|
24 Jul 20 - 12:03 PM (#4065708) Subject: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Mr Red It has long been said, but not until now have I heard why Newton got it wrong, but only slightly. Basically Gravity acts with an inverse law. Simple enough, but the planets beg to differ. However Einstein's Relativity states the time changes with speed. And Gravity comes out of the Space-Time thingy. Planets (etc) are traveling at a speed. Low enough for most purposes but enough to need an added term to Newton's Law of Gravity. Small but cumulative when predicting the position of planets. So There you have it, if I am right. Newton was wrong - slightly. |
|
24 Jul 20 - 01:04 PM (#4065716) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: robomatic Ever hear that a miss is as good as a mile? Or to quote Wyatt Earp: "Speed is fine, but accuracy is final." |
|
24 Jul 20 - 04:55 PM (#4065736) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Steve Shaw Newton was a magnificent scientist. Like all magnificent scientists he could get things appallingly wrong, and cling to his beloved baby... he believed in alchemy fer chrissake, and Einstein got himself into a right pickle with his cosmological constant... even Lamarck was a lovely feller... But at least all these chaps were doing science. Their peccadillos were as nothing when set alongside the dickheads who try to insert God into science... |
|
24 Jul 20 - 05:11 PM (#4065737) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: The Sandman And then there are those that believe Prince Philip is god, and look what the Church tried to do to Galileo Galileo was ordered to turn himself in to the Holy Office to begin trial for holding the belief that the Earth revolves around the sun, which was deemed heretical by the Catholic Church. Standard practice demanded that the accused be imprisoned and secluded during the trial. |
|
24 Jul 20 - 05:28 PM (#4065738) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: The Sandman Copernicus, Galileo, and the Church: Science in a Religious World By Nicholas P. Leveillee 2011, Vol. 3 No. 05 | pg. 2/2 | « Cite References Pri The Inquisition gave him a short amount of time to come to Rome or he would be jailed and brought when his health was better.22.) The entire trial lasted eight months, after which Galileo was sentenced by seven of the ten Inquisitors. The other three refused to sign for unknown reasons. His sentence was that Dialogues would be placed on the Index of Prohibited Books, Galileo could be arrested if the Inquisition decided so, he would have to publicly admit that he was wrong, and he would also have to perform religious penance for an extended amount of time. He was also placed under house arrest at the Embassy. He was allowed leniency because he admitted he violated the injunction but did not do so intentionally. Galileo was eventually allowed to return to his farm house to live out the remainder of his life. His book remained on the Index of Prohibited Books for many years after his death.23.) The committee that Pope Urban VIII organized had told the Pope that Dialogues could be corrected and then allowed to be published if any useful knowledge could be gained from it. However, the Pope did not allow this, possibly due to his irritation over Simplicio.24.) The Pope did not even allow Galileo a proper burial in a church; Galileo was buried in an unmarked grave in the Santa Croce Church in Florence. In 1734, ninety-two years after his death, a request was approved to give Galileo a better burial place, a mausoleum in the church he was originally buried in.25.) Dialogues remained on the Index for 111 years before a censored version was released, in 1744. The censored version was heavily edited, some sections were completely removed. It was finally removed from the Index 202 years later, in 1835.26.) For many years, the Catholic Church continued to deny that the Earth revolved around the Sun. It was only in 1820 that the Church allowed another astronomer, Joseph Settle, to declare the motion of the Earth, as proposed by Copernicus over 200 years ago, as fact. Three hundred and fifty years after Galileo's death, Pope John Paul II said in 1992 “that Galileo suffered unjustly at the hands of the Church and praised Galileo's religiousness and his views and behaviors regarding the relationship between science and religion.”27.) Copernicus received fairly positive recognition not long after his death. With the exception of his book being placed on the Index, there was little else that affected how people saw him. For some time after his death, he continued to receive praise for his other mathematical works.28.) In other countries, his heliocentric hypothesis was taught in some universities, arguments for and against being taught.29.) However, some were still critical of him. Tolsani wrote that Copernicus took the easy way by delaying publishing his book until he was on his deathbed, effectively escaping from the possible repercussions of the Church.30.) Perhaps Copernicus was right in delaying publication of Revolutions, for he feared the wrath of the Church. Scientists could not be sure that they were safe from criticism and religious persecution. |
|
24 Jul 20 - 05:42 PM (#4065739) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Steve Shaw You've opened a Pandora's box, Redman! This could be an amazing thread, depending on how soon Joe Offer spots it... ;-) |
|
24 Jul 20 - 06:16 PM (#4065741) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: DMcG I know the Galileo account is well loved, but even Ptolomy said his model was a mere mathematical model and there was no way of determining whether the sun or the Earth was at the centre. Copernicus formulated and published his heliocentric model before Galllileo and had no trouble with the Church. On the other hand Galllelio cast his account as a discussion between two people, one of whom was, I think, called Simplico and was taken to be a representation of the Pope. Calling powerful people simpletons is always a risky move, was especially so in those days, and probably played no little part in the drama that followed. So yes, the account above is accurate as far as it goes, but may well leave out some significant interpersonal matters. Itt is unlikely it was all about science. |
|
24 Jul 20 - 09:05 PM (#4065753) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Jack Campin Are you thinking of the precession of the orbit of Mercury? That's a general relativity effect. The effect of speed is a special relativity issue, most clearly seen on the microscale with spin-orbit coupling in quantum mechanics. |
|
24 Jul 20 - 09:07 PM (#4065754) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Donuel Slightly is a big factor when it comes to GPS. Einstienian correction is required for GPS to work. If we went with Newtonian calculation alone GPS would never be close. |
|
25 Jul 20 - 03:14 AM (#4065767) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Mr Red You've opened a Pandora's box, Redman! And I wasn't even trying. Or standing on the shoulders of giants! And as for GPS, I remember when HP (when they were THE place to buy any tech equipment from) sent one of their rubidium clock into space to test the old Eisteinian contraction. I presume that was to test for GPS viability. |
|
25 Jul 20 - 03:23 AM (#4065770) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: The Sandman Like other iterations of the Inquisition, the Roman Inquisition was responsible for prosecuting individuals accused of committing offenses relating to heresy, including Protestantism, sorcery, immorality, blasphemy, Judaizing and witchcraft, as well as for censorship of printed literature. After 1567, with the execution of Pietro Carnesecchi, an allegedly leading heretic, the Holy Office moved to broaden concerns beyond that of theological matters, such as love magic, witchcraft, superstitions, and cultural morality. However, the treatment was more disciplinary than punitive.[1] The tribunals of the Roman Inquisition covered most of the Italian peninsula as well as Malta and also existed in isolated pockets of papal jurisdiction in other parts of Europe, including Avignon, a papal enclave within the territory of France. The Roman Inquisition, though, was considerably more bureaucratic and focused on pre-emptive control in addition to the reactive judicial prosecution experienced under other iterations.[2] Function Typically, the pope appointed one cardinal to preside over meetings of the Congregation. Though often referred to in historical literature as Grand Inquisitors, the role was substantially different from the formally appointed Grand Inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition. There were usually ten other cardinals who were members of the Congregation, as well as a prelate and two assistants all chosen from the Dominican Order. The Holy Office also had an international group of consultants; experienced scholars of theology and canon law who advised on specific questions. The congregation, in turn, presided over the activity of local tribunals. History The Roman Inquisition began in 1542 as part of the Catholic Church's Counter-Reformation against the spread of Protestantism, but it represented a less harsh affair than the previously established Spanish Inquisition.[3] In 1588,[4] Pope Sixtus V established 15 congregations of the Roman Curia of which the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition was one. In 1908, the congregation was renamed the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office and in 1965 it was renamed again and is now known as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. While the Roman Inquisition was originally designed to combat the spread of Protestantism in Italy, the institution outlived that original purpose and the system of tribunals lasted until the mid 18th century, when pre-unification Italian states began to suppress the local inquisitions, effectively eliminating the power of the church to prosecute heretical crimes. Copernicus Main article: Nicolaus Copernicus Nicolaus Copernicus published a formulated model of the universe that placed the Sun rather than the Earth at the center of the universe in his book De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres), in 1543. The book was dedicated to Pope Paul III, who was known for his interests in astronomy. In 1616, the Roman Inquisition's consultants judged the proposition that the sun is immobile and at the center of the universe and that the Earth moves around it, to be "foolish and absurd in philosophy" and that the first was "formally heretical" while the second was "at least erroneous in faith". (The original assessment document from the Inquisition was made widely available in 2014.)[5] This assessment led to Copernicus's On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres being placed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (Index of Forbidden Books). Galileo Main article: Galileo Galilei Galileo Galilei revised the Copernican theories and was admonished for his views on heliocentrism in 1615. The Roman Inquisition concluded that his theory could only be supported as a possibility, not as an established fact.[6] Galileo later defended his views in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which appeared to attack Pope Urban VIII and thus alienated him and the Jesuits, who had both supported Galileo up until this point.[6] He was tried by the Inquisition in 1633. Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy", forced to recant, and the Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems was also placed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (Index of Forbidden Books). He spent the rest of his life under house arrest at his villa in Arcetri near Florence.[7] Others Among the subjects of this Inquisition were Franciscus Patricius, Giordano Bruno, Tommaso Campanella, Gerolamo Cardano, and Cesare Cremonini. Of these, only Bruno was executed, the last by the Roman Inquisition. Campanella was later implicated in a conspiracy to drive the Spanish from Naples and Sicily and was imprisoned for twenty-seven years in various Neapolitan fortresses.[8] He was finally released from the Castel Nuovo in 1626, through Pope Urban VIII, who personally interceded on his behalf with Philip IV of Spain. The miller Domenico Scandella was also burned at the stake on the orders of Pope Clement VIII in 1599 for his belief that God was created from chaos.[9] The Inquisition also concerned itself with the Benandanti in the Friuli region, but considered them a lesser danger than the Protestant Reformation and only handed out light sentences. 17th century traveler and author, John Bargrave, gave an account of his interactions with the Roman Inquisition.[2] Arriving in the city of Reggio (having travelled from Modena), Bargrave was stopped by the city guard who inspected his books on suspicion some may have been on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. Bargrave was brought before the city's chief inquisitor who suggested they converse in Latin rather than Italian so that the guards might be prevented from understanding them. The inquisitor told him that the inquisition were not accustomed to stopping visitors or travellers unless someone had suggested they do so (Bargrave suspected that Jesuits in Rome had made accusations against him). Nonetheless, Bargrave was told he was required to hold a license from the inquisition. Even with a license, Bargrave was prohibited from carrying any books "printed at any heretical city, as Geneva, Amsterdam, Leyden, London, or the like".[2] Bargrave provided a catalogue of his books to the inquisition and was provided with a license to carry them for the rest of his journey. The Inquisition in Malta (1561 to 1798) is generally considered to have been gentler.[10] Italian historian Andrea Del Col estimates that out of 51,000–75,000 cases judged by Inquisition in Italy after 1542, around 1,250 resulted in a death sentence. Newton was lucky, unfortunately bigotry and bigoted ignoramuses were around in 1950s and are still with us in 2020, there is a very good book called the American Inquisition about McCARTHY AND NIXON McCarthy identified himself as Catholic, and although the great majority of Catholics were Democrats, as his fame as a leading anti-Communist grew, he became popular in Catholic communities across the country, with strong support from many leading Catholics, diocesan newspapers, and Catholic journals. What stuck with McCarthy, however, was his church’s opposition to Communism and its Index of Forbidden Texts. Books were banned if they contained material deemed to be heretical, salacious or just not edifying for Catholics to read, and a list of Marquette students who did read them for a class was forwarded to the archbishop every semester. |
|
25 Jul 20 - 03:55 AM (#4065774) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: DMcG I think that first sentence which includes the phrase "which appeared to attack Pope Urban VIII and thus alienated him and the Jesuits, who had both supported Galileo up until this point" is important and gives a much better setting to the account than is often given, so thank you for that, Sandman. Now Ptolemy is much misunderstood as well, in my opinion. It is often said that he had an earth-centric model, which is true, but that does not mean he thought the earth was at the centre of the Universe. His writing suggests he understood that movements were relative, and that mathematically speaking whether the Earth or the Sun is taken as the centre has no effect of the 'answers', but it does have a big effect on how hard getting to those answers might be. But he was not really interested in the question of where the planets were in any absolute sense, because he did understood relative movement. The question he wanted to answer was where the planets were when seen from Earth, because that is where we see them from. It was really useful to those studying the skies to have information about where the planets would 'appear in the sky' and so forth. It is the usefulness of the model that drove it, much more than a search for whether the Sun moved round the Earth or vice versa. It is worth reminding ourselves that our language is earth centric, not heliocentric. We talk of sunrise, sunset, the sun being high in the sky, high noon, and many many others: all earth centric. Describing 'sunrise' with a heliocentric language is clumsy at best and would hardly make good literature. (Saying 'dawn' is really just a synonym for sunrise, so that is not what I mean be describing it in a sun-centred way.) Even scientifically, I would hazard a guess that when planning a network of GPS or communication satellites the designers use an earth-centric frame of reference, not a sun centred one. "Fitness for the purpose" should be what leads you to selecting a particular model, not a belief that a particular one is 'right.' |
|
25 Jul 20 - 04:44 AM (#4065775) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Jack Campin Here is a description of how "time changes with speed" affects physics. You can see this with a home-made spectroscope. Spin orbit coupling I did understand how that special relativity effect worked once (at least the Larmor precession bit). I have sat through lectures on the general relativity effect that causes the precession of the orbit of Mercury and didn't get it. It's a much more subtle effect. Thinking of it as time slowing down in the Sun's gravity well might be relevant. |
|
26 Jul 20 - 03:55 PM (#4065974) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Pete from seven stars link Interesting discussion , Sandman and DMcG . I’ve also heard that prior to the Simplicico affair , Galileo was not persecuted for his science views , and even accorded a measure of legitimacy . .? Is this an an example of what almost everyone thinks they know , but are wrong about !? |
|
26 Jul 20 - 08:24 PM (#4066014) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Jack Campin 17th century mathematico-religious politics is rather brilliantly described in Amir Aczel's "Infinitesimal". Galileo's case was a skirmish in a much larger war. I'm ignoring the idiotic bulk pastes from Wikipedia. Moronic. |
|
27 Jul 20 - 02:16 AM (#4066026) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: DMcG I would agree, Jack. I would say, Pete, that we are getting into very deep waters here, where disentangling what is true, what is a lie and how those interact with what people believe is no simple matter. Even what we mean by 'true' and 'a lie', 'true' and 'false', and whether both of those 'true's are the same thing needs careful thought and precisely chosen language. And I have my sister visiting at the moment, so I haven't time just now. Maybe I can flesh this out a bit this evening. But to summarise in a sentence or two: What people are told about Galileo and the Church is factually accurate. The 'Thomas Aquinas' definition of a lie was that it was a false statement and told with the intention to deceive. I disagree; as far as I am concerned the key characteristic of a lie is that it told with the intention to deceive: whether it is true or false is secondary to that intention, in my view. But in this case what is told is both factually correct and it is not told (by most people) with the intention to deceive, so neither I nor Aquinas would consider it a lie. |
|
27 Jul 20 - 02:44 AM (#4066028) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Penny S. This is probably something of a tangent, but related to the wrongness of Newton, and goes back before Galileo - quite a long way before Galileo. Looking at the posts above, I think there are people here who may be able to help with my suspicions about something reported the other year about Homer's Odyssey. Some people had been investigating an incident near the end of that book which appears to describe an eclipse, and had used planetarium software to find one which had been over Ithaca at approximately the right date. They had backed this up by assuming that the account of Hermes visiting Calypso was of the movement of Mercury in the months preceding Odysseus' return home. Having used such software, I am aware that they tend to arrive with a warning that the further from the present, the more likely that inaccuracies have crept in. It would only take a small error for totality of an eclipse to completely miss the target area. And as for thinking that Mercury would be where Mercury was three thousand years ago, that seems to ignore the Einsteinian effects of the Sun's gravity. I tend to the idea that authors stick into their work what works for the plot, without regard for absolute accuracy of astronomical fact (or any other sort of fact), and find the idea that people preserved the information of a particular eclipse for eight or so centuries dubious. Anyway, am I right in thinking that dating events involving the orbits of the Earth, the Moon and Mercury about 3000 years ago using current software is unlikely to be accurate? |
|
27 Jul 20 - 04:04 AM (#4066037) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Black belt caterpillar wrestler How accurate is Stonehenge? Robin |
|
27 Jul 20 - 04:10 AM (#4066038) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Mr Red Anyway, am I right in thinking that dating events .................. about 3000 years ago using current software is unlikely to be accurate? Well, I would ask the question how accurate do you want it? First. How accurate is the location you are targeting? Etc. And How many planetoids, comets asteroids does it need to factor in? Jupiter & Saturn must be factors you can't ignore, and the moon is receeding at about 1 cm a year which can't be insignificant. Chaos theory would demand these things not be ignored entirely. All in all I would say the whole thing should be an humungous formula, and an iterative one at that. To summarise the answer to the question. "near enough to keep you guessing" - probably. |
|
27 Jul 20 - 04:35 AM (#4066043) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Steve Shaw Eclipses can be predicted with sharp accuracy, and that applies backwards as well as forwards. There are confounding factors, but they are likely to be tiny. The earth and moon can wobble a bit and neither is a perfect sphere, and we can't know exactly which sides of the two were facing each other at the time of an eclipse. The higher your altitude the longer the eclipse, by a tiny amount (to do with optics, all those ray diagrams you used to draw at school). Topography on the earth and moon can cause tiny diversions from the expected. The most likely bigger error in looking at past eclipses is getting the track wrong by just a few miles. On the whole, you can probably trust the date, time and location given for any past eclipse to a high degree of precision. Can't speak for any before 4004 BC, of course. ;-) |
|
27 Jul 20 - 05:41 AM (#4066055) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Pete from seven stars link That sounds like reasonable reflection DMcG. Whether something is a lie is a bit slippery . I think Thomas’ definition is more clear cut , whilst the other , while true , is more difficult to determine . For example , is it deception to push one idea , thought to be fact , while not mentioning all the arguments and data that don’t fit said idea ?. My opinion would be that it is intended to deceive if you know that other data and arguments are a big problem for what you are promoting - but again determining that in others may not be easy ! |
|
27 Jul 20 - 07:53 AM (#4066077) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Penny S. A few miles is enough to get it away from Ithaca. Tee hee 4004. What about Mercury, though? |
|
27 Jul 20 - 09:00 AM (#4066082) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Donuel I have seen the validity of an Einstein quote in my grandmother, myself and a few others. "Human consciousness goes against the grain of space time". Without getting into quantum nano tubuels in brain anatomy, he was referring to a perception of effects before the cause. This kind of dialectical thinking was an embarrasment in Einstien's time and is still considered pretty far out now. The special perception is however slight and does not change the eternal now, like predicting Google will keep employees in isolation and will not return until next July 2021. :^/ |
|
27 Jul 20 - 09:01 AM (#4066083) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Mr Red Eclipses can be predicted with sharp accuracy Yea, Yea, providing you have factored-in all relevant variables. I give you ice, at the poles and in glaciers. Then there is the rebound in the crust ( or lack of it going backwards). It changes the rotation and wobble. And, and, and.......... Chaos rules. Unless you have the factors. And know that wherever you get the calculations from has factored enough of these things. Small differences? Pah, chaos theory laughs in the face of your small differences. Evidence based science. You had to be there, &/or armed with those factors. But historical accounts are not without uncertainty. who mentioned dark matter/energy? |
|
27 Jul 20 - 09:09 AM (#4066084) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Donuel Mr. Red, I admit I had underestimated your physics acumen. I'm listening better now. |
|
27 Jul 20 - 10:07 AM (#4066092) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Jack Campin Penny S may be thinking of Giorgio de Santillana and Hertha von Dechend's "Hamlet's Mill: an essay on myth and the frame of time", which (namedrop) was recommended to me by Paul Feyerabend and (brag) I got cheap from the Library of Science Book Club in the mid-70s. It interprets a bunch of ancient myths as coded descriptions of planetary movements, including the precession of the earth's axis. A Neolithic or Bronze Age astronomer couldn't have discovered the Einstein precession of Mercury's orbit, though. |
|
27 Jul 20 - 10:19 AM (#4066093) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Steve Shaw You would think, wouldn't you, Mr Red, that I hadn't mentioned caveats re wobbles and topography in my post. Clearly, you've been taking lessons from Donuel in fanciful obfuscation (though not in science). Perhaps you could explain why predictions of future eclipses have been so devilishly accurate for many decades, if not longer. Then work back and tell me how "chaos theory" might have confounded calculations of past eclipses. Plenty of very sound science is possible without your "having to have been there." I thought you might have known that, or did Donuel tell you different? |
|
27 Jul 20 - 10:47 AM (#4066099) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Jack Campin One of the neater demolitions of crankery is the refutation of a Russian wacko who thinks a whole century in the Dark Ages (600-700, I think) didn't happen. The reason why he's wrong is... astrology. The oldest horoscope surviving is from about 100AD. It shows the planets exactly where conventional astrodynamics puts them. No missing century of celestial motions. |
|
27 Jul 20 - 12:01 PM (#4066119) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Donuel In A minor A minor and huge correction in the cosmic constant calcuation and later abandonment: Einstein decided at the out set to measure a static universe and bypass the problems of vortices, expansion and such. At the time, both Einstein and astronomers agreed that the universe was fixed in size and that the overall space between galaxies did not change. When Hubble proved the universe was expanding this revelation persuaded Einstein to abandon the cosmological constant from his field equations as it was no longer necessary. a twist of fate |
|
27 Jul 20 - 12:43 PM (#4066125) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Donuel I see the Chaos Theory when combined with the uncertainty principle to be two different things. There is Chaos in principle and a different one in practice. Notions of such nuance are cerebral fun but help connect the macro and quantum in my mind's eye. 'Love is in the details' but if Steve allows for freedom of thinking and expression in language, discovery and growth are more fun than dogma. When Einstein accepted dogma it turned out it made him make a mistake. Steve be happy that there are some fundamentals for you to believe in. Me? I am a believer in a combining things. You believe in particle physics, I lean toward field physics. Together in the Higgs field all particles change - they develop variable mass. |
|
27 Jul 20 - 01:05 PM (#4066132) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Donuel I believe in a combination of combining things as inthe discovery of the next new thing. Many a fixed fundamental has passed the torch to a new idea. A belief may not weigh much but can be enormously powerful. Each belief was born an idea. I've had a few, probably a few too many {:^? |
|
27 Jul 20 - 04:05 PM (#4066169) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Jack Campin The stability of the solar system seems to have been solved, for the next billion years anyway. https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/336/2/483/1158666 I seem to remember Poincaré had a go at the problem analytically and failed. The last few attempts have been by numerical simulation. It looks like the butterfly effect was overrated. |
|
27 Jul 20 - 04:44 PM (#4066171) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Donuel After 4 billion years of frantic teenage turning inside out, its good to know the solar system has mellowed out and settled down. |
|
27 Jul 20 - 05:10 PM (#4066172) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Donuel The way I heard it was that in the early 'wild west days' in the early epoch of the great bombardment the solar system had a giant stuggle between Jupiter and Saturn and they started a voyage closer to the Sun. They sling shot one another inwards for a time and then back out again. It was against the odds like sinking half the balls in a billiards break so there is room for other theories. The Earth only exists as it does today because of a Mars sized, perhaps Oberon, collision at a very unusual angle to produce our Moon and thus its stability. |
|
27 Jul 20 - 05:28 PM (#4066176) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Jack Campin If you look at that paper, it says that the stability of the Jupiter-outward planets is very well understood - they'll stay put for 100 billion years. It's small rocks like Earth where the calculations get iffy. |
|
27 Jul 20 - 05:59 PM (#4066179) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Steve Shaw Good to see how much you believe, Donuel. At least in this thread you have Pete to provide the succour in that direction. |
|
27 Jul 20 - 06:25 PM (#4066188) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Donuel Experimental questions = beliefs in my dictionary. And don't pick on 7 stars of the eastern sky. He proslytizes only in self defense. Oh I know what you need, "YOU WIN!" What if there was a movie where the villain's name was EGO? You wouldn't like the ending. |
|
27 Jul 20 - 06:35 PM (#4066191) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Donuel Steve study up on Charge, Parity and Time and get back to me. "Things don't disappear they just come back as another form." This does not have to be a religious or spiritual statement. |
|
27 Jul 20 - 06:55 PM (#4066195) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Donuel Like Alexander Friedmann I want Einstien's Universe to make human sense. Although I am part of the universe, the Universe doesn't seem to care about my wants or even Einstien. |
|
27 Jul 20 - 07:12 PM (#4066197) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Donuel One of my wildest ideas is that the universe is older than itself. The reason for that is what we call Inflation after the big bang did not happen in a plank instant but the early Mass production stopped time while inflation continued. Remember mass slows time. An entire universe of mass in a localized area stopped time until enough mass became thin enough to slowly restart Time. Thought experiments still thrill me. |
|
27 Jul 20 - 07:52 PM (#4066199) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Steve Shaw I tend not to bother to get back to chaps who talk total obscurantist bollocks. But I admire the way you use obscurantism to hide the fact that you know very little. Cle-ver... An interesting thing I contemplated a while back was the idea that we could be the only "intelligent" beings in the universe. That being the case, the universe itself is intelligent but completely dependent on the intelligence of humans on Earth. If we are truly alone in the cosmos, then we alone are responsible for the increasing intelligence of the universe, and we have achieved that in just a few thousand years out of fourteen billion (or at least since 4004 BC). |
|
27 Jul 20 - 08:14 PM (#4066202) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Jack Campin Doesn't really work. There are event horizons. Anywhere far enough away is never going to hear about your brilliant ideas. And the Big Rip puts the kibosh on it even more thoroughly. Eventually no two neurons in your brain can ever make contact again. For a little-known mindboggler, look for E.A. Milne's article on the age of the universe. I think it was published around 1920 and it puts the boot into lazy common sense with elegant thoroughness. It doesn't even need general relativity to do it, special gets quite weird enough. |
|
27 Jul 20 - 08:30 PM (#4066206) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Donuel At least this is relevant to Newton being slightly 'right'. Newton's curvature of space |
|
27 Jul 20 - 08:40 PM (#4066210) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Steve Shaw It works only if we're the only intelligent life. Therefore it's irrelevant as to whether anyone out there will hear my brilliant ideas. |
|
27 Jul 20 - 09:04 PM (#4066214) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Donuel The easiest of my wild ideas to see in your mind's eye is that the early universe in its initial transformation STOPPED Space time. The earliest event for what we call Inflation after the big bang did not happen in a plank instant but instead the early production of Mass stopped space time while inflation continued. Remember mass slows time. An entire universe of mass in a localized area stopped time until enough space had grown to allow less dense mass slowly allowed a restart of Time. Space can go faster than light so nothing is violated while mass thinned out and cooled enough to form stars, be they made of regular matter or dark matter - all this happened after the great annihilation of anti matter. Millions of dollars have been spent to discover the nature of the mysterious impossible nature of inflation while I think the answer was in front of us for a 100 years. |
|
27 Jul 20 - 09:14 PM (#4066215) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Steve Shaw In front of you, maybe. |
|
27 Jul 20 - 09:55 PM (#4066217) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Donuel I do not have a personal overarching cosmology in front of me but finding a niche here or there is fun. Good luck with your overlord of the universe thing although you probably have it backwards. |
|
28 Jul 20 - 01:54 AM (#4066232) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Jack Campin I just had look for that Milne paper and couldn't find it. It must date to around 1930, before Milne took off into developing his own cosmology. I may have a xerox of H.G. Forder's copy. Milne was a Christian and I'd guess he inspired some later investigations into the relationship between theology and cosmology (e.g. Thomas Torrance). If you have no concept of global simultaneity you don't get to say "when" the Incarnation happened for the whole universe. |
|
28 Jul 20 - 03:17 AM (#4066237) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Penny S. I've read Hamlet's Mill, having been given it out of the blue by a nice guy who worked in a second hand bookshop in Cirencester. I found it very interesting, but it didn't trigger my doubts. The eclipse on Ithaca paper was much more recent, and seeking to find an actual date for Odysseus' return, and I was prepared to consider it until they started to use Mercury. The idea that you could prove the existence of Odysseus as a real person who did things on a real date seems a bit wild. Other things I have read which tried to use astronomy for odd purposes were a pair called "Homer's Secret Iliad" and "Homer's Secret Odyssey" by F & K Wood. The Iliad, apparently, is entirely set up to transmit the knowledge that Orion becomes invisible for a period of time, Orion being represented by Achilles. I went along with this, given the annual cycle of the heavens, until they revealed that what they were on about was that for a period during the precession of the axis, Orion would not be visible in Greece at all. That Homer would know this, and then decide to bury it in something which to all intents and purposes is about human behaviour is stretching things beyond what they will support. The Odyssey is worse. This, apparently, is describing the movement of the Sun throughout a year. Since, at three occasions during the hero's journey, he engages in retrograde motion, which, unless you are living on Mercury, the Sun never does, this is daft. I actually went to the lengths of printing out star maps and tracking what the Woods said the Sun did in visiting various constellations - not only retrograde, but also way off the ecliptic, and full of zigzags north and south. I am left with the question "Why"? Why would anyone in the past have gone to the described lengths to pass on the "secret" knowledge? Why would it have been seen to be important? And why would anyone now want to spend the time investigating this. And why would any publisher publish it? I actually think that people composing a work of fiction have an idea of where they want it to go and then add into it picked up unconsidered trifles (reference to character with the name of Odysseus' thieving ancestor) which add interest to the narrative, and perhaps to the character they are dealing with. They don't have to be actual experiences from an actual time. Ah, an eclipse, that will add drama to the return. A volcanic eruption, that will make a different sort of storm to destroy the ship. |
|
28 Jul 20 - 06:15 AM (#4066250) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Jack Campin Stromboli was presumably going boom regularly back in Homeric times, and you can see why you'd put it in a story. I found a video on YouTube a few days ago of the explosion of Whakaari/White Island in New Zealand, taken from the tour boat that had left it a few minutes before. We just need someone to do it again in Ancient Greek while rowing like hell in loincloths. One of the more convincing suggestions about what Stonehenge was for suggests that the astronomical/religious stuff was secondary and pretty much decorative. Its primary function was as a central high court. Neolithic Britain was an organized enough society to need one. Major sessions might have been seasonally timed. |
|
28 Jul 20 - 07:12 AM (#4066255) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Penny S. The volcanic eruption is at the end of book 12, pivotal to the whole thing, and the event heralded in the invocation of the muse at the beginning, when all the men are killed. It is much more than a Stromboli eruption. I spotted the similarity to Mt St Helens - which didn't, of course, have the sea affected. I was able to convince the Earth Science department of the OU, which included several vulcanologists, and didn't need to try very hard. They got me into the Bodleian to research. I could not convince any classicists. They are determined to avoid any such interpretation of any texts. Hesiod described the fight between Zeus and Typhon melting rock so it flowed down the mountainside like iron smelted in Hephaestos' smithy. Footnote in book: This is not a description of a volcanic eruption as there is no detail of lava issuing from a crater. The Chalybes were smelting iron at this period. (My comment. Hesiod was not a vulcanologist. Faced with flowing lava, he would have gone the other way. If the Chalybes were smelting iron, they would have had a semisolid bloom needing hammering, not something flowing. Hesiod lived just around the corner from Methana, on which early lava flows still looked fresh when 19th century geologists looked.) Tim Severin, in his book on the route of the Odyssey declares "Nowhere in Homer is there any description of a volcano" when trying to disprove the identity of Aeolos' island with Stromboli. And actual classicists approached on the subject are dismissive. Homer includes sulphur in his description of the shipwreck because of the structure of the poem which includes sulphur when Odysseus cleans his hall. In both cases, the sulphur cleanses the sin against xenia. It provides symmetry in the poem. But it doesn't mean it wasn't a convenient eruption. It can do both things. Probably Etna, judging from the sailing directions and the proximity of Scylla and Charybdis. Apollonius of Rhodes certainly thought it was a volcanic region when he plagiarised and extended Homer for the Argonauts. Incidentally, there is a body which does three retrograde motions during a year - Mercury. And Odysseus was reputed to be the greatgrandson of Hermes. I spotted that when doing a sort of diagram on the classroom wall for mounting children's work on the Odyssey, which was on a schools broadcast, and realised I was looking at something I had seen in a book called "Time Stands Still" by Keith Critchlow, which looks at megalithic acience. One of the things he does is to show how the planets appear from a geocentric view - Venus produces a pentagram, for example. And Mercury a triple looped pattern, which does not quite fit the year exactly. The Woods did not notice that. |
|
28 Jul 20 - 07:22 AM (#4066256) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Penny S. Watched a programme on Stonehenge the other night, with archaeologists in good standing on it. It turns out that at about midwinter, there were huge gatherings in Durrington Walls, at which people feasted on pigs which were about nine months old. Strontium testing of the pigs' teeth showed that they had been brought to Stonehenge from all across Britain, some from as far north as Sutherland. (I thought you couldn't drive pigs, but the evidence is convincing.) Not from Orkney, though, despite recent connections being found. There is a route from there to the Avon, on the line of the midwinter sunrise, and it was suggested that the people travelled on the river to the avenue to Stonehenge on the line of the sunset. The bones from the Aubrey holes, now believed to be the first location of the bluestones, come, like the stones, from the Prescelli area. An extraordinary journey to go to bury people. |
|
28 Jul 20 - 10:00 AM (#4066280) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Stilly River Sage Wow, Penny - I haven't seen you here for a while so I dropped in to see how you've been. And now I see I have to read this entire thread from the beginning to catch up with you. :) "Why"? Why would anyone in the past have gone to the described lengths to pass on the "secret" knowledge? Why would it have been seen to be important? And why would anyone now want to spend the time investigating this. And why would any publisher publish it? The simple answer to something like this is "vanity press." Did the authors write it, not go through a review process, and pay to publish it themselves? I'll be back once I've caught up. |
|
28 Jul 20 - 10:15 AM (#4066282) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Penny S. Published John Murray, a proper publishing house. |
|
28 Jul 20 - 06:39 PM (#4066335) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Pete from seven stars link Isn’t it strange that humans are supposed to be so far back , and yet we don’t seem to have done much for most of that ..... |
|
28 Jul 20 - 08:59 PM (#4066351) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: robomatic I believe that Galileo was in trouble and received severe discipline from the church not technically for asserting the heliocentric theory but for asserting it after being told he should not, therefore he was in trouble for disobedience, not physics as such. Meanwhile, Giordano Bruno was toasted, quite literally, for a range of beliefs and has become associated with science because he got killed in the culture wars of the times. Galileo ran into his trouble about ten years after Bruno's burning and would have been well aware of how far things could go. He managed to be a martyr and stay alive at the same time, which was a sort of achievement. |
|
29 Jul 20 - 01:25 AM (#4066365) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Mr Red Therefore it's irrelevant as to whether anyone out there will hear my brilliant ideas. or care? |
|
29 Jul 20 - 03:53 AM (#4066377) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: DMcG Maybe, robo, but maybe not. Bruno is another of the cases where our modern understanding of it can easily omit the context. Quoting from the Wiki link you gave: After his death, he gained considerable fame, being particularly celebrated by 19th- and early 20th-century commentators who regarded him as a martyr for science, although historians agree that his heresy trial was not a response to his astronomical views but rather a response to his philosophical and religious views Now if Galileo though that the reasons Bruno was executed were because of his views on transubstantiation, migration of the soul, denial of the Trinity and the rest, and not the astronomical views, he might not have thought he was at particularly great risk, since he was not making those sorts of comments. |
|
29 Jul 20 - 05:17 AM (#4066382) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Penny S. My sister took me on a birthday trip to Rome, and we found ourselves in the Campo di Fiori, where there is a statue of Bruno. I became quite excited when I worked out who he was and why he was there. And the market traders seemed quite pleased that I appreciated him. So close to the Vatican - it seemed...interesting. As I have a friend concerned with exo-planets, his hypotheses in that direction have been discussed often. I'm not sure if he got as far as plantes transiting their stars. The concept of other worlds would have been quite challenging for contemporary religious belief. Still is, of course. As is the identified great age of the female figurines I was shown yesterday, which are contempory with Homo Erectus. Datable by the eruption of Mt Toba, between 71,000 and 74,000 years ago. We didn't get much done because we were few, and everyone had to do everything. You need surplus people and surplus food to make progress. And no pandemics. It's amazing we managed to do what we did. Well, I say we, but I know how useful I would have been in an ice age after a volcanic catastrophe. And that goes for most of us. |
|
29 Jul 20 - 06:30 AM (#4066389) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Jack Campin Aczel's book agrees that Galileo wasn't really setting out to be heretical as Bruno was - he just got hit by one of the swinging doors of history, when science got politicized as it hadn't been before. Servetus was the other celebrated example of someone who set out to be as offensive as possible. As Aczel describes it, the consequences were sad. Italy went from being the pioneer mathematical nation in Europe to a scientifically irrelevant backwater. But no individual could have done anything to stop the historical process. It was a bit like the way science is getting politicized in Trump's America, except that the Jesuits were honest men committed to a fundamental mistake rather than a sleazy crime syndicate. Islam had already been through the same disastrous process centuries before. The Christian world had no way of understanding the precedent. |
|
29 Jul 20 - 08:24 AM (#4066402) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Donuel Thousands of years ago Eratosthenes measured Earth's circumference mathematically using two surface points to make the calculation. He noted that the Sun's rays fell vertically at noon in Syene (now Aswan), Egypt, at the summer solstice. Its amazing how simple some problems can be solved. If its not simple I'm out of my element. :^- |
|
29 Jul 20 - 11:40 AM (#4066433) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Penny S. I have now made inquiries about Bruno and exo-planets. He delivered a lecture at Oxford on the subject, and in the Q&As afterwards, someone asked if it would be possible to observe eclipses from these planets passing in front of the stars. Bruno used maths to show that it would not happen. Ha ha. Couldn't have been observed with a Harriott telescope. |
|
29 Jul 20 - 08:05 PM (#4066500) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: robomatic Servetus' 'crime' was disputations in correspondence with John Calvin. I fail to see how that was offensive or asking to get burned at the stake, which was somewhat due to Calvin. Servetus' contributions to science were pretty much unappreciated in his time. Maybe you'd better describe what you mean about how Islam went through a disputatious time and survived. It seems to me that if that happened it has been long forgotten. Christianity went through major infighting (or between-fighting depending on how you want to address the Thirty Years' War) not even relating to the Enlightenment, which happened barely yesterday in historic terms. Islamic scholarship excelled in the middle ages and preserved a lot of Greek science. The Islamic world in the modern era is quite schismatic and apparently subject to a lot of atrophy or disillusionment, or both. And it is not science getting politicized in Trump's America so much as certain politicized idealogues denying science altogether. Religious leaders of all stripes seem to take a dim view of those who challenge their proximity to God or their ability to speak 'for' God. For the most part science has escaped that kind of social dominance. |
|
31 Jul 20 - 05:18 PM (#4066753) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Donuel Steve Shaw has mentioned the most cosmic thing I have ever heard him say about consciousness and the universe. There is a connection but not the way you think. This will guide you through he great minds who have considered this idea. PBS May we share a happy wave collapse :^] |
|
31 Jul 20 - 05:52 PM (#4066757) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Donuel Mr' Red's emergent theory of gravity by adding one more dimension. then taking it away |
|
31 Jul 20 - 06:19 PM (#4066760) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Steve Shaw I haven't said anything about consciousness, but I did say something about intelligence. |
|
02 Aug 20 - 03:25 PM (#4067023) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Donuel “A Higgs boson goes into a church and the priest says, ‘We don’t allow Higgs bosons here.’ And the Higgs boson says, ‘But without me there is no mass.'” “A photon walks into a bar and orders a drink. The bartender says, ‘Do you want a double?’ And the photon says, ‘No I’m traveling light.'” Two atoms bump into each other. One says “I’ve lost an electron.” “Are you sure?” “Yes, I’m positive.” |
|
02 Aug 20 - 03:34 PM (#4067024) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Donuel https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1412/Milky-Way-over-Moon-Valley-900px-by-Rafael-Defavari.jpg |
|
04 Aug 20 - 12:12 AM (#4067217) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: robomatic I don't mind so much a thread title about Newton being wrong. Everybody is wrong, Einstein was wrong, we just currently don't know the precise remifications of that wrongness. All the great physicists except for Sheldon Cooper are great physicists because they are slightly wrong while the rest of mankind is trying to mix earth air fire and water and avoid getting vaccinated. |
|
04 Aug 20 - 05:54 AM (#4067231) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Jack Campin Islamic scholarship excelled in the middle ages and preserved a lot of Greek science. The Islamic world in the modern era is quite schismatic and apparently subject to a lot of atrophy or disillusionment, or both. The Islamic Middle Ages was pretty much finished off by Hulagu. If you put yourself in the position of a Christian scholar of Galileo's time: the world is full of intellectual products created or transmitted by the Islamic world - mathematics, astronomy, chemical technology, civil engineering, musical instruments, classical philosophy - but in the previous 300 years, what had the Muslims done for the Christian world except stomp around in threatening hordes? Somebody ought to have thought, what happened to them? I have a photo on my website where I'm playing an electronic bagpipe sitting in the ruins of the university of Harran, which is still as the Mongols left it. It took Oxford a couple of hundred years before it was in the same league. And that was second division compared with Baghdad and Bukhara. |
|
04 Aug 20 - 05:27 PM (#4067301) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Mr Red He noted that the Sun's rays fell vertically at noon in Syene (now Aswan), Egypt, It was down a well that he noticed. I have seen a picture of the well, 50 metres in diameter maybe. And he was a percent or so out on the polar I think. More on equitorial obviously. But that all depends on your definition of a Greek mile. They knew the moon was spherical, so why not the Earth? Amazing given the technology available. But I would submit not amazing that there were clever people alive then. In fact looking at who rules our countries today ......................... |
|
05 Aug 20 - 01:46 AM (#4067341) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: robomatic I have a photo on my website where I'm playing an electronic bagpipe sitting in the ruins of the university of Harran, which is still as the Mongols left it. It took Oxford a couple of hundred years before it was in the same league. And that was second division compared with Baghdad and Bukhara. I've got a photo of students at the ruins of the school of Ulug Bek, sultan, astronomer, and mathematician. It's kind of like the poem: "My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings, look upon my works ye mighty, and despair!" Nothing beside remains. There were a bunch of kids from Siberia cheerfully picking up remnants of the stone work and giving them to the visiting Americans. So I'm not sure what you're saying other than repeating my point. Meanwhile I'm still pondering your attack on Michael Servetus, the inoffensive founder of Unitarianism, as somehow being obstreporous enough to deserve being burned at the stake at the instigation of John Calvin. Let me remind you; "After being condemned by Catholic authorities in France, he fled to Calvinist Geneva where he was burnt at the stake for heresy by order of the city's governing council." Servetus' 'heresy' was apparently disagreeing with John Calvin. His scientific contributions were not a factor in his flaming finish, but this was an era where you could die for your words. |
|
05 Aug 20 - 02:11 AM (#4067342) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Jack Campin The point is the process set in motion by the Mongols. A society militarized for external defence and losing the values of intellectual tolerance that made it a creative force. |
|
05 Aug 20 - 12:56 PM (#4067392) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: robomatic The Mongols? Were they mad at Michael Servetus, too? |
|
07 Aug 20 - 08:38 AM (#4067617) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: SPB-Cooperator That's the thing about maths - on the simplest level is it all that is needed for 99.9% of how it impacts on our lives, but the other 0.1% is 99.9% of the maths! |
|
07 Aug 20 - 01:32 PM (#4067634) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: leeneia Hi, Mr. Red. About your first post: when I was a college freshman, I read a book about relativity by Einstein and Infeld. Most of us couldn't follow it, but that was all right because most of the teachers couldn't either. After some years, I decided to lick this thing, and I read more books on relativity. I still haven't licked it. But one thing I do know is that when we want to calculate the speed of two systems passing each other, we think we should just add or subtract. Like this (I think) Train A is heading east at 70 mph. Train B is heading west at 50 miles per hour. How fast do they seem to be going past if one is a passenger? answer 120 mph, 70+50. But Einstein and others figured out that there is another term added to the equation, and it's a fraction with some element of the system (I forget which element) divided either by the speed of light or the speed of light squared. Obviously this fraction with a huge denominator will have a tiny, tiny value. Detecting the difference it made was definitely beyond Newton and other early scientists. In fact, earthlings ignore it entirely, unless they are working with GPS's. |
|
08 Aug 20 - 06:09 PM (#4067753) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: leeneia I think my simple arithmetic was wrong, but it's still right about the added term with c, the speed of light in the denominator. Let me think. If a train is going 50 and is overtaken by a train going 70, then the people in the first train think the faster train is going 20. That sounds right. |
|
08 Aug 20 - 08:36 PM (#4067764) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Jack Campin You are talking about special relativity. I think the OP had the implications of general relativity in mind. Very different mathematics. |
|
09 Aug 20 - 08:29 AM (#4067788) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: robomatic Still interested in your comments re: Servetus and burning folks at the stake for their ideas. The OP didn't mention this either, Jack. Your silence is deafening. |
|
09 Aug 20 - 08:51 AM (#4067794) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Donuel Our best guess as to the origen of the elements https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/2008/Nucleosynthesis2_WikipediaCmglee_2000.jpg |
|
11 Aug 20 - 01:53 PM (#4068009) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: leeneia Is there any aspect of human life where relativity is relevant besides GPS? |
|
11 Aug 20 - 04:26 PM (#4068036) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Jack Campin Special relativity is relevant to all electromagnetic theory since electrons travel at relativistic speeds - I gave a link to one phenomenon earlier. That was what Einstein invented it for. I don't think anyone's found a terrestrial effect that shows general relativity at work. |
|
11 Aug 20 - 07:05 PM (#4068068) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: robomatic good on ya, jack. keep up with the small talk! |
|
11 Aug 20 - 07:33 PM (#4068072) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Jack Campin I completely forgot about this one. Gravitational time dilation I hadn't realized, until reading that, how small a scale people can now detect the effect at. An atomic clock can show how much faster your head ages relative to your feet. |
|
11 Aug 20 - 08:36 PM (#4068074) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Steve Shaw Jesus. No wonder I don't know me arse from me elbow... |
|
12 Aug 20 - 04:26 AM (#4068092) Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly From: Mr Red Yer head'll catch up. One day. 😂 |
