

I'm sure somebody is getting a kick out of you lumping dark matter and spirits in the same category. Personally, I don't know how much mass either would have. Did you take experimental data on your spirit? I don't think a question/answer format would work with determining a spirit's mass. Not because it wouldn't answer you - because spirits often lie about their weight. It's the same way with people. A doctor will take your word on your entire medical history yet insists on weighing you because they know people can't be trusted with that kind of thing. No, a spirit cannot be trusted with telling you its true mass. You're going to have to weigh it personally. Your best bet is to grab the spirit then jump on a scale. Next you would subtract your weight and the weight of any remaining ectoplasm that has oozed all over your favorite shirt. You know..

 

Now that I think about it....

 

this may not be the best place for this discussion.

 

-modest

 

I only brought 'spirits' into this discussion to inform that these 'spiritual forces' can make 'tiny' changes in a physical realm.

However, they CANNOT make large corrections like in the Zwicky galactic gravity forces.

So the current 'dark matter' problem remains UNsolved.

 

I already provided the solution for these massive increases in gravity. The solution is 'separated' EM particles that are trying to rejoin with the 'coulomb' force enhancement to the Newtonian gravity.

 

GR here serves no purpose.

 

Mike C

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi all,

 

Quite a lot of ground has been covered in this thread, and thankfully it has been done in a polite and sensible fashion. I suggest that we pause for a summary of what has been established thus far, and use that as basis for deciding when this thread should be retired. The last summary was the one I did in post #20 on 12 August, so I think a re-focus is well overdue.

 

I think it would be preferable if someone other than me did it. It would be interesting to see how much, if any, common ground has been unearthed in the past few months, and certainly from where I am, it would be more meaningful if someone who argues that NM is in fact a practical limitation in astrophysics were to compile the list. Modest, do you feel inclined to tackle a summary of progress? I would add, in response to your last post, that you are quite right - I do stay out of trouble with Relativity by working close to home (quite against the advice of the prof who first suggested this experiment to me). For a variety of reasons (and I don't think all of them are good) we do need to use Relativity in certain areas of applied astrophysics, and that dogmatically insisting that we use NM (in its current form) exclusively is indeed a limitation that I need to take notice of.

 

Modest, you are also right in that some of what I say in this thread may be construed as an attack on Relativity, but that is not my intention here. However, I have no particular loyalty or commitment to either SR or GR, nor to the purely mathematical methodology that spawned them, so I really don't feel guilty if my utterings and published work prompt people to challenge Relativity. That's a good thing, as long as they do it reasonably and rationally.

 

Best

Hilton

[modest]

Hilton,

 

Your willingness to engage in a frank and two-way discussion is estimable and speaks to your character. Most people in either a position of dissent or establishment are not so willing to discuss their views in such a non-dogmatic way. This has clearly made this a popular thread and hopefully not too overwhelming as you answer the same questions again and again :)

 

As far as a summary, I wouldn’t feel comfortable summarizing other people’s views. My views on the topic are very straight forward:

Is Newtonian mechanics a limitation in astrophysics?

Yes.

 

How?

 

Newton’s laws of gravity and motion are first order approximations of SR and GR. As such they are necessarily limited. It seems to me that sometimes when astronomical distances are queried Newton’s laws won’t get you close enough.

 

Perhaps as computing power and observational precision both increase - astronomical calculations will rely more on Einstein’s theories and less on Newton’s.

 

But, there is another aspect or limitation that I think is incredibly important. Consider these two questions:

1 - am I accelerating at 9.8 m/s/s right now?

2 - why am I accelerating at 9.8 m/s/s?

 

Setting aside Newtonian limitations at extremes, Newtonian mechanics is also limited when asking question two here. To me, question 2 is NOT philosophical in nature. Implicit to GR is an answer to question 2 and this is powerful. An example is the power of Copernicus’ solar system. The path of the plants through the sky was predicted without the correct model for some time. This was fine for naval ships intent on navigating. But Copernicus had a different model and its power was in answering why. If modern astrophysics is going to ignore curved spacetime as an answer for orbital motions then the limitation is to our eventual understanding of nature. That’s huge.

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi everyone,

I do apologise for my poor attendance to this thread over the last week or so. My work load has become a tsunami, and I am simply trying to keep my head above water. It's going to get worse! I am leaving for England on Friday on astronomy business (ok CC, a bit of music business as well), and am going to be unavailable to post here for about ten days.

 

Thank you, Modest, for your kind words and further interesting comments. Upon my return from orbit, I will attempt a summary to see what we have agreed upon so far, and then take up the very interesting implications of your point number two. Is it not really a philosophical matter, seeing as the "why" involves things we cannot even imagine (viz. bent space)? Think about it while I'm away. Hopefully, you guys can keep the dialogue alive for a week or two. Come on, CC, have you taken a vow of silence?

 

Best

Hilton

[coldcreation]

Is it not really a philosophical matter, seeing as the "why" involves things we cannot even imagine (viz. bent space)? Think about it while I'm away.

 

I didn't think it was difficult, let alone impossible to imagine curved space. I thought your stance was that it was not needed to explain observations.

 

I agree with the "why" point you make, though.

 

 

Hopefully, you guys can keep the dialogue alive for a week or two. Come on, CC, have you taken a vow of silence?

 

I have a question for you Hilton.

 

How does classical mechanics account for the helium abundance? I ask that from an astronomical persepective, not cosmological (which also interests me). What about deuterium, and the other elements. I know it doesn't, which is "why" I ask. Said differently, how do you acount for the abundance (in a static, nonexpanding, dynamic universe)?

 

Do you believe in primordial creation of those elements and their isotopes? I know you don't, which is why I ask.

 

 

 

CC

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi CC,

 

Thanks for your post. This is my absolutely final reply before I get on the plane! B)

 

I didn't think it was difficult, let alone impossible to imagine curved space. I thought your stance was that it was not needed to explain observations.

 

You can really imagine curved space? Emptiness with a shape? I don't see how.

 

How does classical mechanics account for the helium abundance? I ask that from an astronomical persepective, not cosmological (which also interests me). What about deuterium, and the other elements. I know it doesn't, which is "why" I ask. Said differently, how do you acount for the abundance (in a static, nonexpanding, dynamic universe)? Do you beleive in primordial creation of those elements and their isotopes? I know you don't, which is why I ask.

 

Classical mechanics has no need to explain the universal He abundance. It postulates no world view. Abundances of elements are examined locally, and various explanations are given, usually involving atomic or nuclear chemistry. Once we have a supply of protons and electrons, we have the potential for any baryonic structure.

 

I don't believe in primordial creation or universal evolution.

 

See you in ten days, minus my tan. :shrug:

 

Best

Hilton