Resurrecting Newton

Science 2.0 is a different way of thinking about science. There are
no theories only models. The models are assimilated into our complete
understanding to date. It is a knowledge base mapping experiential
data to the relative and absolute ordering the emergent fractals of
that taken to be fundamental and emergent in the cognitive context of
each model. There are no scientific facts independent of context of a
model and no model excludes any other model except as trumped by
nature herself. Each model must be considered independently but not
in exclusion of other models and the relation between the models
uncovered in the advancement of science.

We start by integrating the classical laws of motion with relativistic
motion. In the first we can go as fast as we want. In the second we
cannot exceed light speed. The truth is that both views are correct.
The traveler at relativistic velocity close to light can achieve a
limitless proper velocity and venture across the galaxy and beyond in
a lifetime, but not without traveling into the future in a reality
where space and time are related such that you cannot travel in one
without traveling in the other.

I've made a lot of noise that every model is wrong because it has
limits and exceptions. But to know the whole truth as far as we can
determine each model ought be applied in the domain where it is
correct. Only if a model applies in no case at all is it totally
useless for prediction. Even models that apply to no observed cases
may prove useful in exceptional cases not yet studied. Science 2.0 is
not a competition where falsified models give way to successor models
as no model can be considered complete and complete understanding
means applying all possible models up to the complexity of the system
to determine how they are and are not manifest by the system.

The problem is that entertaining two independently consistent models
at the same time for the same system is plagued with inconsistencies
between the cognitive contexts of each model.

For example, if I travel to a star 10 light years away in one year on
my clock, I would say I traveled at 10 times light speed. But, but,
but, isn't that faster than light? The fact is that all my
calculations of acceleration, thrust, velocity and travel time would
be correct using Newton's laws. Even NASA uses Newton's laws for
space travel without need for relativistic correction for the space
craft perspective.

But Newton's laws fail to predict that when I return in two years, 22
years will have passed on earth. The question of how long I will
travel and how long will I be gone have different answers. My reality
and your reality are clocked independently. Both realities are real.
It is not true absolutely that you cannot go faster than light speed,
as the church of relativity doctrine teaches. At the same time it is
also true that you cannot actually pass any light no matter how fast
you go. A light path takes zero time relative to the frame of the
light. The direction of light travel is not necessarily determined in
collective electrodynamics but passing light violates time ordering of
events creating a contradiction in event ordering between the two
perspectives of time ordering. This would allow interaction with
oneself in the past in a doubling of energy to infinity. These self
interaction are renormalized out since we never observe explosions of
energy coming from nowhere. It seems apparently true as Einstein
speculated that event ordering is strictly enforced locally while
mutual clocking depends on relative motion.

Light speed relatively would be infinite proper velocity. You can
always use twice the Newtonian acceleration to achieve twice the
proper velocity and get to your destination in half the time. But no
matter how many times you double your proper velocity you will never
get to your destination in zero time or less.

In the future when high speed travel is a reality will we really say
Joe will be going going ten light years at .999XXXc velocity? Or will
we say 10c? The Newtonian, or proper velocity is more useful and
sensible generally. I suppose we will avoid violating the foolish
consistency between the models by saying warp 10 or something rather
than admit he is traveling faster than light by his clock.

In Science 2.0 Einsteins world does not replace Newton's world. The
basic idea of relativity was due to Newton in his relative laws of
motion. Einstein merely extended the notion to include time
globally. Locally Newton's laws still apply just as well as
Einstein's do. Considering only Einstein's laws to be correct leads
to errors in interpretation. The complete truth, so far as we have
determined, is that each must be true in the context to which it
accurately represents according to measurement. The failure of
relativity is that it does not allow mixing of different reference
frames limiting our knowledge of the system. The failure of classical
mechanics is it only models local experience. Employing classical
local dynamics to every participant and relating them relatively only
as necessary to answer questions about the relative distortion between
them is how Science 2.0 avoids any preferred perspective.

If philosophy can admit the correctness of Newton and live with the
inconsistencies, we can then also assimilate the various quantum
interpretations and then even Maxwell's equations. The work has
largely already been done (Carver Mead), but in reinterpreting the collective of
results, in an additive rather than exclusionary manner, the cognitive
context of the synthesis of the models is realized.

Jim