Replies

"OK, rather than respond in kind, I'll simply ask you what specific aspect of the Sun and Earth moving through space that *you* assert is non-Newtonian."

I done tole you and tole you: Newtonian mechanics is oversimplified for this situation; it does not apply. It must be augmented by GR, which shows that the "excess momentum" predicted by boneheaded insistence on Newtonian physics is radiated away as gravity waves.

There are numerous situations known today in which Newton is known not to suffice. In fact, the precession of the orbit of Mercury cannot be accounted for by Newtonian physics, and it was the ability of (I believe) Special Relativity to predict and account for it that confirmed that Einstein was right.

I can cite as many examples as you care to read.

If you want the full rigor, contact Dr. Carlip as I did:

Dr. Carlip at UC Davis.

--Boris

In fact, the precession of the orbit of Mercury cannot be accounted for by Newtonian physics, and it was the ability of (I believe) Special Relativity to predict and account for it that confirmed that Einstein was right.

Actually, the precession of the perihelion of Mercury was known before GR. (I'll assume you meant GR, as SR isn't enough to predict that quantity.) While the correct calculation was an early success of GR, it doesn't really count as an experimental test, as the result was known before the calculation. The most important early experimental test was Eddington's precision measurement of the abberation of starlight by the sun.

As for SR, there are numerous experimental tests. There are no experimental results that disagree with either SR or GR.

"There are numerous situations known today in which Newton is known not to suffice. In fact, the precession of the orbit of Mercury cannot be accounted for by Newtonian physics, and it was the ability of (I believe) Special Relativity to predict and account for it that confirmed that Einstein was right. I can cite as many examples as you care to read. If you want the full rigor, contact Dr. Carlip as I did:"

Sadly, if Dr. Carlip told you the above example, then you are both absolutely wrong. Mercury's orbital precession was known when there was *only* Newtonian physics, long before the General Relativity Theory, much less Special Relativity came into our knowlege.

But it isn't so important that you were wrong. What's important is that Newtonian physics *did* suffice to solve that particular question (among others).

...And even more important is that Newtonian physics may still be quite viable to solve *other* vexing questions, such as where the orbital planes of our planets are centered, and why.