Steve Patterson on “It Doesn't Take a Genius to Challenge Orthodoxy”

PSI Blog 20170621 Steve Patterson on “It Doesn't Take a Genius to Challenge Orthodoxy”

Thanks be to Rick who gave us the heads-up on this great 9-minute video by young philosopher Steve Patterson, who is “creating a rational worldview.” It is especially apropos to this Blog site and for anyone who is concerned about all the nonsense that goes for physics and cosmology these days:

Although it is mostly about the low regard that academics have for anyone questioning their ideas. I especially liked his statement that:

“I think the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics is laughably nonsensical, embarrassing, and stupid.”

Right on Steve! I also saw his video on the Tai Chi master who was defeated summarily by a nonmaster who had to go into hiding for being so “disrespectful.” I subscribed to his YouTube channel and took him up on the Patreon support. 

BTW: Patreon lets you use PayPal to provide as little as $1 per month to outstanding artists and writers. This could be an excellent way for dissidents to get financial support from those who have not fallen for regressive physics and cosmogony.


“Gravitational waves” once again confirm the presence of aether

PSI Blog 20170614 “Gravitational waves” once again confirm the presence of aether

In PSI Blog 20160217 LIGO: Gravitational attraction is dead I commented on the initial discovery of “gravitational waves,” which were supposedly predicted by Einstein. I pointed out that the attraction hypothesis was dead because we were not “attractive” enough to pull anything toward us. I also pointed out that the discovery amounted to a confirmation of the existence of aether.

Some dissident physicists doubted that the experimental data were valid. Now, this third detection seems to confirm the first two. Astute reader Arus wanted me to comment on the latest result, which was the subject of this BBC report:

The reporter writes that “It is the third time now that the labs' laser instruments have been perturbed by the warping of space-time.” Now, in GRT space is perfectly empty and spacetime is too. So, the “perturbing” does not make any sense. “Perturbing” can only occur when something collides with something else. The report says that “two times the mass of the Sun were converted into deformations in the shape of space.” That would be remarkable for space that is devoid of anything at all. That was Einstein’s original view, but most dissidents know that he recanted it in 1920:

“Careful reflection teaches us that special relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume its existence but not ascribe a definite state of motion to it ..." "There is a weighty reason in favour of ether. To deny ether is to ultimately assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever."[1]

The popular press, as reflected in this “Einstein is always right” article, does not seem to know that. Instead, they push the usual stuff about sensing “the distortions in space-time” and the view that the collisions of cosmic bodies might “vibrate the very fabric of the cosmos.” Of course, all that is happening is the vibration of the aether that pervades the entire universe. Empty space could not have vibrations, which must involve compression and expansion of a medium (see figure).

There is one detail about this “gravitational wave” we need to address. The BBC says that “Einstein's general theory of relativity forbids any dispersion from happening in gravitational waves as they move out from their source through space towards Earth.” In fact, Bangalore Sathyaprakash, a LIGO team member said: "Our measurements are really very sensitive to minute differences in the speeds of different frequencies but we did not discover any dispersion, once again failing to prove that Einstein was wrong..." This is typical of most “Einsteinisms” (right for the wrong reason). Dispersion or refraction occurs when aethereal wave motion encounters high concentrations of baryonic (ordinary matter). That is what happens when light travels through water, bending the image of the submerged end of your fishing pole. The speed of light in water is 225 million m/s, while it is 300 million m/s in air. The frequency of light in water is the same as it is in air—only its wavelength decreases.

Let me sum up. LIGO is simply detecting the result of a cosmic collision, which has converted some microcosmic motion to macrocosmic motion in the aether. It has nothing to do with gravitation other than that the resulting wave motion is being transmitted by the aethereal medium, which is responsible for the local pressure differences that cause gravitation.[2]

[1] Einstein, Albert, 1920, Ether and the Theory of Relativity: An address delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leyden [http://bit.ly/AE20ether]. 
[2] Borchardt, Glenn, and Puetz, Stephen J., 2012, Neomechanical gravitation theory, in Volk, Greg, Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 19th Conference of the NPA, 25-28 July: Albuquerque, NM, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, v. 9, p. 53-58 [http://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3991.0483].


BS for detecting loyalty

PSI Blog 20170607 BS for detecting loyalty

In last week’s Blog I repeated my claim that the evolutionary purpose of religion was to instill and enforce loyalty. But how does one know whether that process has been successful? This question is important, not only for understanding religion and its wars, but also for understanding the current paradigm that binds regressive physics and cosmogony. Remember that in science, a paradigm is a set of theories, experiments, and interpretations that are used to advance a particular discipline.[1] A mature paradigm sponsors what Kuhn called “ordinary” science. To be financially rewarded in that discipline one must be loyal to the paradigm. As in religion, disloyalty can result in rejection or banishment. Unlike religion, it seldom results in imprisonment or execution (with rare exceptions such as Galileo and Bruno).

As one observing the current mainstream paradigm from the outside, I have been amazed by the utterly ridiculous and contradictory nature of many of its claims. For instance, long ago I was taught the First Law of Thermodynamics, the conservation of energy, which I have restated as the Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed). Thus I have always seen the idea that the universe exploded out of nothing to be borderline crazy. I think that I am now getting a better idea of why such contradictions do not seem to bother the mainstream. I have long known that religious folks tended to be immune to contradictions and that they generally thought that the universe was itself contradictory. I got a better focus on it after reading Matthew Yglesias’s pertinent essay on this website:

He referred to a famous essay by Prof Harry Frankfurt of Princeton in which he explained it this way:

It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose. [2]  

Yglesias points out that bullshit has two purposes: 1) it is used to test loyalty and 2) to isolate followers into a distinct tribe. For “tribe” you can insert most any religious sect or hysterical group you wish. You also could insert “modern physicists” or “Big Bang theorists,” who comprise the current mainstream paradigm. This helps to explain the craziness (explosion of the universe from nothing, massless particles, 4D expanding universe, waves that are particles and particles that are waves, attraction, immaterial fields, matterless motion, etc.). Spreading any of these, especially to the public, proves your loyalty to the paradigm.

Frankfurt’s analysis also helps to explain the vehement reactions commonly used to defend both religious sects and mainstream physics. Trolls with too much time and loyalty roam the Internet guarding against suggestions that the current paradigm might be out of whack. In the mainstream, the censorship of the word “aether” is paramount, while massless particles, wormholes, and Einstein’s glorification are dirigeur.

In scientific disciplines other than physics and cosmogony contradictions and paradoxes generally are anathema. Nonetheless, contradictions appear where data and knowledge are missing. They often indicate the frontier in science. Any apparent contradiction provides grist for the next graduate thesis. All disciplines have their loyalists, of course, but in my experience the use of BS in defense against contrarian ideas is relatively mild—unless you dare to mention anything about climate.

To sum up, I go back to the original question… Is mainstream BS in physics and cosmogony a good test of loyalty? The obvious answer is clearly YES. Believers want to believe. Folks naïve enough to fall for BS are not particularly interested in details. You can find this out yourself by asking pertinent questions about the contradictions and the “facts” used to support them. For instance, you can ask most any physicist about whether those clocks flying around Earth proved Einstein right. Of course that experiment proved nothing at all. The raw data show that some of the side-by-side clocks sped up and some slowed down. The bogus manipulation of the unpublished raw data and the “Einstein is always right” conclusion was borderline fraudulent.[3] Those who teach that conclusion actually believe it along with the idea that the universe is four dimensional. They are not lying anymore than the ministers of all the other religious sects you oppose. They are simply spreading BS.

[1] Kuhn, Thomas S., 1962 [2012], The structure of scientific revolutions (With an Introductory Essay by Ian Hacking) (50th Anniversary ed.): Chicago; London, The University of Chicago Press, 264 p.
[2] Frankfurt, Harry, 1986 [2005], On bullshit:  [http://www.csudh.edu/ccauthen/576f12/frankfurt__harry_-_on_bullshit.pdf].
[3] Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Einstein's most important philosophical error, in Volk, Greg, Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 18th Conference of the NPA, 6-9 July, 2011: College Park, MD, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, v. 8, p. 64-68 [http://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3436.0407].


Instill and enforce loyalty

PSI Blog 20170531 Instill and enforce loyalty

We all need to respect religion—or else. As I maintained over a decade ago when I reviewed Dawkin’s “The God Delusion,” the evolutionary purpose of religion is to instill and enforce loyalty.[1] Dawkins had failed to emphasize this all-important factor, suggesting that religion was merely vestigial in nature. Religion is vestigial alright, but it continues to dominate the globe, with 90% of our 7.5 billion population being affected. Now comes a much-needed book that mostly gets it right: Adam Wadi’s “Atheism For Muslims: A guide to questioning Islam, religion and God for a better future.”

After much apologizing to his family, friends, and an institution likely to take offense, Wadi gets on the right foot by telling us that, in general “Religion creates this sense of belonging and purpose in people with the goal to achieving one outcome: submission” (p. 27). He says that the definition of “Islam” is “one who submits to God’s will” (p. 124). He then goes through the Qur’an, using numerous quotations to demonstrate how nearly every page instills and enforces loyalty in a way similar to a book that made the scene 600 years earlier. Both holy books continually warn believers and nonbelievers that they are to ignore the contradictions and to do as they are told. Any criticism (blasphemy) or traitorous rejection (apostasy) is not to be tolerated. Above all, believers are to be “god-fearing” in the same way they are to fear the power of the King, Queen, or der Führer.

Loyalty makes a social group extremely powerful. There is nothing like a couple, family, tribe, state, or nation that is on the same page, defending its policies to the death, if necessary. In a world still dominated by feudalism such loyalty remains critical in protecting against the inevitable invaders. That is why capitalism also needs to harness religion for its necessary expansion. Soldiers who do not expect to experience living after dying are no match for those that do.

Wadi admits that he is unlikely to dissuade many of his more tentative readers to atheism, particularly those facing the possibility of severe punishment. Rather, he wishes to give hope to folks who already are taking that path. In the spirit of a true educator, he has outlined the reasons for belief as well as disbelief. He points out that both holy books cagily provide believers with support for dreams that surely will come true if they only follow orders properly. As Wadi says “After all, that’s all religion is, people choosing the stories they most want to believe in whether they are true or not.” “Eye for an eye” and “turn the other cheek” need not be a contradiction. Just choose whichever suits the occasion.

I learned a lot about Islam from Adam’s explication. For instance, I was unaware that much of the Qur’an was based on the old and new testaments. I had always thought that the reformation started with Luther five centuries ago, but it actually started with Muhammad nine centuries earlier. The Qur’an claims to be complete, perfect, and unchangeable: “There is no changing the words of God; that is the mighty triumph” (Qur’an 10:65). But as in Protestantism, there have been many reforms. For example, the Sunni sect forbids images of Muhammad (the last prophet), while the Shia sect often permits them. There is no mention of the promised 72 virgins in the Qur’an (that is part of a “reform” or interpretation called the Hadith). The Qur’an condemns blasphemy, “but doesn’t specify a punishment for it in this life, only the next” (p. 289). I learned that Muhammad was a pacifist in Mecca and only became a militarist when he moved to Medina. His popularity grew as a result, with growing populations embracing its utility (i.e., “instill and enforce”) for expanding throughout the world.

Wadi: “If Islam is indeed true, you’d think its followers wouldn’t have to use fear and intimidation so much to get children to practice it devoutly” (p. 226).

This is the line he got while growing up Muslim:

“Here’s the way it is. Everyone else is wrong. They’ll likely burn in Hell for not following the rules, regardless of how good a person you think they are. This is how it’s always been. So you should be fearful if you don’t believe it too. Otherwise God will punish you and you’ll burn in Hell forever” (p. 226-7).

One other quote is worth the price of the book:

"We are not living in the most dangerous time in human history, we're living in the most fear-mongering time in human history” (p. 43).

I like that quote because it reflects Pinker’s data showing exactly that.[2] Fear-mongering is good for sales, whether for anti-virus programs, alarm systems, or religion.

Here are some other great quotes from the book:

“From a scientific standpoint, human life has absolutely no meaning to it, regardless of what any religion says.” “So, it’s not religion which gives us meaning, it’s us that gives religion meaning” (p. 318).

“There’s a myth that people who don’t have a religion have nothing to live for. But it’s the opposite. We have nothing to die for. We have everything to live for.”

“Religion and science have both given us opposite accounts of the world we live in.”

“I’m quite conscious of the fact that you can’t reason people out of something they didn’t reason themselves into.”

Not everyone gets everything right. Here are some quotes not in tune with univironmental determinism:[3]

“I am agnostic when it comes to the belief of whether or not there is a higher power out there…”

“We all have the free will…”

He gives an interesting, partially factual, 60-step description of the evolution of the universe, without realizing that today’s cosmogony is religious.[4] Hubble did not discover that the universe was expanding.[5] He merely observed that cosmological redshifts correlated with distance. Wadi repeats the conventional view that most of the universe consists of “dark energy.” Like most every regressive physicist and cosmogonist, he does not realize that energy does not exist—it is a calculation.

Despite those few quibbles, “Atheism for Muslims” is a good read, especially if you would like to find out what Islam and the Qur’an are all about.

[1] https://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2007/07/evolution-of-religion.html?m=0omenon. 
[2] Pinker, Steven, 2011, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined: New York, Viking [http://stevenpinker.com/publications/better-angels-our-nature].
[3] Borchardt, Glenn, 2007, The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 411 p. [http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/].
[4] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory (coming soon): Berkeley, CA, Progressive Science Institute.
[5] Sauvé, Vincent, 2016, Edwin Hubble... and the myth that he discovered an expanding universe, Accessed 20161030 [http://tinyurl.com/j6txbl5].


Temperature and the watched atom

PSI Blog 20170524 Temperature and the watched atom


Thanks for the comment. You always have an interesting take on physics. Please let me edit your comment so it will be more understandable to the audience:

Hi Glenn, I read the article 'Zeno effect' verified: Atoms won't move while you watch. So, my question is: is an atom an atom then?

[GB: Of course, but the idea expressed in the article is bogus. There are no such things as microcosms that are not in motion and how much they move has nothing to do with whether someone is watching.]

It seems like the situation that a coach has stopped, which can be verified, but the passengers, behind the blind windows, can't be seen and are moving around?

[GB: Right, the coach (a microcosm) can be at “rest,” but its submicrocosms will not be at rest.]

I know that small entities are used in physics, I read '(....).000000001 degrees above absolute zero.' Another question arises: what does that mean, being nearby absolute zero?

[GB: Temperature is defined as vibratory motion, so that means that, once again, physicists have been unable to find perfectly empty space that contains nothing at all. There is always something there, and it is always moving. That is why the intergalactic temperature was measured at 2.7 degrees Kelvin instead of 0 degrees Kelvin as predicted by Einstein. Note that it is possible to get very close to 0, but not actually possible to get to 0.0000…. That is because the universe is infinite, which means that space is infinitely subividable and that absolute zero, like absolute anything is not possible in nature.]

I once studied the Carnot cycle to get some idea what temperature is and the explanation why absolute zero was introduced. But, still, I do not know what temperature is. I then read in the cited article: Temperature is a measure of a particle’s motion.

[GB: Correct. If particles did not vibrate, you would never get burned by a fire.]

Hence, I can use the field of thermometry to measure the speed of my car or when I walk?

[GB: No. We only use that for vibratory motion. For instance, the vibrations of the aether will cause you to have vibrations in your skin that cause sun burn. These motions are side-to-side and are not in a uniform straight line as you observe for your car and for your walk.]

How then, do I know that p.e. 45 degrees above corresponds in a unique way to some velocity?

[GB: Velocities are measurements we use to describe the motion of a microcosm with respect to another microcosm. Again, henk, you are not far off, because any motion at any scale could be considered a “temperature.” In other words, the vehicles traveling to the city during the morning rush hour display a sort of “temperature,” which is high at times and low at other times. In other words, it is useful to think of “temperature” and activity as being the same phenomenon. ] 


Free will, meaning, and the “self”

PSI Blog 20170517 Free will, meaning, and the “self”

From joogabah:

And I completely deny free will. But the determinants are on the level of meaning, not physical motion.

[GB: Sorry, but the universe does not have any meaning. If you want that, you will have to invent it yourself. All determinants are physical. That is what it means “to deter.” Not having free will means that any meaning you devise is the product of a long chain of events.]

Language gives us the ability to self program, instead of relying on static instinctual responses, and it is this uniquely human ability that I believe people confuse as "free will".

[GB: Sorry, but there is no such activity as “self programming.” Any phrases with the word “self” in them are attempts to claim free will where there is none. It is the vain attempt of systems philosophers to isolate the microcosm from the macrocosm. All actions are univironmental.]

Even tho everything is determined, it is also true that humans are self-programmable to an extraordinary degree.

[GB: Not possible at all. There is no “self programming” in the same way that Newton’s body cannot change itself. The only possible changes come from a collision from the outside—nothing “self” about that. Every activity is causal (F=ma). If you want the illusion of "changing yourself," you will have to change your environment.]

Instead of punishing people for bad behavior (unless that is the only possible check at a particular level of social development) it would be far more productive to discover and control the social and linguistic determinants that lead to undesirable behavior.

[GB: Agree.] 


Materialism vs immaterialism

PSI Blog 20170510 Materialism vs immaterialism

After I suggested that he read "The Scientific Worldview," joogabah wrote:

 Yes, I did read it. I'm trying to express religious ideas from a materialist paradigm without contradiction.

[GB: Sorry, joogabah, but that cannot be done. That is because materialism and immaterialism are opposing assumptions, as I explained in the discussion of the First Assumption of Science. Typically, an immaterialist will say: “There must be something beyond matter in motion.” That is why we define “things” as xyz portions of the universe. “Matter” is the abstraction for “all things,” so the immaterialist must be using a different definition for “something,” which is purely imaginary. That “something” cannot possibly exist, because existence can only be a property of an xyz portion of the universe.

Of course, we all need to study religious imaginings so that we will understand the 90% of the folks who live their lives by them. While most of those imaginings have no physical evidence to support them, they still have an evolutionary purpose: to instill and enforce loyalty.]

The reason is that I think religion is doing something essential in human societies that is not considered when one simply views it as "false".

[GB: Social groups without loyalty could not exist in a hostile world. Overpopulation by neighboring tribes forces those tribes to seek resources necessary for their survival despite the necessity to trespass or invade. In those cases, war is inevitable. That is why religion and war go hand in hand. However, loyalty can be engendered without religion. Many atheistic social groups do just fine without it.]

 Religion is a commentary on the human condition and it addresses our linguistically determined subjectivity, which is the only reality we actually experience.

[GB: Sorry, but subjectivity does not require language. Most animals have subjectivity whether they have language or not.]

To reduce reality to matter in motion is to ignore that part of it that exists as us.

[GB: Sorry, but we are all microcosms, portions of the universe consisting of matter in motion. Anything that “exists” is matter.]

We are a jumble of myriad linguistic constructs.

[GB:  False. We consist of matter. We use linguistic constructs; we are not made up of linguistic constructs.]

That is what animates us.

[GB: We are animated by the univironment, the infinite matter in motion inside and outside us. Language is unnecessary for us to be animated.]

That is our "soul".

[GB: There is no such thing. That belief comes straight out of religion.]

It is thousands of years old, and it has become the primary information system in our species, eclipsing DNA, because of its ability to bring about change orders of magnitude faster than biological evolution.

[GB:  False. Language is part of biological evolution. All evolution is at times slow and at times fast.]

It is that creative process and its seemingly limitless potential that we worship as our creator, because language precedes us even tho the species developed it - new individuals are literally created by it.

[GB:  Sorry, but “worship” is supplication to another microcosm (predator, priest, president, or other microcosm powerful enough to do us harm).  We are not created by language; we create language. That is something that an immaterialist like Deepak would dream up, with this idea that consciousness created the universe instead of the other way around.]

There needs to be a part of materialism that addresses this, and until there is, religion will have something that more closely resembles lived experience, because it addresses human subjectivity and rational, linguistic meaning.

[GB: Since the universe and ourselves consist only of matter in motion, we have no choice but to understand subjectivity and “rational, linguistic meaning” in those terms. All language requires a subject (matter) and a verb (motion).]

We are not our bodies.

[GB: Egads! What else could we be? When our bodies are gone, we are gone.]

Our bodies enable our existence.

[GB: True.]

When I say “Glenn”, I am addressing years of linguistic, rational development, not human tissue.

[GB: Sorry, but I do not pretend to be anything else, although that human tissue does seem to have recorded a bit of linguistic, rational stuff.]

Not matter, or the blind motion of matter, but consciously perceived meaning, whose determinants are not the collision of particles but conscious, rational deliberation.

[GB: Sorry, but matter is not always blind. Materialists are careful not to denigrate matter, because that is what we are, including the 80 billion neurons that help us to “consciously perceive meaning.” Consciousness is the motion performed by those neurons. Like all microcosms in the infinite universe, they cannot operate without the “collision of particles” that you seem to despise.]


Negative mass?

PSI Blog 20170503 Negative mass?

Thanks to George Coyne who writes:


You might find this experiment of interest.  Wikipedia states: Prof. Peter Engels and a team of colleagues at Washington State University observed negative mass on the 10th April 2017 when they created new negative mass by reducing the temperature of rubidium atoms to near absolute zero, generating a Bose-Einstein condensate. By using a laser-trap, the team were able to reverse the spin of some of the rubidium atoms in this state, and observed that once released from the trap, the atoms expanded and displayed properties of negative mass, in particular accelerating towards a pushing force instead of away from it.

From the BBC on April 19, 2017: Physicists observe 'negative mass'

[GB: This interpretation that “negative mass” has been produced is a wonderful illustration of regressive physics. It is true that the definition of mass is “the resistance to acceleration.” As you can see from the figure below, any impacts by supermicrocosms from the macrocosm will increase the mass of a microcosm. In other words, the momenta of the submicrocosms within the microcosm will increase. This is nothing more than Newton's Second Law of Motion acting across the microcosmic boundary. In other words, a “push” across that boundary will increase the motion of the insides of that microcosm before it accelerates the microcosm as a whole. As was explained in the neomechanics section of “The Scientific Worldview,” the microcosm will tend to expand as those submicrocosms within the microcosm impact the microcosmic boundary on all sides. The regressive physicists involved in this study have disingenuously misinterpreted this push-back as “negative mass.” It cannot possibly involve a decrease in mass, because any push-back by the submicrocosms within the microcosm only makes it even more difficult to accelerate the microcosm. Again, mass is the resistance to acceleration. Without acknowledging the submicrocosms producing this effect, regressive physicists are forced to invent yet another absurd ad hoc that makes no sense: “negative mass.”]

Neomechanical interactions illustrating that absorption of motion involves mechanical collisions described by Newton's Second Law of Motion (from Borchardt (2007), Fig. 5-3).[1]

[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2007, The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 411 p. [http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/].


CERN does another crazy

PSI Blog 20170426 CERN does another crazy

Thanks to Fred who found this one hidden on the Internet for a couple years:

My response to Fred was:

Egads! Egads! This is the craziest one yet! From the "director general of CERN" no less! I think he should get back to cleaning up the Higgs mess before doing anymore loopy stuff. BTW: Are you sure that this wasn't an April fool joke (the 20151001 date is probably fake too)?

Fred wrote back with this:

“Could be a joke, but, we still have a lot of work to do. Someone posted this genuine response on Facebook:  ‘I've always thought that music vibrations may be used in the future to prop up wormholes long enough for us to travel through them to another universe.’”



Quantum Mechanics: A watched pot (particle) never boils?

PSI Blog 20170419 Quantum Mechanics: A watched pot (particle) never boils?

I am afraid your tax dollars have been misspent by the Army Research Office, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency under its QuASAR program and the National Science Foundation.

George Coyne just sent this heads up on the nefarious adventures of those who claim to be quantum mechanists:

George writes:

“Here is an excerpt from my Notfinity Process book on this topic:  QMT labels this the quantum Zeno Effect (a.k.a. Turing’s Paradox) and attempts to explain it by proposing that time is merely a dimension, which things can move through or remain motionless on a timeline. QMT physicists maintain that through constantly observing a particle it will never decay, which means the observation has prevented it from doing anything and thus what they refer to as “time” ceases. Many studies claim to show that measuring particles with increased frequency affects the decay rate and can potentially stop it completely, which physicists maintain is synonymous with the stopping of ‘time.’”

[GB: Well, all I can say is that if you expect to be paid as a “modern physicist,” you better get with the regressive program. One of the more popular aspects of QMT (quantum mechanical theory) is the indeterministic idea that the experimenter’s consciousness might have an influence on the result. Of course, no one can perform an experiment on any microcosm (xyz portion of the universe) without interacting with it in some way. Time is motion, so whenever one reduces temperature (the vibratory motion of baryonic matter), any motions that occur under normal conditions will be slowed. That is what we do to prevent the decay of food when we freeze it—makes no difference if you are watching your freezer at the same time. And it sure has nothing to do with whether you think time is a dimension or not.

If these experiments have any merit at all, it is that what happens to the microcosm is influenced by the macrocosm. Perhaps a little story is apropos at this point. Back in the day, we used to consider the half-lives of radioactive isotopes to be completely independent of their surroundings. For the most part, this is a good first approximation, but I doubt that it could be true in all cases. If the literature does not have some exceptions, it is time that one of you take a look at the subject in more detail. Remember that, according to univironmental determinism, all motions of the microcosm are the result of interactions with the macrocosm.

Also remember that QMT began with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the observation that both the position and the velocity of a particle cannot be determined at the same time. In other words, any measure of either must involve interacting with the particle, and thus changing its position and/or velocity at the same time. However, this has nothing to do with watched pots or particles. The upshot is that you have to have a pretty big head to think that you can influence the universe much simply by watching it.]


How can Space be Material?

PSI Blog 20170412 How can Space be Material?

Like many others, Bill is still having trouble understanding the difference between matter and space. He takes offense at this quote from a PSI Blog 20170322 (Infinite Divisibility of Matter and Space):

“GB: ... The “block universe” you and others write about is impossible because matter cannot take on the characteristics of either end member of the matter-space continuum ...”

BW: This formulation strikes me as self-contradictory. There can't be a "continuum" without end points. You can't talk about what's between the "end members" if there is no distinction between matter and space.

[GB: I have to admit that I also used to have difficulty with this problem for many years after I graduated from college when I was still an idealist. Fortunately, continua are common features in the natural world. For instance, in earth science there is a continuum between plagioclase and albite. The ideal end member plagioclase contains calcium and the ideal end member albite contains sodium. I used to believe that pure plagioclase and pure albite actually existed. In nature, however, we find only mixtures of the two. No one has ever found plagioclase without some sodium or albite without some calcium. Those ideal end members are simply ideas, concepts we use to understand the continuum, which has minerals ranging from those high in calcium to those high in sodium. What we call “matter” and “space” form a similar continuum.

With regard to the ideal (though nonexistent) “empty space” end member, Professor Einstein, former aether denier, had this to say in an address delivered on May 5th, 1920, at the University of Leyden:

"Careful reflection teaches us that special relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume its existence but not ascribe a definite state of motion to it ..." "There is a weighty reason in favour of ether. To deny ether is to ultimately assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever."]

BW: The way I read your argument, you're saying that there is NO space between physical objects: all space is occupied by some smaller physical object (Aether-1, Aether-2... Aether-457, etc). To my mind, that logic claims that there are never collisions of any two objects, since they're all in contact with other objects. That makes no sense to me.

[GB: Then you must have trouble just getting around or hitting a baseball, for that matter. The air molecules in the doorway and between the bat and ball simply are shoved aside. In other words, what appears to be “empty space” in those situations simply contains microcosms that are not massive enough to prevent the collisions of more massive microcosms. There is no reason to believe that this situation is any different at any other scale. Absolutists have trouble with this because they cannot imagine that the world consists of anything other than black and white, solid and empty, something and nothing. The reality, however, is that the perfect world of the idealist cannot exist. Nature is messy, grey, never either solid or empty, never either something or nothing.]   

“GB: ... That would result in an empty universe. In actuality, every
subdivision anywhere along the continuum always ends up with both properties: solid matter and empty space.”

BW: Except space has no properties: it is the absence of matter.

[GB: Let me repeat this from the great man: “To deny ether is to ultimately assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever.” So your position ultimately was not even defended by the greatest perpetrator of aether denial himself. He never became known for this recantation of aether denial because indeterminists did not find it useful. The widespread aether denial in physics and cosmogony has gotten severely out of hand as seen in our previous Blogs:

BW: Something cannot interact with nothing, nor can nothingness be "divisible" in any sense of the word. It seems to me that you are one of the "absolutists" you condemn, in contending that there is an "infinite divisibility" of matter. How do you "divide" matter if not by the existence of space: not matter?

[GB: Reread the above paragraph. Can you see that you are idealizing “matter” and “space” as clear-cut opposites? Can you see that you are using these ideals as if they are absolute realities? Do you realize that no one has ever discovered pure matter or pure space? That is because what we think of as matter always has space and what we think of as space always has matter. In every case, what we consider “matter” simply is stronger, denser, or more massive than what we consider “space.” Pure ideal matter and pure ideal space, like pure ideal plagioclase and pure ideal albite do not and cannot exist.

It is fine to use idealisms to understand the intervening reality, but it is important to never consider those idealities as realities themselves. That mistake was already made by Plato, who thought that the perfect sphere that he imagined was the reality and that actually occurring spheres were mere imperfect imitations. I spend so much time on this because it is this type of thinking that has given us relativity and the Big Bang. Aether denial and the assumed finity on which it is based are the essence of the regressive physics and cosmogony that currently afflicts us.]


Black Holes Disappear into Nothing?

PSI Blog 20170404 Black Holes Disappear into Nothing?

From George Coyne:


As you know orthodox physicists claim this happens to a star in black holes: “According to General Relativity, it collapses all the way down to nothing. Not just "very small", but smaller and smaller until it's exactly zero in size. Density becomes infinite.”


That is absurd and preposterous. How can supporters of GRT believe this nonsense? Why do they not understand that just as you cannot go from nothing to something, it is impossible for something to become nothing?

[GB: George:   

Congratulations on turning up another of the wild contradictions in cosmogony. The primary deficiency of the cosmogonists and regressive physicists is that they do not have sufficient principles. In progressive physics we adhere to the Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed). The whole of the Big Bang Theory, like most religions, is a violation of conservation. The opposite, indeterministic assumption, is creation, the proposition that something could be created out of nothing. If you can believe that, then it is entirely logical to believe that something could disappear into nothing. I am not sure and I am not really interested in how all this stems from GRT. Einstein’s idea that the universe is 4-dimensional is without merit, like the rest of relativity (except for the E=mc2 equation, which was used by Einstein, but not discovered by him).

As we explained in our UCT book,[1] the misnamed “Black Holes” are simply the super dense nuclei of rotating or formerly rotating galaxies. Vortices like these accrete matter as they rotate and excrete matter when they stop rotating. In other words, galactic nuclei are where stars go to die (via a little gravitational push). When the rotation of a galactic nucleus slows, it can excrete matter that eventually forms new stars per your second heads up:

The second link falsifies the first link. The regressive idea that a black hole could become infinitely dense assumes that the rotation necessary for the densification of the nucleus of a vortex could continue forever. This is not the case, because, like all microcosms, black holes have a macrocosm. Resistance provided by the macrocosm eventually slows vortex rotation. This principle is outlined in the Sixth Assumption of Science, complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things). In other words, microcosms in the Infinite Universe form via convergence and eventually dissipate via divergence. Cosmogonists would do well to get a set of fundamental assumptions so they could avoid such wild calculations that only get published because they support the current paradigm.]   

[1] Puetz, Stephen J., and Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Universal cycle theory: Neomechanics of the hierarchically infinite universe: Denver, CO, Outskirts Press, 626 p. [http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/].


The Scourge of Absolutism

PSI Blog 20170329 The Scourge of Absolutism

Response to comments from William Westmiller:

GB: ... Bill doesn't like the Ninth Assumption of Science, relativism (All things have characteristics that make them similar to all other things as well as characteristics that make them dissimilar to all other things).

As I intended to make clear in my lengthy dissertation on your book, I entirely agree with this statement. In fact, I agree with 95% of your Ten Assumptions. That's hardly "cherry picking".

[GB: Sorry, but that is hardly true. Relativism is the opposite of absolutism, which is required for Finite Particle Theory (FPT). Similarly, infinity is the opposite of finity, which obviously also is required for FPT. Interconnection is the opposite of disconnection, which is required for FPT as well. Your agreement with “The Ten Assumptions of Science” is at most 70%.]

GB: As an absolutist, you assume that all matter has the same characteristics.

Not true. Although I propose a fundamental particle of mass, there are a multitude of compositions of those particles which all have distinct characteristics. A proton is different than an atom, is different than a protein, is different than your body. I have no problem with the proposition that your body can move through an atmosphere of nitrogen.

[GB: Sorry, but, strictly speaking, there can be no “fundamental particle of mass.” Mass is not a particle. Mass is defined as the resistance to acceleration. It is a property of microcosms. In addition, no particle can be considered “fundamental” if it has a “multitude of compositions.” The word “composition” implies the bringing together of other things. Each one of your “compositions” must contain still other particles, which in turn must be the fundamental particle that you seek but shall never find. ]

GB:[A continuum exists] between what we imagine to be perfectly solid matter and perfectly empty space.

That's simply saying that all compositions of matter have different densities. I agree. But, you can't have something called "density" unless there is a distinction between physical objects and their absence. Your body can walk through air, but it can't walk through another person's body. That applies all along the "continuum": a neutron can't occupy the same space as another neutron. There can be no "collision" of neutrons unless there is space between them that is "not neutron".

[GB: Density is only relative. It is true that a particular microcosm cannot occupy the same space as another microcosm of the same type. It is true that the collisions between microcosms cannot occur unless the space between them does not contain the same type of microcosm. That does not mean, however, that the space between them must be devoid of any other microcosms of some other type (e.g., We presume that all baryonic matter is penetrated by and contains aether particles.]

GB: ... there is no such thing as matter per se - there are only individual, unique examples of matter.

That's equivalent to saying there are no humans, only individual, unique examples of humans. You can't have an "example" of something if there is no something. Granted, that "something" is an abstraction, not a physical object: humans are entities with specific characteristics in common. An example of a human IS a human: one unit of the larger set of entities sharing common attributes.

[GB: Right. Fruit and matter are abstractions. There is no such thing as a fruit or matter per se, only specific unique examples of these abstractions. The lesson learned here is that each microcosm is a unique example of matter, but that matter per se cannot exist.]

GB: ... The things we now call atoms appear to contain mostly empty space. Even so, some absolutists assume that we just have not gone far enough and that the nirvana of perfect solidity is theoretically possible.

I'll plead Nolo Contendere, but not guilty. As I said, even if a Unimid particle is not a "perfectly solid", it provides an explanation for every physical effect of every thing. Yes, atoms were assumed to be fundamental, but even if they aren't, they provided an excellent explanation for the unique identities of nearly all physical objects. The atomic theory was certainly not useless; John Dalton wasn't pursuing "nirvana", just a rational explanation for what exists in reality:

[GB: Of course, you are free to hypothesize any particle you wish for explaining anything you want. Just do not claim that your pet particle is the ultimate particle and that it does not contain submicrocosms that contain still other subsubmicrocosms, ad infinitum.]

GB: ... The absolutist’s belief in the ideals of perfectly empty space ... are the sacred texts of traditional religion.

I think you have that wrong. The absolutist belief is that something can come from nothing. Of course, I totally agree with your objection to Einstein's proposition that "perfectly empty space" has form, "contains" immaterial energy, or "creates" gravity. That's nonsense. The Big Bang Theory is nonsense: it's a religious proposition of the creation of something from nothing (or at least from the abstract conception of some "supernatural thing" that "creates").

[GB: I do not know where you got the idea that absolutism is not religious. In Infinite Universe Theory nonexistence (perfectly empty space) is impossible, whereas it is critical to most religious explanations. You are correct that the idea that something could come from nothing is religious and that the idea is the foundation of Big Bang Theory, in contradiction of the Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed). What you fail to understand is the connection between the idealization of empty space and the idealization of solid matter. Absolutists assume that both idealizations are realities, when, in actuality, both are impossibilities. In the current situation those mistakes foster creationism, aether denial, and wasted effort involving FPT.]