Is Newtonian Mechanics an advantage or a limitation in astrophysics?

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

The Universe I try to explain is that mainfestation I am sentiently aware of (what I observe and experience), and I therefore use observation and experience as the basis of my method. I also explicitly exclude mathematical arguments from my explanation of that infinitesimal fraction of the Universe that I claim to understand. As an astronomer, I use classical physics (Newtonian mechanics) to figure out what it is I am looking at. That may be considered by some to be a self-imposed limitation; I view it as an advantage. The questions this thread asks include whether or not a mechanical explanation of the observed universe is deficient or inferior to a (Einstein) relativistic explanation; if pure mathematical modelling assists or detracts from astrophysics; if one can draw realistic conclusions from gedanken experiments; whether mathematically-derived hypotheses like Black Holes and Big Bang theory enhance or detract from our quest for real-world answers to observational curiosities; and finally, if cosmology should even be part of the physical sciences rather than a subset of theology.

 

Essentially, this thread seeks to discuss the arguments put forward in my book "The Virtue of Heresy - Confessions of a Dissident Astronomer" (available from the Hypography bookstore).

 

Hilton Ratcliffe

Astronomical Society of Southern Africa

Alternative Cosmology Group

[Tormod]

I think this is an excellent question.

 

The "Newtonian universe" was improved upon by Einstein's relativity theory. Both theories are however still in use. Newton's laws still hold in most cases, particularly when orbital mechanics are concerned, but relativity gives us a higher degree of certainty.

 

So to answer your question I'd say that the answers from relativity would give you more reliable answers - *however* relativity is much harder to apply and thus requires a higher level of understanding. So for everyday astronomers newtonian mechanics suffice.

 

Newtonian mechanics cannot explain things like gravitational lensing and the speed of light, however.

 

As for the "gedanken" experiments - science history is full of ideas that have begun as dreams or visions and ended up as "real" science. The question is, as always, whether the idea can be formulated as a testable hypothesis and evolve into theory. IMHO too many of the "alternative" cosmological ideas lack this rather important criteria and therefore do belong in a theological setting. I don't think cosmology as a whole belongs there though, perhaps it would be more apt to place it in the "philosophy" category.

[Tormod]

Essentially, this thread seeks to discuss the arguments put forward in my book "The Virtue of Heresy - Confessions of a Dissident Astronomer" (available from the Hypography bookstore).

 

Link to the book:

Hypography Science Bookstore - Books - The Virtue of Heresy: Confessions of a Dissident Astronomer

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi Tormod,

 

Thank you for getting the ball rolling, and for your answers to some of the questions. I initially majored in mathematics, and before long became immersed in Einstein's Relativity (I draw a distinction with classical, mechanical relativity), differential geometry, and tensor maths, etc. So my first comment in response to yours is that Relativity carries a heavy overhead in terms of the skills and mathematical fluency required to use it effectively. I think we agree on that, but may not on the question of whether, in practical terms, it is worth the effort. In terms of effectiveness, I would argue that classical mechanics can explain gravitational lensing (such as it is) and the speed of light (such as it is), where in fact Einstein's theories do not! Newtonian half-deflection and the recently discovered bending effect of a magnetic field on electro-magnetic radiation would both, jointly and severally, concentrate diverging light around a massive, magnetic foreground object. The speed of light as proposed by SRT depends on axial flexibility (Lorentz transformations) to survive, and we are still left with the absurdity of photons leaving opposite sides of a light bulb departing each other no faster than they leave the light bulb itself. However, my initial point in this thread is the most important to me - in what way are the measurements I would take of what I can see deficient compared with what I could get using Relativity? I concede that the precession of Mercury's perihelion is not (yet) given as accurately as it can be with relativity, but this is an isolated exception and has a counterpoint in the anomalous acceleration of the Pioneer spacecraft.

 

Thank you again for your well-considered comments.

 

Hilton

[coldcreation]

The Universe I try to explain is that mainfestation I am sentiently aware of (what I observe and experience), and I therefore use observation and experience as the basis of my method. I also explicitly exclude mathematical arguments from my explanation of that infinitesimal fraction of the Universe that I claim to understand. As an astronomer, I use classical physics (Newtonian mechanics) to figure out what it is I am looking at. That may be considered by some to be a self-imposed limitation; I view it as an advantage. The questions this thread asks include whether or not a mechanical explanation of the observed universe is deficient or inferior to a (Einstein) relativistic explanation; if pure mathematical modelling assists or detracts from astrophysics; if one can draw realistic conclusions from gedanken experiments; whether mathematically-derived hypotheses like Black Holes and Big Bang theory enhance or detract from our quest for real-world answers to observational curiosities; and finally, if cosmology should even be part of the physical sciences rather than a subset of theology.

...

 

 

Lots of things to cover (good). I'll start with the last sentence here and work my way up in other posts.

 

 

There is pre-ambulant point to make here with respect to our current cosmological models. The problem lies in that modern cosmology appears only at first glance to have broken away from the mold designed by Newton over three hundred years ago.

 

In fact, in many ways Newton’s ideas were more innovative and intuitive than our so-called relativistic world models (e.g., the big bang). Curiously enough, the insurmountable problems that faced Newton are the same as the thorny difficulties expressed today. Newton had not been able to attribute a “natural” cause that “could give the planets those just degrees of velocity, in proportion to their distance from the Sun and other central bodies, which were a requisite to make them move in such concentric orbs about those bodies.”

 

The “blind and fortuitous” divinity that fine-tuned and adjusted the various celestial bodies, had to be “very well skilled in mechanics and geometry.” Newton felt himself forced to “ascribe it to the council and contrivance of a voluntary Agent…a divine arm.” He did explain the “phenomenon of the heavens” by the power of gravity but was unable to assign the “cause of this power.”

 

Whether nonphysical or physical, occult or mechanical, natural or supernatural, the properties of gravity were understood by general induction, but Newton could “frame no hypothesis” for the observed stability of planetary orbits other than “Bind metaphysical necessity.” (Newton 1692).

 

 

More recently, Fred Hoyle pointed out the problem with great lucidity:

 

“This picture…generalizes…the big-bang view of the Universe' date=' in which the entire Universe originates like the pencil balanced on its point. The balancing must be ultrafine. The density range in the cloud from the first moment contemplated in the theory…until the present is so vast that the pencil has to be balanced to an accuracy of about I part in 10 (60th). Written out in full, 1 part in 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000. How is this incredible balance achieved? There is no answer from the big-bang supporters, except with the implication of divine adjustment.” [/quote'](Fred Hoyle 1994, 1997, p. 402)

 

So Hilton, you bring up a great point. My answer is that cosmology is part of the physical sciences that has unfortunately become (or has always been) a subset of theology. Note that the problem persists whether one adopts Newtonian mechanics or general relativity.

 

But that by no means implies that all world models based on either of these two pillars of modern science fall into the category of theology. Only those models where the laws of physics break-down intrinsically at some point is space or time (or simply in spacetime), or where entities outside of physics are essential to that theory (e.g., dark energy, cold nonbaryonic dark matter CDM) is there cause for alarm.

 

Something has to change.

 

 

Finally, in answer to the question of your title, "Is Newtonian Mechanics an advantage or a limitation in astrophysics?"

 

Well, excluding cosmology for now, Newtonian mechanics is a limitation in astrophysics, particularly in celestial mechanics, since the fine tunning problem has not yet been resolved. But then again, neither has fine tunning been resolved using GR.

 

 

More on that question later...

 

PS. I am curious to see how you resolve (if at all) the problem of galactic rotational curves (without CDM), let alone the SNe Ia data interpreted as accelerated expansion without DE.

 

 

 

 

 

CC

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Coldcreation: So Hilton, you bring up a great point. My answer is that cosmology is part of the physical sciences that has unfortunately become (or has always been) a subset of theology. Note that the problem persists whether one adopts Newtonian mechanics or general relativity.

 

Yes, it seems there's meat on these bones, and you should take the credit, CC, for suggesting this thread and even showing me how to set it up. Thank you.

 

I am aware that my role here is going to be to some extent that of devil's advocate, and I am going to just slightly overstate my case to see whether I can take the heat. Great fun! :confused: Implicit in the question of the title is the need to answer it by taking into consideration what the alternatives are. Is Newtonian mechanics at a disadvantage when compared with say GR, its chief opposition when it comes to rotational mechanics of celestial objects? CC, you answer "no" to that question twice in your post. It seems that on these two issues we agree that NM is as good as GR, to which I now add the concurrence between Tormod and me (and I'm pretty sure you as well although you did not say so) that NM is significantly easier to use. We should also bear in mind that in many instances GR and NM give precisely the same answer.

 

In brief answer to your concluding post script questions: I use MOND (successfully so far) to calculate rotations of galaxies and clusters. I am working on a quantitative formula for rotation of physical objects using electricity, but haven't got there yet. SNe 1a light curves and rise times have been soundly debunked as evidence for expansion, fast or slow. I can answer these two questions more fully with references if you like.

 

Keep 'em coming!

Hilton

[coldcreation]

...Implicit in the question of the title is the need to answer it by taking into consideration what the alternatives are. Is Newtonian mechanics at a disadvantage when compared with say GR, its chief opposition when it comes to rotational mechanics of celestial objects? CC, you answer "no" to that question twice in your post. It seems that on these two issues we agree that NM is as good as GR, to which I now add the concurrence between Tormod and me (and I'm pretty sure you as well although you did not say so) that NM is significantly easier to use. We should also bear in mind that in many instances GR and NM give precisely the same answer.

 

Perhaps, but is an assessment of the virtual failure of Newtonian cosmology that the terms “omnipotent and omniscient” had to be attached to the mechanical and geometrical phenomenon of gravitation.

 

Nonetheless, modern cosmology with its liberal use of GR, has done little to revolutionize the fundamentals of the stance outlined by Newton in his undoubtedly influential work. The essence of the problems that Newton confronted are identical to ours: the difficulty rests in identifying the cause of the equilibrium observed with respect to planetary motions in solar system and seemingly throughout the visible universe.

 

Our current understanding of gravitation as an attractive force or as curved spacetime is insufficient to corroborate the fine-tuning—an inopportune fact that holds for the big bang and steady state cosmologies (leaving the radical alternatives out of discussion for the moment).

 

Einstein’s deeply personal response not surprisingly reveals the absurd, considering the appendage of a spiritualistic mechanism to describe the force of gravity, he writes: “Newton himself was better aware of the weaknesses inherent in his intellectual edifice than the generations of learned scientists which followed him.” (Einstein 1927).

 

In a different but applicable context Einstein wrote in 1934: “There are few enough people with sufficient independence to see weaknesses and follies of their contemporaries and remain themselves untouched by them.”

 

The time reversible nature of both of these theories is a drawback if one is to construct a cosmology exclusively from them, i.e, without thermodynamics. We can get back to this if you would like later.

 

 

In brief answer to your concluding post script questions: I use MOND (successfully so far) to calculate rotations of galaxies and clusters. I am working on a quantitative formula for rotation of physical objects using electricity, but haven't got there yet.

 

Okay, thanks. I have to study up on MOND.

 

 

SNe 1a light curves and rise times have been soundly debunked as evidence for expansion, fast or slow. I can answer these two questions more fully with references if you like.

 

Hilton

 

I agree with you totally here, that "SNe 1a light curves and rise times have been soundly debunked as evidence for expansion."

 

Is there an explanation for the SNe Ia time dilation data within Newtonian mechanics or is this an occasion where GR is required according to your research? Is there time dilation at all in Newtonian mechanics that could account for the deviation from linearity (both in redshift z, light curves and rise times of distant SNe) observed?

 

 

 

CC

[Jay-qu]

Ok, one question from me: How does Newtonian mechanics account for the time dilation effect of a gravitational fields?

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi all,

 

We are slowly getting our terms of reference sorted out. Is it ok with everyone here that we use Newtonian Mechanics (NM) to encompass classical physics generally? If so, then I will use NM in that context in answering the questions. I don't think any of us is hung up on semantics.

 

CC, you are well versed in Newton's writings, and must be aware that he was first and foremost a theologian. His published papers on theology far exceed his output in natural philosophy and mathematics combined. I mention this because we need to allow for his use of religious terminology.

 

Newton's laws were extracted from the data, in a process that went for example from Tycho's observations to Kepler's equations to Newton's laws. NM is in that sense hardly a theory, it is a set of tools that assists us with the measurement of motion. A question arises in using a method that starts from experience of local events and proceeds outwards from there: How far from local experience do these conclusions hold true? In his Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy (an addendum to the Principia), Newton declares, "The qualities of bodies...[]...within reach of our experiments, are esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever." (Rule 3). This is a philosophical assumption, and we are free to make it or reject it. In trying to figure out what Einstein thought was broken that he needed to fix, I concluded that it was that Newton did not satisfy him of the applicability and relevance of mechanical laws at the very extremes of measurement. However, what I have found in practice is that we rarely, if ever, get to those extremes, and therefore don't need a profound theory to deal with them.

 

Perhaps I can answer both your and Jay-qu's questions on time dilation together. No, NM does not account for time dilation (or the expansion of space and any other of its consequences) because it does not need to. It does not assume these things in the first place, and does not postulate a model that requires them. I repeat, classical mechanics is used to quantitatively assess what we are sentiently aware of, in the space that we see, ie a 3-D Euclidean universe with a separate axis of time. It does not formally address conjecture, although it is useful and amusing in that respect. Classical, mechanical relativity can be raised to a fair level of abstraction, although nowhere near the heights aspired to by Einstein.

 

It might be useful for those so inclined to read my review of the First Crisis in Cosmology Conference (CCC-1), held in Portugal in 2005:

 

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2005/PP-03-03.PDF

 

Best

Hilton

[sanctus]

Also in GR you can always choose a local frame where SR holds and we all know that for some approximations and condition on the speed of onsidered objects you can approximate SR with NM. So eventually using NM instead of GR is locally very acceptable. When you want to describe something not locally I don't know, there NM seems more a limitation.

[coldcreation]

...

Perhaps I can answer both your and Jay-qu's questions on time dilation together. No, NM does not account for time dilation (or the expansion of space and any other of its consequences) because it does not need to. It does not assume these things in the first place, and does not postulate a model that requires them. I repeat, classical mechanics is used to quantitatively assess what we are sentiently aware of, in the space that we see, ie a 3-D Euclidean universe with a separate axis of time. It does not formally address conjecture, although it is useful and amusing in that respect. Classical, mechanical relativity can be raised to a fair level of abstraction, although nowhere near the heights aspired to by Einstein.

 

It might be useful for those so inclined to read my review of the First Crisis in Cosmology Conference (CCC-1), held in Portugal in 2005:

 

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2005/PP-03-03.PDF

 

Best

Hilton

 

 

I will check out you link above.

 

But first, let me ask you Hilton, how, with NM (i.e., without Einstein's relativity principles) can you explain the data resulting for the Shapiro time dilation experiments, or the gravitational redshift experiments (see, e.g., Pound-Rebka)?

 

See also Tests of General Relativity

[Tormod]

The speed of light as proposed by SRT depends on axial flexibility (Lorentz transformations) to survive

 

Hilton, I almost missed this little thingy.

 

My point was that the speed of light in vacuum is *not* supported by Newton's theories. His idea of an "absolute" time and action-at-a-distance rules out a finite speed of light.

 

We did not need relativity to prove the speed of light (Ole Roemer did that in 1676). Rather, relativity brought in the concept that *something* had to give. If it is not the speed of light, then it must be something else - thus the transformations.

 

(Not really a post to further the discussion, I just wanted to clarify my point).

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Thanks, guys, for your excellent contributions. What I have found and highly appreciate in this forum is a genuine interest in science and respect for well-reasoned opinions irrespective of whether they align coherently with one's own.

 

Coldcreation: I am going to decline both to explain Shapiro’s and Pound-Repka’s results and criticise their experimental disciplines (although I can and may do so later on) in order to make a point: How are those results helpful to me in astrophysics? In dealing with things that are not locally verifiable, I should be sure that the theoretical tenets I use to explain them are to reasonable certainty unambiguous at the very least. Remember, I argue as an empiricist – I weight measurement over theory, and consider my advantage to come from improved (more accurate and truthful) measurements, not more sophisticated theory, unless the theory improves my measurements. How does relativistic gravitational redshift give me an advantage? The cosmological redshift I measure is taken at only one end of the process, and it is in all probability a compound effect, including arguably intrinsic redshift, Doppler redshift, gravitational redshift, and collisional redshift (scatter). How much of each? We don’t know, neither do we know what else is in the mix. The procedural ineptitudes in all the famous experimental “proofs” of Relativity are so dire that I can only assume that they escaped the wrath of referees because what they set out to prove was so popular. But I would like this thread to remain distinct from the many forums focussed on debating the validity of Einstein’s Relativity, as interesting a topic as that may be. How are the measurements I take of astrophysical objects inferior because I use classical physics and eschew Relativity? I measure redshift of starlight. You measure redshift of starlight. We get the same answer, no matter that my name is Newton and yours Einstein.

 

Tormod: Sorry, I don’t get your point. I think I understood your question correctly, and perhaps my answer was not too clear. Newton did not understand how light could propagate in a vacuum, just as he did not know by what mechanism gravitation functions. We think we understand the former now, from Maxwell’s equations. He assumed absolute time, and Einstein assumed absolute light speed. Absolute time and action-at-a-distance do not rule out finite light speed. Classical physics is quite comfortable with finite light speed, and we can measure it classically, ie mechanically, although terrestrially we can only measure it as a two-way average. Absolute light speed, irrespective of the frame of reference, is what the fuss is about. Classically, it is both absurd and impossible, hence the analogy of the light bulb. In my book, chapter 11, I am confident I have illuminated the principle flaw in Einstein’s thesis regarding light speed, but on CC’s advice am going to modestly refrain from republishing my entire work here :). To return this dialogue to the theme of the thread: How does assuming absolute light speed improve my astrophysics?

 

Best

Hilton

[coldcreation]

...

 

It might be useful for those so inclined to read my review of the First Crisis in Cosmology Conference (CCC-1), held in Portugal in 2005:

 

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2005/PP-03-03.PDF

 

Best

Hilton

 

A few remarks regarding the link above: First Crisis in Cosmology Conference.

 

1. First, I agree on a number of points: Modifications are required if Newtonian dynamics is to decribe current observations (thus MOND: I still have to read up on this).

 

2. However, dark matter (of the nonbaryonic type of course) is NOT the craziest idea in astronomy (Riccardo), it is the second craziest. First prize goes to dark energy.

 

3. Note that the Friedmann models do not need GR to work as they do. Newtonian mechanics works just as well, i.e., not at all, since recent observations have ruled out all three Friedmann models (see Lambda-CDM, the model that replaced the old standard Friedmann models).

 

4. Agreed, too, that the SNe Ia data falsifies the big bang expansion theory. though I have to see just how that is justified by Andrews (if you have a link to that paper it would be appreciated, or I can try finding it myself). In any case, for a variety of reasons (not least that the deviation from linearity observed with SNe Ia light curves and redshift z was NOT predicted by the standard model that prevailed before 1998) the SNe Ia data has ruled out expansion (now 96% of the constituents (in the form of free parameters) of the universe are dark, i.e., outside of physics).

 

5. Agreed as well that primordial nucleosynthesis (non-stellar-process creation of light elements) is ad hoc.

 

6. Geometry of the universe: it is possible to construct static solutions (there exist three) to the Einstein field equations.

 

7. I would'nt say that general relativity is flawed (it has, after all, passed every test, save for gravitational waves), but that it has an unrecognized boundary condition (not at spacetime horizon) at both the upper and lower bounds of mass-energy density, of curvature, thus. Ultimately, Einstein felt that observations alone would determine the boundary conditions, not extrapolations to infinity based on aberations of the field equations.

 

8. True too, as you write, "The implications of this damning consensus are serious indeed..."

 

 

 

 

That's all for now (plasma cosmology and iron-sun concepts are currently beyond the scope of my desire to distend on my terrace by the pool and bask under the pristine Mediterranean sky).

 

 

 

 

 

CC

[Pluto]

Hello Coldcreation and Hilton

 

Just sitting on the fence line and learning. Love your humble discussion, good to see.

 

No comment from me,,,,,,,,got to run and pick up the kids.

[Tormod]

Tormod: Sorry, I don’t get your point. I think I understood your question correctly, and perhaps my answer was not too clear. Newton did not understand how light could propagate in a vacuum, just as he did not know by what mechanism gravitation functions.

 

I apologize for my earlier post, it is badly written and contains grave errors. I must have been half asleep...

 

Of course Newton predicted a finite light speed, and when Roemer confirmed it it was a boon for Newton.

 

Einstein's legacy is mostly the understanding of the role of space (or rather, the entire concept of space-time, and the function of curved space-time) and the concept of reference frames.

 

AFAIK we *still* don't know what gravity is. We only have theories that explains how gravity behaves but not how it is created.

 

I work in the space sector and I see daily use of both classical mechanics and relativity. They co-exist nicely. Newton would never have been able to predict the time shift required to make GPS satellites operate correctly, but the marvellous simplicity of his ideas are fantastic. Relativity is interesting to me because it is *not* simple. Or rather, I am starting to understand the basic concepts and why relativity is such a great idea, but I will probably never be able to use it for anything other than explaining basic things (but then again I am a communicator and not a scientist).

 

How does assuming absolute light speed improve my astrophysics?

 

If you can live with the inability to correct the errors the NM causes when calculating precise orbits, then I guess it does not improve your astrophysics - but my question back would be, how does ignoring reference frames make you a better astrophysicist? ;)

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi everyone,

 

Coldcreation: Ah, the Med! I too must suffer in life. From my window, the warm Indian Ocean beckons under a mid-winter chill of 25 degrees C. Dolphins frolic in the waves, and the nearest war is over 100km away. But, like you, I am stoical and suffer in silence…:shrug:

 

1. I use MOND, and it works, but it is deficient in that it applies to gravitation only in specific circumstances, and I don’t think we can write it as a corollary into Newton’s laws yet.

2. Yes, I agree!

3. Ha, ha, great comment! :) Have you seen Richard Lieu’s recent essay on Lambda-CDM? Feel the anger of a professional astronomer who has just discovered that he has for almost his entire career been hoodwinked by mathematical sophistry: Lambda-CDM cosmology: how much suppression of credible evidence, and does the model really lead its competitors, using all evidence? ( it’s on astro-ph)

4. Unfortunately, Tom Andrews did not put either of his CCC-1 papers on arXiv (I’ve written to him suggesting that he do so). They are currently only available either in the proceedings volume ($100 if you want one, great value as it includes in the price a rare picture of me) or from him directly ([email protected] -he will gladly send you pdfs).

5. Big Bang has element abundance problems all the way through.

6. We don’t need to construct geometrical solutions for the Universe – we can see what it is.

7. I take your point, except that in another place, another time, I would question whether it has passed any tests at all.

 

But, heck, all is not smoke and thunder. In my ongoing study of the Cosmic Microwave Background, I came across a paper entitled “On the origin of the cosmic microwave background anisotropies”(arXiv:astro-ph/0703806). This publication probably says it better and more succinctly than any of the other thousand-odd that I’ve reviewed. All it requires is the ability to laugh at oneself. The first clue should have been the lead author, but I must admit I dived straight into the text without checking first. Who was it? Why, none other than one Ria Follop of the Institute of Fundamental and Outstanding Questions, Department of Cosmology and Metaphysics, Online University, Internet. Ahem!

The authors suggest that the background fluctuations may be correlated with topographical features on Earth, and use a statistical approach to make a powerful case for terrestrial, non-cosmic origins for the radiation picture. I will let them tell it in their own words:

“To consider the signal that may be correlated with Earth, a correlate-by-eye exercise was attempted by overlaying the CMB map from Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe on a topographical map of Earth. Remarkably, several hot spots in the CMB map are found to be well aligned with either large cities on Earth or regions of high altitude. […] Simply extending our analysis, we suggest that cross-correlations between CMB and any other map of a Solar system body, image of a person, or an image of an animal will be detected at some statistical significance. […] Finally, we wish to comment on an existing suggestion in the literature that there are hidden messages from the Creator in the WMAP data since it can be thought of as a billboard visible throughout the Universe so a message is likely to be encoded within the intensity fluctuations. In the extreme case that the message is an image of the Creator herself hidden within the cosmic noise, we suggest that it may be possible to establish this image through a large number of cross-correlations of input images (of people, animals, spirits, or combinations) that are used in a likelihood analysis. […] In fact, we would not be surprised if a spherically projected image of a famous celebrity correlates with WMAP at some high significance. Thus it is left to the reader to establish using a complicated theoretical argument if that celebrity is the Creator whose image is then hidden in WMAP. […] We also thank the pub down Gloucester road for not closing at the time it should have closed to give us an extra half-hour to come up with the basic idea for this paper.”

 

 

Pluto: Glad to have you along, my friend. Why did you give yourself a dog’s name? A year or two ago, you could have claimed it was the name of a planet, but sadly, no more…

 

Tormod: If you are not a scientist, no one is. In my judgement, it all comes down to one’s approach to the physical challenges before us, and in that respect you qualify *** laude. Whether our conclusions match is absolutely irrelevant.

 

You make a number of important points, crucial to this dialogue.

 

1. Yes, we can blame Einstein for space-time, and the further idea that space per se can have geometry that is kinetic.

2. Yes, Einstein did coin the term “inertial frame”, and he did emphasise the (mechanical) importance of co-ordinates taken at rest with respect to the motion being measured. However, these are also principles of mechanical relativity, espoused in other terms by Newton and later by Maxwell (see “Matter and Motion”), and conform to the origin of classical Cartesian axes. I do not suggest that relativity as a phenomenon in the measurement of motion doesn’t exist; of course it does. What I say is that it is not the relativistic relativity (for want of a better term) branded by Einstein. Einsteinian relativity correctly describes the measurement of the ball hit by the table-tennis players on the moving train, and incorrectly describes the simultaneous lightning strikes seen from a moving train (Einstein: “Relativity, The Special and the general Theory”). Both are given correctly by Newtonian relativity.

3. Newton indeed could easily have predicted the time shift adjustments for GPS signals. Tom Van Flandern, while he was at the US Naval Observatory did just that, using classical physics (see his seminal book “Dark Matter, Missing Planets, and New Comets”, and his web site Meta Research (innovative astronomy research)).

4. For me (a recovering mathematician :D), the most important point you make is that Relativity is seductively interesting precisely because it is not easy. Although it may seem like I am making a joke, I am serious. Mathematical obsession is now being examined formally (I know a clinical psychologist who is making it the basis of her doctoral thesis), and Lee Smolin and Peter Woit, both professors of mathematics at prominent universities, last year published books relating their experience of this syndrome. Please don’t get me wrong, I’m not foaming at the mouth and waving a banner that says “The End is Nigh!”. I am just urging caution when we come to moulding reality to fit our ideas.

5. Your final paragraph is well taken. I am particularly interested in the precision with which GR calculates orbits and acceleration (in most cases). If I could start my career over again, I would probably put a lot more effort into finding out why it needs to be expressed mathematically in a 4-D Minkowski world. There is surely a way to rewrite the maths so that it applies in the real world. Yes, you are right, ignoring reference frames would not improve my astrophysics at all. Just as well then that I don’t ignore them.

 

Best

Hilton