Is Newtonian Mechanics an advantage or a limitation in astrophysics?

[Mike C]

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.

 

If I may intercede, I think I can answer that quesrion.

 

The stable deuterium abundance is very small with about .015% that are stable.

Deuterium is not a true element like Helium because it is an isotope of hydrogen.

 

While on the other hand, helium, being a true element, is very stable. It seems to be the 'building blocks' for the heavier elements.

The deuterium nuclei are formed like 'bar magnets' in the star interiors. When in close proximity, like the star interiors, one will flip to form helium nuclei as two 'bar magnets' will do.

That is my opinion.

 

Regarding your last question, No.

 

Mike C

[modest]

The stable deuterium abundance is very small with about .015% that are stable.

All deuterium is stable (1)

The deuterium nuclei are formed like 'bar magnets' in the star interiors.

 

Stars destroy Deuterium permanently - they don't create it. (2)

 

-modest

[modest]

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

 

I cannot imagine curved emptiness or flat emptiness; but, I think emptiness cannot be substituted in a thought experiment for space.

 

It is just as illogical to consider ‘curved emptiness’ as ‘bright emptiness’ or ‘heavy emptiness’. The only property of emptiness is ‘empty’.

 

Space has other properties like having 3 dimensions or mediating electromagnetic waves. If we recognize that spacetime has properties other than ‘empty’ then the analogy between emptiness and space breaks down.

 

IMHO it would follow that spacetime should be thought of as ‘something’ rather than ‘emptiness’ in a thought experiment. Newton certainly believed so. Imagining a curved something is certainly possible.

 

-modest

[Mike C]

All deuterium is stable

(1)

 

That URL requires more selecting.

I have my own book on the elements that are much more informative than any website.

Title - The Elements by John Emsley

 

Deuterium is an isotope of hydrogen and constitutes .015 of the total portion of the hydrogen gases.

Atomic mass number 3 is unstable. So hydrogen is the only other gas that represents 99.985% of the total.

I think that deuterium total is in the ocean waters.

 

Stars destroy Deuterium permanently - they don't create it. (2)

 

-modest

 

Where was the deuterium in the oceans created?

A deuteron that is the nucleus of deuterium is created in the stars because that is where the neutrons are created. A deuteron is a composite of an electron, proton and a neutron.

So with a neutron within, it had to be created in the Sun.

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

Modest

 

A curved something?

That has about as much credibility as the creation theory.

 

Mike C

[modest]

Where was the deuterium in the oceans created?

 

I would like to keep this thread on topic, so if it’s ok with you I will answer here.

 

-modest

[modest]

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

 

...it would follow that spacetime should be thought of as ‘something’ rather than ‘emptiness’ in a thought experiment.

 

A curved something?

That has about as much credibility as the creation theory.

 

emptiness [imath]\in[/imath] spacetime

spacetime [imath]\neq[/imath] emptiness

spacetime [imath]\subset[/imath] something

something [imath]\Rightarrow[/imath] shape

and so can be imagined as curved

-modest

[truth_united]

All

 

The question that is asked by the title of the thread itself poses a limitation on the answer that it seeks. Although not explicitly mentioned, astrophysics here perhaps means applied astrophysics. Approximations are accepted and the quest surely is to explain things as we see or observe. In that sense, Newtonian mechanics certainly has an advantage because it is easy to apply and understand.

 

If you consider a more holistic solution to a more holistic problem, the advantage of Newtonian mechanics is lost... both at scales very large and very small.

 

I think this thread was born out of the discussion in another thread about the origin of universe where durgatosh had attempted to redefine zero and infinity and had sought equivalence between them. Although it is difficult to find observational supports for this idea, the approach he had taken is more holistic. This idea warrants further probing and discussion.

 

truth_united

[coldcreation]

All

 

The question that is asked by the title of the thread itself poses a limitation on the answer that it seeks.

 

Questions don't pose limitations, answers do.

 

 

I think this thread was born out of the discussion in another thread about the origin of universe ... Although it is difficult...

 

...impossible...

 

...to find observational supports for this idea, the approach he had taken is more holistic. This idea warrants further probing and discussion.

 

The subject of that thread is off topic for this thread. Just as the subject of this thread was off topic in the one you mention.

 

The subject of this thread was not born out of that previous discussion.

 

 

 

CC

[truth_united]

CC

Questions don't pose limitations, answers do.

 

Try this, "Is basic arithmatic enough for counting apples in my basket?"

Obviously yes, because the question itself implies the limited nature of its search.

 

My contention is that the true reality cannot be understood by playing with limited questions and answers. It requires a more holistic approach.

 

truth_united

[Mike C]

To All

 

Newtonian Mechanics is all that is needed to explain the 'nature' of gravity.

 

The Cavendish and Boys experiments completed the job of proving the validity of Newtons gravity. These experiments did not involve the 'curvature of space, I am sure.

Einsteins refute of Newtons gravity is false IMO, because it CANNOT explain the Zwicky Gravity (dark matter gravity).

Separated electric charges create an attraction that enhances Newtonian gravity such as in the Galaxy Clusters and the outer structures of the spirals that do not conform to the Virial theorum of the velocity/distance relations.

Quantum physics and Bohrs hydrogen atom planetary model explains these EM charges that cause the coulomb attraction that also applies to the dark matter problem.

SO? Mystery solved. No GR needed.

 

So, IMO, the BBU is not cosmology but instead is cosmoGONY.

The source of BB science was the Doppler redshifts that have been refuted by Lemaitraes idea of an expanding space that I am sure was based on Sliphers redshift observations since his idea was concurrent to Sliphers work.

So his idea replaced the Doppler REAL science because of its implications of a repeat of the geocentric theory.

 

Nuff said.

 

Miks

[coldcreation]

Try this, "Is basic arithmatic enough for counting apples in my basket?"

Obviously yes, because the question itself implies the limited nature of its search.

 

My contention is that the true reality cannot be understood by playing with limited questions and answers. It requires a more holistic approach.

 

truth_united

 

By emphasizing the holistic approach are you referring to the need to study the functional relation between parts and the whole?

 

Though there exist many fields in the sciences, few would argue that cosmology is not a sum-total of relationships between parts, or that it shouldn't be. The word universe in itself implies a single system (multiverse theory aside).

 

To understand the whole, one must first be concerned with the dissection and analysis of sub-systems, events, constituents, rather than begin a direct attempt at understand everything.

 

So why do you think the holistic approach is not now being implemented?

 

Are you saying we should consider, first, the entire universe, then break it up into parts?

 

Do you believe there is 'something' beyond what we are capable of imagining, beyond any question that could possibly be answered? If so, do that 'something' resides outside of current science? And, if so, what evidence do you have that 'something' exists, or should exist at all?

 

I don't get your point (contention). What do you mean by "true reality"?

 

Why can't "true reality" be understood without adopting a "more holistic approach"?

 

Finally, which "limited questions and answers" do you refer to?

 

 

CC

[modest]

Try this, "Is basic arithmatic enough for counting apples in my basket?"

Obviously yes, because the question itself implies the limited nature of its search.

 

My contention is that the true reality cannot be understood by playing with limited questions and answers. It requires a more holistic approach.

 

truth_united

 

I agree with coldcreation. You seem to be implying that better than:

"Is basic arithmatic enough for counting apples in my basket?"

would be:

'Is calculus enough for counting apples in my basket?'

or -

'Is a theory of everything enough for counting apples in my basket?'

and eventually -

'Is a theory of everything enough for explaining everything'

 

If you want an answer concerning basic arithmetic and apples then the question is not improperly limited but properly structured toward an answer or discussion you're looking for.

 

Please tell what question needs to be asked in place of the thread's title that would not lead to limited answers.

 

-modest

[modest]

Newtonian Mechanics is all that is needed to explain the 'nature' of gravity.

In no way does Newton's law of gravity explain the nature of gravity. Newton himself was bothered by a lack of an explanation behind his force at a distance and expected criticism on that basis.

 

The Cavendish and Boys experiments completed the job of proving the validity of Newtons gravity. These experiments did not involve the 'curvature of space, I am sure.

 

No one (including Einstein) is saying that Newton's gravity is not valid when measured with lead balls here on earth. The Cavendish experiment validates GR as much as Newton's law.

 

Einsteins refute of Newtons gravity is false IMO, because it CANNOT explain the Zwicky Gravity (dark matter gravity).

 

Neither GR nor Newtonian gravity 'explain' dark matter different from normal matter. Both theories of gravity say there is not enough visible mass to keep stars from flying out of galaxies rotating fast as they do.

 

Separated electric charges create an attraction that enhances Newtonian gravity such as in the Galaxy Clusters and the outer structures of the spirals that do not conform to the Virial theorum of the velocity/distance relations.

Quantum physics and Bohrs hydrogen atom planetary model explains these EM charges that cause the coulomb attraction that also applies to the dark matter problem.

SO? Mystery solved. No GR needed.

 

You are trying to solve a problem that is not caused by GR using a method that would be equally true or false for GR or Newtonian gravity because it is not caused or solved by either. Neither the dark matter problem nor your suggested solution favor one theory over the other.

 

So, IMO, the BBU is not cosmology but instead is cosmoGONY.

The source of BB science was the Doppler redshifts that have been refuted by Lemaitraes idea of an expanding space that I am sure was based on Sliphers redshift observations since his idea was concurrent to Sliphers work.

So his idea replaced the Doppler REAL science because of its implications of a repeat of the geocentric theory.

 

What geocentric theory? Lemaitre's solution to Einstein's field equations is not at all geocentric. Or are you saying that without GR Hubble's law implies geocentricism. How would that help your case? I'm not sure what you are saying here.

 

What observation would satisfy you that there is more to gravity than Newton's law? Would gravitational time dilation do it?

 

-modest

[Mike C]

Modest:

Will get back to you tomorow.

Answering these long posts creates a lot of work .

 

Mike C

[truth_united]

modest

I agree with coldcreation. You seem to be implying that better than:

"Is basic arithmatic enough for counting apples in my basket?"

would be:

'Is calculus enough for counting apples in my basket?'

or -

'Is a theory of everything enough for counting apples in my basket?'

and eventually -

'Is a theory of everything enough for explaining everything'

 

I think I have been misunderstood. When the question is what is suficient for counting apples in my basket, basic arithmatic obviously suffices, it does not need calculus or TOE. In that sense, for understanding applied astrophysics, Newtonian mechanics is perhaps advantageous as it is simple and gives "fairly accurate" reults.

But when we extend our quest to explaining the nature and origin of universe, any limited approach is not likely to yield accurate results. It requires an amalgamation of all that is known by humanity and much more. Whether we can reach that stage or not is doubtful; but that should not prevent us from trying to do so.

 

CC

To understand the whole, one must first be concerned with the dissection and analysis of sub-systems, events, constituents, rather than begin a direct attempt at understand everything.

 

You are right. Dissection and understanding of the parts and constituents of the whole is the initial process. However, if one does not move on to integrating all that is known and can be known, one would be trapped in one's own discipline and subspeciality.

 

CC

I don't get your point (contention). What do you mean by "true reality"?

 

Why can't "true reality" be understood without adopting a "more holistic approach"?

 

True reality means understanding the whole correctly. Understanding the whole requires a holistic approach. Explaining parts without integrating them does not explain the whole.

 

truth_united

[Mike C]

Modest

 

I am currently under suspension, so I cannot answer this now.

 

Mike C