What if Sir Isaac Newton had conceived of General Relativity?

Actually, up to a point anyway, he almost certainly did. That's why he made the explicit, formal assumption that space was absolute. Because he had conceived of the possibility that it wasn't. Indeed, it's not really that big a step from the concept of Universal Gravitation to General Relativity. All you really need is non-Euclidean geometry for curved space, and, given everything else that Newton came up with -- Calculus, Universal Gravitation, the Laws of Motion, the concepts of Kinetic and Potential Energy -- it seems unlikely that he would have found this particularly difficult. Particularly if he was convinced that space and time were one, and relative. Which would imply that space could be curved, and he'd have to make calculations based on this curvature. But, he doesn't appear to have made any attempt to develop or investigate that concept of relative space and time, of "space-time". Why, exactly? I think there are a number of pretty plausible reasons for this. 1. Relativity violates Occam's Razor. As far as we can deterimine from everyday life, space and time are absolute, and not relative. Why assume that they could be otherwise? Of course, we could make arguments and conceive of hypothetical situations in which they might not be, but, why bother? It's not the simplest hypothesis. 2. Science is supported by governments to assist governments in ordering and regulating society. Hence, governments want scientists to be useful, and comprehensible. Galileo was harassed by the Holy Inquisition, for example, because his work was destructive to a comprehensible order of the Universe -- the Ptolemaic System -- without putting forward any very meaningful alternative. He was making the established order of things and, hence, the authorities, look bad. Isaac Newton was, in his own way, a very astute politician, he was a Member of Parliament, and Master of the Mint. He would have been well aware that arguing publicly that time could slow down and stop, and a single atom could become infinitely massive, would not particularly have been conducive to good public order. After all, why show up to work for your master at all, if time and space don't necessarily really exist in any predictable form, at all? 3. Newton had a very wide range of interests and responsibilities. He didn't really need the extra work. So, it seems unlikely that Newton would have written out his own version of General Relativity, and published it. But, suppose that he had. What would have happened, exactly? I suspect he would have lost his position. The work on Relativity would have been surpressed, one way or another. And, the rest of his work would have been somewhat discredited, by association. It might have been several more generations before Newtonian mechanics were accepted, or rediscovered. Perhaps, by someone like Gauss, for example. This brings up the question, of course, why is Relativity considered Gospel, now? The Theory of Relativity actually exists in a tradition deriving from the philosopher Georg Friedrich Hegel, who created the "dialectical method", for achieving truth. The idea of the dialectical method, is that truth can be approximated, by opposing two highly divergent positions, and finding a common ground between them. Thus, dialecticians, up to a point, try to present positions that oppose current truisms. The best known, of course, is Karl Marx. Marxism opposes the truisms of capitalist economics with diametrically opposed positions, systematically, in his "dialectical materialism". Another example, I would say, is Sigmund Freud, whose sexual theories opposed Victorian notions that sexuality should be systematically suppressed. Albert Einstein's theories are another example. Einstein opposes, quite counterintuitively, his notions of the relativity of Space and Time, to Newtonian assumptions that space and time are absolute. He was successful, probably because of the spirit of the time. In the post-World War I period, people were experimenting with new and unusual ideas, in the hopes that WWI would be the "War to end all Wars." Didn't work too well, did it? But, Relativity was another one of these ideas. Relativity is still with us, of course, because the academic world is very heavily invested in Relativity indeed! To such an extent, that even the most obvious tests are being avoided, and ignored, lest they prove it wrong. For example, the Parker Solar Probe will, in a few years, achieve such high speeds that the special theory of Relativity could be tested simply by comparing the Probe's own computer clocks with an online stopwatch at mission control. It would cost nothing. But, is NASA doing this? Of course not! What waste of taxpayer money, on something so thoroughly proven! I think you get the picture, don't you?

Isn't General Relativity directly implied by the concept of Universal Gravitation itself?

Now I'm speaking in very general terms here, and am perhaps being too vague. But, when Isaac Newton felt the apple fall on his head, he had a revelation. Maybe Aristotle was wrong, and objects didn't just fall to earth. Maybe all objects fall to all other objects! He could explain the entire universe that way. But doesn't the concept of Universal Gravitation itself imply that a massive enough object could make everything around it fall to itself so absolutely that nothing around it could ever occur again; that is, wouldn't a powerful enough gravitational force necessarily stop time? So, isn't General Relativity and concepts like Black Holes directly implied by Newton's original work? If so, why does Newton assume that space is "absolute". Isn't that concept inconsistent with the direct implications of Universal Gravitation itself?

Effectively, wasn't Aristotle right that heavier objects actually do accelerate to earth at a slightly faster rate than lighter objects?

Since Newton's law of Universal Gravitation states that F = (Gm1m2)/(r)squared, doesn't it necessarily follow that if the mass of the falling object is greater, the force of gravitaiton will be infinitessimally greater than for a lighter object? Obviously, not by much, if the object isn't anywhere near the mass of the earth of course. If so, why are physicists still publishing experiments claiming that all objects always accelerate to earth at the same rate, regardless of their mass? And, why are physicists sill saying that Galileo was right, and Aristotle was wrong, when, actually, Aristotle's been right all along, according to Isaac Newton, anyway?

What if Galileo had put forward a very simple "theory", to "explain" the Copernican System?

Now, I'm not talking about Newton's Principia, of course, here. Nor, even, some simplified conception of Universal Gravitation. I really mean just some limited kind of lip service to Aristotle, and the Bible, in order to get the dogs of the Holy Inquisition off his back. Galileo was an empirical anarchist and a trouble maker who had a deep aversion to any and all theoretical conceptions because of the constraints they imposed upon him. But, just suppose, he had sufficient political skill to see the writing on the wall, and to try to fend off the Inquisition with some highly political lip service. Something like this: My dearest Holy Inquisition: I realize we've had our differences, and, just possibly, I may have been a trifle arrogant to so question your legitimate authority. Obviously, I realize the Bible is true, as must be the Sainted Aristotle, as is his greatest interpreter, Saint Thomas Aquinas himself. So, I now offer an explanation of the Copernican System of the Universe that is perfectly consistent with both! The fact is, the Earth is, of course the center of the universe, and that's precisely why everything falls to earth, as Aquinas and Aristotle so wisely tell us. God has appointed the Earth as the home of Man, and Man is the lord of the Universe, excepting God himself, and his Holy Angels. However, God must force man to be humble, lest Man think himself a God. So, God has appointed the Sun as the great source of heat and light in the Universe essential for all life, including the life of Man, and has set the Earth -- the home of Man -- and the other planets revolving around it, as the mathematical treatise of Copernicus so astutely shows us. Thus, Man will recognize his actual limitations, and, his dependency on God, the all highest. So, your excellencies, you can see that there is, in fact, no inconsistency or contradiction at all between the Copernican System of the Universe, and the Bible, Aristotle or Aquinas. In future, I will, of course, adhere to this view in all my writings. Q.E.D. Yours Affectionately, Galileo Now, of course, you will say, this is total nonsense. Of course it's total nonsense! All theories are total nonsense, including Newton's Principia, Darwin's theory of Evolution, and Einstein's theory of Relativity. Existence is infinitely complex, it cannot be encompassed by theory. Any theory. But, because of this overwhelming complexity, theory is essential to governments, institutions, religions and the like, in order to justify their power and wealth. No theories, no universities, no churches, no government tax revenues. Unless the authorities can make a credible case that they have all the answers -- from theory --they're out of business, quite literally. So, I think, it's perfectly possible that the Pope, and the Holy Inquisition would have accepted Galileo's offer. After all, he wasn't rocking the boat, at all, and, his ideas left them fully in charge. But, then given such a simple and powerful theory of the universe, what need have the authorities for Kepler or Newton? Indeed, why further pursue astronomical or mathematical investigations, at all? All, is well explained, by the authority of the Pope, and the genius of Galileo. The Sun is the center of the Universe, but, otherwise, Aristotle and the Bible reign supreme, for ever, and ever. Experimental investigations are suppressed, or ignored, as being pointlessly disruptive to the proven status quo. As a result, we have no scientific progess at all, indefinitely. Just incidentally, NASA is going to have an unusually good opportunity to test Einstein's special theory of Relativity using the Parker Solar Probe, in a few years. This spacecraft is expected to attain a speed of 430,000 mph, or .064% of the speed of light. Einstein's special theory of relativity would predict relativistic velocity related time dilation of about .0007 s per hour, at this speed, far larger than anything attained with a spacecraft before. So, is NASA going to use this opportunity to conclusively test the Special Theory of Relativity? No, of course not! We already know it's proven! Why waste taxpayer money? Why rock the boat? And, what if it's wrong? What would the authorities do, then, to explain things, and justify their power?

What if Leon Czolgosz hadn't assassinated President Mckinley?

This is rather a tricky question, in more ways than one. Leon Czolgosz was arguably the most "successful" of the four American Presidential Assassins. He was an anarchist and disciple of Emma Goldman who was ultimately deported for, among other things, supporting Czolgosz' assassination of Mckinley in her writings. The assassination of Mckinley led to the replacement of a pretty good conservative president, with a great progressive president. Thus, the result of Czolgosz' action was certainly a shift to the left in American politics, which was certainly consistent with his extreme leftest political agenda, although certainly Theodore Roosevelt wasn't going to go as far left as Goldman or Czolgosz wanted. Anarchists tend to be ambivalent about Czolgosz, on the one hand approving of the political shift to the left he caused, on the other hand disapproving of the method employed as being too brutal, of course. I suppose the question is, to what extent were Theodore Roosevelt's reforms inevitable, in any case? And, to what extent was Theodore Roosevelt very likely to be elected President, in any case, following Mckinley's second term of office? If either of these questions is answered in the affirmative, did Leon Czolgosz simply waste both his life, and a bullet?

Why isn't NASA using the Parker Solar Probe to test Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity?

The Parker Solar Probe is expected to achieve a maximum velocity of 430,000 mph or .064% of the speed of light. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_Solar_Probe Hence, far more than any experiment we have ever performed in the past, this spacecraft should provide us with an opportunity to observe relativistic time dilation of a substantial, meaningful, and convincing type, to verify whether or not space and time are indeed related, as Einstein tells us they are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation According to my own very possibly erroneous calculations, time dilation should be about 0.00002%, or a factor of .0000002, at this maximum speed for the Parker Solar Probe. Please do correct me, if I'm wrong, I'm sure there are much more practiced mathematicians than myself on this site. In any case, hopefully I'm correct to within an order of magnitude, or so. So, if I'm correct, we're talking about .0007 seconds or so, time dilation, per hour. Now, personally, I don't believe space and time are related. I think time is an abstraction we use to explain change. I do believe gravity affects light, as Einstein correctly tells us, but, I don't think light is the ultimate limit. However, if we find a .0007 second per hour, consistent time dilation on the Parker Solar Probe, I would certainly change my mind. I would acknowledge that space and time are, indeed related, as Einstein tells us. But, if we find no meaningful time dilation at the maximum speed of the Parker Solar Probe, would the true believers in Relativity theory acknowledge their error? Would they admit that space and time actually are not related, at all?

To what extent are theory and bureaucracy an obstacle to scientific progress?

In the history of science and technology we have periods in which we have relatively rapid progress -- Classical Greece, seventeenth century Europe, the period 1850-1950 in Europe and America -- and we have other periods of relative stagnation, and even retrogression. Arguably, currently, we are in a period of the latter type. Life expectancy is going down, there is great confusion over important issues like climate science, and new energy sources like controlled nuclear fusion cannot be effectively developed. What's the problem, exactly? What's missing? What's holding things up? We know that in the high Middle Ages, there was considerable investment in post-secondary insitutions, but, in practical terms, rather little work of actual signficiance was done there. This is the time of the "mediaeval scholastics". The classic, perhaps apocryphal example of "research" at this time is "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?". Now, one of the reasons for this problem, was an obsession with a kind of "theory" in the European mediaeval world. A "theory" in the most literal sense -- Christianity, that is. It's no coincidence that the word for a scientific theory comes from the Greek word for "God". Rather than looking for facts, the scholastics simply speculated on theory. Now, supposedly, all that changed with Galileo Galilei, a true empiricist. But, Galileo got in trouble for being an empiricist. So, we had to get another "theorist" -- Isaac Newton -- to get the scientists "back in the box". Currently, we have an enormous academic industry based on speculations involving Einstein's theory of Relativity. This theory, after 120 years, has no practical applications whatsoever. GPS is done empirically, Relativity is not required, and is only vaguely consistent with parts of it. Every single NASA interplanetary probe should have shown time dilation effects varying from a few milliseconds to a few seconds, if Relativity was correct. None of them have. The Scientific Industry currently is a huge bureaucracy, and bureaucracies cost money. Thomas Edison knew this perhaps as well as anyone, and he had nothing but contempt for the "perfessers" and their ways. Edison was a pragmatist, he wanted money for practical purposes. Not so, by any means, the "scientific bureaucracies" and their abstract "theories". Is this the problem, perhaps?

What if Hero of Alexandria had never invented the steam engine?

The steam engine was invented by Hero of Alexandria 2,000 years ago, and largely remained dormant as a significant technology for about 1,500 years, until it was gradually rediscovered and refined over a period of 400 years, and then gradually discarded and replaced by the gasoline powered internal combusion engine in the last century or so. Now, I think it's rather unusual for a technology to remain dormant and undeveloped for this long. And, I think I may know why it took so long to develop. You see, the very concept of a human engineered machine that doesn't simply harnass a natural force, like a windmill or watermill, but actually fabricates and controls the force, was an entirely new concept at the time. And how exactly forces should be fabricated and controlled was not something people 2,000 years ago had any experience thinking about, at all. So, really, even given the concept, it was unlikely anyone would go very far with it, at the time. It was simply too new an idea. Now, with the Renaissance in Europe, a great deal of creative energy was released, supported to some extent by wealth from the New World in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. This combined with the development of printing and the widespread availability of books, led to a range of rather new and effective engineering applications. And, specifically in Great Britain, the use of coal led to the blast furnace and the use of coke to create high quality cast iron and steel in large quantities. And, high quality cast iron and steel are very effective in controlling steam power. So, it's no great surprise that the steam engine was first effectively developed and applied in the eighteenth century, in Great Britain. But, if Hero of Alexendria hadn't invented the steam engine long before, would it have been invented and developed in the eighteenth century? I'm not really sure. Maybe, maybe not. Bear in mind, the concept itself is a radical departure from all existing human technology up to that point in time, I believe. A Force is not meerly harnassed, but effectively created and controlled to a high degree. If Hero of Alexandria had not already originated this concept long before, would anyone necessarily have thought of it in the eighteenth century? I'm not sure they would have. So, let's assume there was no Hero of Alexandria, and the steam engine never gets invented. What happens? I think, perhaps, nothing happens. Quite literally nothing. All progress in science and technology ceases. We're stuck in the eighteenth century in terms of science and technology, more or less. Because, you see, although it is now obsolete, the steam engine is a "seed technology" that forms the basis for the development of all subsequent advanced technologies. Steam power provides the rapid transportation necessary to provide wealth, materials and food for modern society. No steam power, no improved hygiene and nutrition. Life expectancy is still just at 33 years of age, child mortality is at 70%, into the twenty-first century, Steam power forms a basis for the precision machine tool industry. No steam power, no electrical power or internal combution engines. So, all the fine work of Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Leibniz, Benjamin Franklin, Gauss and so many others, go for nothing. Or, almost nothing. In society as a whole, I'd say we're stuck at about 1815. There's an American and French Revolution, perhaps the Naploeonic Wars occur, but, after that, we're pretty much stuck. Without the advent of steam power, we can't really have the Industrial Revolution. And without the Industrial Revolution, none of the major wars of the nineteenth or twentieth centuries, absent perhaps the Napoleonic Wars, are really possible. No Mexican-American War, the Mexican Empire remains intact, and as big as the United States, including the Louisiana Territory. Manifest Destiny is never fulfilled. There is no American Civil War, the Northern States don't have the Industrial Power to control the Southern States. Slavery may never be abolished in the United States, at all In Europe there is no Crimean War, none of the countries have the Industrial Power to fight it. Germany never unifies. Italy never unifies. There is no Franco-Prussian War, Britain, France and Russia remain the premier powers in Europe, and the world. There is no First World War, there is no Second World War. Not without steam power and the Industrial Revolution. The Ottoman Empire remains intact, as does the Austro-Hungarian Empire. No Bolshevik Revolution in Russia of course, the Romanovs are still in charge. Most of Africa remains unexplored by Europeans, they haven't the industrial power to colonize it. The Manchu Dynasty remains in charge in China, where parents are still castrating their children so they can take the Confucian Civil Service exams and serve as Eunuchs in the Forbidden City. Japan remains a self-isolated kingdom, Admiral Perry never has a fleet to bombard them with. In India, the British still retain nominal colonial control by playing off the various petty princelings who try to rule there. Canada and Australia remain largely undeveloped backwaters, into the twenty-first century, and remain under British colonial control. So, we're stuck. I was also wondering if there might be some parallels to our current world situation, where a number of scientific "fails" have led to a certain social stagnation. I'm referring, specifically to the failure to develop controlled nuclear fusion, the confusion over climate science, and our apparent inability to prevent and fight new diseases, that's leading to a reduction in effective life expectancy. Is there some fundamental new concept we need, that we're simply missing? Something like the steam engine?

What is the optimal size for a controlled nuclear fusion reactor?

We have research currently from the nanotechnological level to, at least, the ITER Tokamak at 840 cubic meters, none of which seems to work very well, at all. So, what exactly is the optimal size for a controlled nuclear fusion reactor? Is anyone even really thinking about this? The problem with nanotechnology is that it never really works very well at all, for anything. The problem with the Tokamaks is, despite violent protests to the contrary, they're probably too big to be really safe, it they actually worked, at all. How about a Tokamak design with a very small reactor -- a cubic centimeter, say -- but not nearly at the nanotechnology level. So, we could have much higher plasma densities than would be practical in a conventional Tokamak, because the entire reactor could be embedded in reinforced steel and concrete to a considerable depth, without the slightest danger of anything more than some melted steel and concrete if the electromagnetic containment fails. Currently, at 2.6 atmospheres, the plasma density in Tokamaks is moderately dangerous, but not excessively so. At 100 atmospheres, for example, it might be very dangerous, but, it is also might work a bit better. It seems to me, that this smaller design would allow for greater options in design, that might be more effective. Particularly, much higher plasma density.