Requiem for Relativity

Larry Burford
Offline
Platinum Member

15 years 10 months ago #15668 by Larry Burford

Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford

Code:

[Jim] <b>Can you say for sure the math is a sure thing in that math 
of that kind has caused most of the confusion in science.</b>

Its not so much the math itself that causes the confusion, but the 
way the math is used. Equations do not cause things to happen - 
things that happen cause equations.
===

[Jim] <b>Observation is good though, so if the subject is seen it 
would prove the math works.</b>


Hmmm. Proving the math is necessary, but not sufficient.
===

[Jim] <b>Maybe proving the math works(in that it really does predict 
nature)would be more important than finding the subject.</b>


In some cases there are several equations that can predict the 
outcome of an observation or experiment. Obviously this means that 
all equations being considered provide the same answer (to within 
some distance of observed numbers), so in a mathematical sense they 
are equivalent even though they are not identical. In other cases 
the same equations are generated by alternate physical explanations, 
so they are not equivalent (to themselves) in the physical sense. 


(Dis)proving the math can eliminate a wrong idea, but proving it 
does not guarantee that you have the right idea. You have to step 
back from the math and look at the bigger picture (physics) in order 
to understand reality.

===


[Jim] <b>And the other way round would be a good thing too.</b>


Finding the subject is always a great thing. But sometimes our 
understanding of nature runs ahead of our ability to measure it. 
This was the case when we knew that the invisible air around us was 
composed of some sort of particle, but we had no natural sense or 
invented mechanism that could actually detect the hypothetical 
particle. 


If we could not detect this particle, why did we even think to look? 
We could use our natural senses to <u>indirectly</u> detect this 
particle (as in when we feel the wind on our face). And we could use 
invented machines to indirectly detect it by detecting various side 
effects (as in when we measure how long it takes a sound to travel a 
given distance through it).


Eventually we developed the mechanisms to directly detect the 
particle. Our theorizing was close. It turned out that the air was 
not made of a particle, but of several different particles. 


NOTE: This process (theorizing about indirectly sensed things) does 
not always lead us in the right direction. <ul><li>It succeeded in 
the example above.</li><li>It is probably failing with things like 
dark matter.</li><li>It is probably succeeding with things like the 
LCM and classical gravitons.</li></ul>

But as we learn to build more sensitive measuring devices, we will 
develop the ability to sort these things out. Tom has suggested that 
rather than admit it was wrong, science (IOW scientists) will most 
likely just adjust things over time to match better and better 
observations. At some point in this process dark matter will stop 
being some mysterious, unseeable, mathemagical thing and start being 
some specific, detectable, physical thing, like elysons or gravitons.

===


[Jim] <b>It might be better to stop dumping on the powers that be 
and look at new ways around the stone in the soup.</b>


There are two ways to have the tallest building on the block. Sounds 
like you are about to decide that it is better to stop trying to 
tear down the ones that are already there and start building a 
taller one. I applaud you.


Regards,

LB

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Jim
Offline
Platinum Member

15 years 10 months ago #15670 by Jim

Replied by Jim on topic Reply from

Dr Joe, I don't pretend to understand your presentation but if what you are saying has been observed that proves the math works much better that I believe it does. And if the math you did is correct and the object has not been observed an even better result is made. You seem to be in a win-win space. It seems to me the math is based on Kepler's Laws which require the mass being located at one point and that seems wrong to me. I have been told and shown that the math works even when more than one point has a large fraction of mass but still the math fails because many points of mass cannot perform in he same way as one point of mass does.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Joe Keller
Offline
Platinum Member

15 years 10 months ago #15671 by Joe Keller

Replied by Joe Keller on topic Reply from

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Jim
 ...many points of mass cannot perform in the same way as one point of mass does.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

L1 has been calculated to be an unstable position (see, among others, Cornish's article on Lagrange points, linked to Nasa's website) but the calculation assumes a circular orbit, and negligible third mass. The presumed 1987 (not 1986) position of Frey, is roughly consistent with L4, but in the circular orbit / negligible third mass approximation, L4 also is unstable for m2 / m1 < about 25.

My own numerical simulation, like that of Cornish but in the instantaneous rotating frame for an elliptical orbit, linearized in tiny displacements from the origin at L1, shows that for negligible third mass, L1 is only slightly more unstable for e = 0.24 than for e = 0. Small displacements grow exponentially roughly 30x per radian of the binary orbit.

A few months ago I mentioned on this messageboard thread, that a well-known astrophotographer had published a photo of a mystery object near Jupiter. This might have been a temporary accumulation of material at or near Jupiter's L1. Also I recall that some modern astronomers have seen faint accumulations of dust at some of the Earth/Luna Lagrange points.

Maybe resources should be allocated differently. Tombaugh found Pluto after only a few months of intense observation. Someone like Tombaugh could have found Neptune in a few weeks, without doing any calculus. That's much less costly than requiring hundreds of astronomers to learn calculus so that LeVerrier or Adams could calculate Neptune's position. Telescopes were better in Tombaugh's time than in LeVerrier's, Tombaugh had a better geographical vantage (Arizona), and above all Tombaugh had photographic plates. However if there had been less emphasis on the abstract, and more emphasis on empirical science and industrial arts in European schools, photography might have been developed earlier.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Stoat
Offline
Platinum Member

15 years 10 months ago #23502 by Stoat

Replied by Stoat on topic Reply from Robert Turner

Hi Joe, does this system work like a mini solar system, or like a planet and its satellites, in terms of the distribution of angular momentum? I suppose it depends on the exact mechanism of solar system creation. If our system is a failed binary, then, we would have had a fight between the sun and your planet over dumping excess angular momentum. If we accept the idea of electromagnetic braking, then flux tubes can embed themselves much more effectively into the sun's outer layers, than the failed sun's. The tubes can also extend much further out, because we have a failed sun like object so far out in the boonies.

I suppose that when this failed sun reached the radius where it had to sling off half of its mass along its equator, some of that material would have been grabbed by the sun. Maybe some sort of hybrid angular momentum set up?

Changing the subject slightly, I do think you should avoid the temptation to send out e mails to officers of astronomy clubs. Even if you are one hundred percent certain of where this thing is, it's always best to affect an air of belt and braces caution. I thought that that e mail sounded a little too strident in its tone. What you need now is telescope time, and the best way to get it, is not by drawing attention to the failings of professional astronomers. There's no way that amateur astronomers are going to rock the boat, they are grateful just have their feet under the table. Don't plant any seeds of doubt in their heads.

I still dont think that you appreciate just how much of a big deal this could all become. Once Nasas p.r. people move in, you may well find yourself wrapped in a ball of cotton wool. Let's face it, we would be talking about sending ion rockets there. Billions of dollar budgets demand creating a public enthusiasm for things spacelike again. The guys in Armani suits will be given the job of packaging you. They might well allow you the odd acerbic comment, about the state of physics but you will be dressed, scripted and paraded to the tune they set. So just enjoy it! Glad handing the president and eating canapes on the White House lawn can't be all that bad.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Joe Keller
Offline
Platinum Member

15 years 10 months ago #15672 by Joe Keller

Replied by Joe Keller on topic Reply from

Instead of allocating resources differently, maybe the government should stop allocating resources at all, in the scientific field. Clear the field with total disinvestiture.

According to Plato, Socrates occasionally let his students pay his necessary expenses (like his ticket for a field trip with his students which he couldn't otherwise afford) but denounced the professional "sophists". Like Socrates, ancient Greek priests were amateurs. What we have now are worse than sophists. Basically one must pay the professors or be killed; it's called income or withholding tax.

People like Steve Fossett or Richard Branson might have undertaken projects like orbiting an additional space telescope, if the government weren't devouring all economic resources. Allegedly King George III said in about 1782, "Now we'll see how they like taxation *with* representation." Hobbes, Aristotle and others theorized that monarchy was better than democracy, because the avarice of one man, a king, is smaller than the avarice of the 51%.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Jim
Offline
Platinum Member

15 years 10 months ago #15693 by Jim

Replied by Jim on topic Reply from

DrJoe, Why would the L points be stable in any sense of the term? Any matter at an L point would be just passing through or in orbit around one of the masses and would not be settling down at the L point would it? Why did you make the statement that they are unstable places? I want to be sure I'm not missing something here.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.394 seconds