20180117

Borchardt interview with de Hilster on Infinite Universe Theory

PSI Blog 20180117 Borchardt interview with de Hilster on Infinite Universe Theory

David de Hilster, President of the Chappell Natural Philosophy Society, had a nice interview with me about my new book (Infinite Universe Theory). It is an hour long, with David asking some pertinent questions:



20180110

Regressives all set to bend time!

PSI Blog 20180110 Regressives all set to bend time!

Here is a heads-up from Jessie, who says: “It simply boggles the mind the stupidity they put into print and money and intellect going down this dead end journey down the Einsteinian rabbit hole. How much insanity can they take before they take stock and change course?:


Well said Jessie. This stems from Einstein’s objectification of motion.[1] It all fits with our claim that a regressive physicist, by definition, does not know what time is. Time is motion[2] and cannot be bent. Only things can be bent. The imagined perfectly empty space would have no properties and could not be bent. The imagined space-time could not be bent either. This fantasy is where the much ballyhooed “wormholes” come from. Egads! This is what it takes to get into CERN?




[1] 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 ].

20171227

Infinite Universe Theory Overview by de Hilster

PSI Blog 20171227 Infinite Universe Theory Overview by de Hilster



"Infinite Universe Theory" was released as a color eBook on December 25. You can order it for only $9.99 at http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook

David de Hilster, President of the Chappell Natural Philosophy Society, already has some wonderful comments in this short YouTube video:









20171220

Infinite Universe Theory-Table of Contents

PSI Blog 20171220 Infinite Universe Theory-Table of Contents


As mentioned last week, "Infinite Universe Theory" will be released as a color eBook on December 25. You can preorder for $9.99 at http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook

Here is the Table of Contents:

Acknowledgements
List of Tables
List of Figures
Preface
Introduction
Part I: What is wrong with the Big Bang Theory?
Chapter 1
Immensity
Chapter 2
Galaxies in Collision
Chapter 3
Galaxy Clusters in Collision
Chapter 4
Elderly Galaxies at the Edge of the Universe
Chapter 5
Elderly Galaxy Clusters at the Edge of the Universe
Chapter 6
Solipsism and Perception
Chapter 7
Einstein’s “Untired Light Theory”
Chapter 8
Space-time Salvation
Part II: Infinite Universe Theory
Chapter 9
The Ten Assumptions of Science
Chapter 10
Progressive Physics
Chapter 11
Neomechanics
Chapter 12
Univironmental Analysis
Part III: Questions resolved by Infinite Universe Theory
Chapter 13
Scientific Philosophy
13.1 Does curiosity portend Infinite Universe Theory?
13.2 Does calculus portend Infinite Universe Theory?
13.3 Does univironmental determinism presage Infinite Universe Theory?
13.4 What is a BS meter and why do you need one?
13.5 Does Infinite Universe Theory resolve the “Who Created God” question?
Chapter 14
Regressive Misconceptions
14.1 Did MMX prove that aether did not exist?
14.2 Is the speed of light constant?
14.3 Does energy have mass?
14.4 Does “dark energy” exist?
14.5 Does the “god particle” exist?
14.6 Is string theory valid?
14.7 Does space-time exist?
14.8 Is matter a result of quantum fluctuations?
14.9 Does the double-slit experiment prove light is both a wave and a particle?
14.10 Does Infinite Universe Theory mean everything is possible?
14.11 Is the “Twin Paradox” Resolvable without Relativity?
Chapter 15
Tests of Relativity
15.1 Did the Sagnac Experiment prove the existence of aether? (1913)
15.2 Did de Sitter prove aether exists? (1913)
15.3 Did Eddington prove space was curved? (1919)
15.4 Did Eddington prove light is affected by gravitation? (1919)
15.5 Does the gravitational redshift confirm relativity? (1960)
15.6 Did the clocks flown around Earth confirm relativity? (1972)
15.7 Did LIGO prove there are gravitational waves? (2016)
Chapter 16
Progressive Physics
16.1 Why can there be no matter without motion?
16.2 What is aether?
16.3 What causes gravitation?
16.4 Where does matter come from?
16.5 What is the cause of charge?
16.6 What is the cause of magnetism?
16.7 Why do satellites stay in orbit?
16.8 Why is there so much spookiness in quantum mechanics?
16.9 Why does matter prevent the transmission of certain aether waves?
16.10 Why would a finite particle be impossible?
16.11 Does dark matter exist?
16.12 Is matter lost during atomic fission?
Chapter 17
Cosmology
17.1 Is the universe expanding?
17.2 Can the Doppler Effect occur without a medium?
17.3 What causes the cosmological redshift?
17.4 Are there galaxies more than 13.8 billion years old?
17.5 What causes the Shapiro Effect?
17.6 Will the universe suffer “heat death”?
17.7 Why is a finite universe impossible?
Part IV: Conclusions
Chapter 18
18.1 Predictions of Infinite Universe Theory
18.2 Paradigmatic Persistence and Requiem for the Big Bang Theory
References
Glossary
Appendix

20171213

Infinite Universe Theory to be released on December 25

PSI Blog 20171213 Infinite Universe Theory to be released on December 25

After 10 long years, IUT will be available in color as an eBook for holiday gifts. You can preorder today at Amazon for delivery to cell phones, tablets, Kindles, and computers on December 25: 

The price is only $9.99

Here is the book pitch:

Infinite Universe Theory presents the ultimate alternative to the Big Bang Theory and the common assumption that the universe had an origin. Author Glenn Borchardt starts with photos of the “elderly” galaxies at the observational edge of the universe. These contradict the current belief that the universe should have increasingly younger objects as we view greater distances. He restates the fundamental assumptions that must underlie the new paradigm. Notably, by assuming infinity he is able to adapt classical mechanics to “neomechanics” and its insistence that phenomena are strictly the result of matter in motion. He shows in detail how misinterpretations of relativity have aided current flights of fancy more in tune with religion than science.

Borchardt demonstrates why only Infinite Universe Theory can provide answers to questions untouched by currently regressive physics and cosmogony. His new modification of gravitation theory gets us closer to its physical cause without calling upon attraction or curved spacetime or “immaterial fields.”

This is the book for you if you have doubts about the universe exploding out of nothing and expanding in all directions at once, that the universe has more than three dimensions, or that light is a massless wave-particle that defies the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Borchardt has put forth a solid case for an Infinite Universe that extends in all directions and exists everywhere and for all time.

 “What a great read! Thanks so much for a book full of great ideas. I love the Q&A format; it’s very satisfying to have good answers to clearly stated questions.” -Rick Dutkiewicz

 “Truly brilliant.” -Jesse Witwer

 “A radical, daring, and innovative demolition of regressive physics, from the creation of ‘something out of nothing’ to the ‘God Particle.’” -William Westmiller

"Glenn Borchardt's book uses the hammer of Infinity to explain and destroy the junk theories that plague 'Official' physics today. This is a book that should be used in college courses, to give students a basic understanding of how physics is done. Physics has 'gone off the rails' for a century and it is books like Borchardt's that will return physics from its current unscientific and anti-materialist base and back on to a scientific and materialist road." -Mike Gimbel

 “What a fascinating read!” -Juan Calsiano



20171108

Proof of God’s Nonexistence

PSI Blog 20171108 Proof of God’s Nonexistence

Obviously, the existence of evil is proof of god’s nonexistence. Nonetheless, many believers have written books like this one, a “theodicy,” which is an attempt to resolve the unresolvable contradiction between the idea that god is good and that “he” invented evil along with everything else in the universe (all 2 trillion galaxies included). The contradiction is, of course, especially troubling from the Jewish perspective. Six million cruel deaths ought to be enough proof for anyone. Any god that would countenance that would have to be evil incarnate himself. Apparently that is not enough proof for David Birnbaum, lauded author of numerous theological books.

Occasionally, I am asked to review a religious book (from the atheistic perspective, I presume). I sometimes oblige just to see what the other half is doing. This tome, “God and Evil,” is Summa 1 in Birnbaum’s 3-part “Metaphysica” series.[1] It is sure to give metaphysics a bad name. You see, metaphysics converts unconscious presuppositions into explicit assumptions to be used in further analysis. In an Infinite Universe we have no other choice. I followed Collingwood’s criteria in asserting that fundamental assumptions always have opposites in which one is false if the other is true and neither can be completely proven.[2] That is what I did by formulating “The Ten Assumptions of Science.”[3] A particularly important assumption was the one that dismisses freewill: The Second Assumption of Science, causality (All effects have an infinite number of material causes). Religion is based on freewill—that is what the “Garden of Eden and the Salvation Myths” are all about. The book finally achieves its basic function of giving god a free pass with these deepities from the perspective of “sophisticated theology”:

 “Yet if we postulate a God of Israel wholly directed towards opening the gates to man’s infinite potential by granting him ascending levels of freedom as he ascends intellectually, and if we grant a God of Israel contracting His real-time consciousness to grant man this crucial freedom, then our outlook is clearer. A Deity exercising contraction of real-time consciousness for the greater good, man’s freedom and potential, clearly—not inscrutably— commits no crimes of breach of covenant or complicity of silence. He is guilty only of the crime of increasing man’s freedom—an option exercised by man at Eden” (p. 168)

Of course in the title of this Blog I was being facetious. In an infinite universe, there is no way to provide a complete proof that something does not exist. You can never prove that unicorns do not exist either, but I am not going to waste time trying to find one. I also am not going to make up stories defending the undefendable.




[1] Birnbaum, David, 2012, God and evil : a unified theodicy/theology/philosophy: Manhattan, Harvard Matrix, 256 p.
[2] Collingwood, R.G., 1940, An essay on metaphysics: Oxford, Clarendon Press, 354 p.
[3] Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The ten assumptions of science: Toward a new scientific worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p. [Free download a http://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.13320.21761].






20171101

CERN discovers the universe doesn't exist

PSI Blog 20171101 CERN discovers the universe doesn't exist

Egads! The trillion-dollar regression marches on…

  • By Ryan Whitwam on October 25, 2017

Unless you are looking for a few good laughs, you might want to skip this latest outrage. Here are some quotes that will give you the gist of what the geniuses at CERN have come up with:

“One of the big questions in science is not just “why are we here?’ It’s, “why is anything here?” Scientists at CERN have been looking into this one over the last several years, and there’s still no good answer. In fact, the latest experiment from physicists working at the Swiss facility supports the idea that the universe doesn’t exist. It certainly seems to exist, though. So, what are we missing?”

“In particle physics, the Standard Model…has been supported by experimentation, but it predicts that the big bang that created the universe would have resulted in equal amounts of matter (us and everything around us) and antimatter (rare). If they were equal, why didn’t the early universe cancel itself out, leaving just a sea of energy?”

These guys don’t seem to know what matter is and have forgotten all about the Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed). So matter and anti-matter supposedly turn into energy, which is once again construed as matterless motion. Krauss and Captain Bligh would be proud!


20171025

Messing up the universe

PSI Blog 20171025 Messing up the universe

Professor Borchardt:

I am a layman who is interested in trying to understand the workings of the universe. I recently ordered your book the, Scientific World View, and the book that you co-authored with Stephen Puetz, Universal Cycle Theory.  I’m very much looking forward to reading them.  I have a question for you born of concern.

I have a fear of man developing a technology that will allow him to rapidly travel through the galaxy.  People are destructive and they are making this planet uninhabitable for themselves and most other animal and plant life.  If man masters space travel as he has mastered travel here on earth, he’ll rapaciously exploit all resources he finds on other planets and destroy whatever gets in his way as he has done here on earth.  So, my question is, given your view of science, is there a chance that this author has worked out a way to make my nightmares a reality?  Could what’s laid out in this presentation be made reality in the next several decades?


Anon

My answer:

Thanks for your interest in our books. Please read Ch. 13 in TSW to put your mind at ease. BTW: For every bit of destruction, we include a bit of construction. As I look about me in CA, all I see is the beauty of L. Tahoe and of SF Bay. Disaster books have always sold well (have written some myself), so that is what you are supposed to read. As Wadi wrote: "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 of http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2017/05/instill-and-enforce-loyalty.html). In other words: Be frightened, very frightened and then pay me money.

As for the outer space scenario, we have already done some destruction (space garbage) and construction (GPS for all). Nothing new about that. As always, we have to clean up the bad and sponsor the good.



20170823

The Eclipse and Einsteinism

PSI Blog 20170823 The Eclipse and Einsteinism

The recent eclipse amounted to a big boost to gee-whiz science. Pros and amateurs vied for the opportunity to “prove Einstein right again.” My short definition of an Einsteinism is: “correct prediction; wrong reason.” Here is my entry in the Glossary of my forthcoming book “Infinite Universe Theory ”:

EINSTEINISM. “A statement or prediction that is true, but for the wrong reason.”[1] Other, less preferred definitions are: 1) “a joke that becomes much less funny if it requires an explanation.”[2] 2) “the fallacious and unscientific physical theory that consists of Einstein's writings in the field of the relativity theory and subsequent theoretical works that endorse it.”[3] 3) “the perturbation of language or perception in order to put a positive spin on some aspect of Einstein’s life. It may include distortion, omission, falsification, or corruption of the historic record in order to promote Einstein.”[4]

Measurements of light bending during an eclipse are great fun. Light, of course, is always bent when it encounters an atmosphere, just as it is when it enters water. That effect is known as refraction. Einstein predicted that his imaginary light particle would be affected by gravity and that the perfectly empty space it traveled through nevertheless was capable of being bent. None of this could possibly happen because Einstein’s imaginary photon supposedly was massless and empty space has no properties at all.

The folks attempting to “prove Einstein right” will have gotten some highly erratic measurements once again. That is because the Sun’s corona is highly variable:

Figure 37 This plate from the Eddington paper is a half-tone reproduction from one of the negatives taken with a 4”-lens at Sobral, Brazil. The corona prevented any observation of light bending in the plasma rim at the surface of the Sun (from Dyson, Eddington, and Davidson, 1920).[5]

Dowdy gives the correct interpretation:


Figure 36 Light waves from distant stars bend only in the plasma rim of the Sun due to refraction. They are unaffected by gravitation, contrary to the predictions of relativity (from Dowdye, 2010).[6]





[4] Moody, Richard, Jr., 2009, The eclipse data from 1919: The greatest hoax in 20th century science, 16th Natural Philosophy Alliance Conference, Storrs, CT, United States, p. 1-26 [http://tinyurl.com/h6ngd5b], p. 14.
[5] Dyson, F. W., Eddington, A. S., and Davidson, C., 1920, A Determination of the Deflection of Light by the Sun's Gravitational Field, from Observations Made at the Total Eclipse of May 29, 1919: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, v. 220, no. 571-581, p. 291-333 [http://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.1920.0009], Plate 1.
[6] Dowdye, Edward Henry, Jr., 2010, Findings Convincingly Show No Direct Interaction between Gravitation and Electromagnetism in Empty Vacuum Space, in Volk, G, Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 17th Conference of the NPA, 23-26 June, 2010: Long Beach, CA, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, v. 7, p. 131-136 [

20170809

A gene for religiosity?

PSI Blog 20170809 A gene for religiosity?

I am always interested in finding out why indeterminists use the assumptions they do. So I just reviewed a book, “The God Model,” by Phillip Shirvington, that surveys all the prominent religions and comes up with the idea that natural selection may have favored a part of the brain that causes folks to be religious.

He writes:

“So, to summarize, it is proposed that the common thread running through all religions is the existence of a faculty enabling access to what is believed to be a God in the mind of the individual, derived from code in the human genome, emplaced there 15,000-200,000 years ago, during which our ancestors evolved after having acquired human form. This faculty in the mind is the basis of religious experiences by believers, which in turn underpin institutional religion of all kinds…”

Readers should know that I believe that religion evolved in response to the need to instill and enforce loyalty in defense of a particular social organization. The destruction of the unfittest eliminates disloyal elements, protecting the organization from disbandment. In science, we do the same thing, rejecting publications and individuals that contradict the established paradigm.

Most of the text would be useful in a course on comparative religion, outlining the assumptions used by organized religious sects. For instance, some believe that the universe is material per the First Assumption of Science, materialism (The external world exists after the observer does not), some believe that it is an illusion (immaterialism), and some believe in a mixture of both. And, of course, as I have maintained elsewhere, nearly all religions oppose the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion).

Now for the strange part. A gene for religion? The evolutionist, Dawkins, came up with the term “meme” for ideas that evolve, being passed from generation to generation, sort of like that old “telephone” game in which a statement passed from person-to-person gets messed up in the process. Thank heaven that he never gave a genetic cause for any of those memes—they were all cultural. On the other hand, Shirvington might have something there. Again, he writes: “evidence in this book suggests religiosity is a least partly genetically determined.” He points out that primates without the prefrontal brain capability that humans have do not display religious behavior. He doesn’t exactly say there might be a gene for religion or that there is a special spot in the brain for religiosity.

Instead, I tend to believe Sapolsky’s interpretation that religion is a mental illness. Schizophrenia, for instance, is known to be inherited. It seems in this disease, one half of the brain can talk to the other half as if they were two people. Thus, reports by folks who have “talked to god” have a certain reality to them. Others, who have been properly indoctrinated in religious matters also might display their mental illness as religious behavior. He does have a great explanation of where the idea of heaven came from: We have a tendency to visit our deceased relatives and friends in our dreams. Heaven is therefore just an extension of those dreams. Shirvington puts a lot of stock in ordinary folks who report dramatic religious experiences. Of course, the elation felt when one is “born again” is little different than the dithyrambosis or eureka moments felt by scientists, adventurers, and gold seekers. Also of course, those not exposed to any religious dogma are unlikely to exhibit religious behavior no matter what their genetics—an obvious falsification of Shirvington’s theory.

  


20170802

Universe Alternatives

PSI Blog 20170802 Universe Alternatives[1]

Occasionally, I try to review reformist attempts to ameliorate the current deplorable state of physics and cosmology. The title of this book caught my eye when it was sent to me gratis. The book was published by the author 20 years ago and not much has changed since in the reformist community. Billy Farmer, a medical doctor, sent over 750 free copies of this book to physicists and cosmologists, with no effect whatsoever. Billy passed away in 2003.

Sorry to disappoint, but Billy’s attempt does not propose more than one alternative to the Big Bang Theory. What it really means to say is that there are alternative interpretations of some of the data used to support the Big Bang Theory. Like many of us, Farmer believed that the universe had no beginning, although, like other reformists, he is equivocal: “the expanding universe concept [will be] replaced by an overall static model that will most probably be envisioned as being unlimited in both size and age” (p. i). Now, the universe is either infinite or finite; one is either pregnant or not pregnant—choose one.  The universe is either eternal or it is not. This is the first sign that Farmer’s “alternatives” are not likely to be much more than reforms.

Nonetheless, he spares us the oxymoronic “multiverse” nonsense, and does have a few good ideas. In particular, is his “denial of ‘empty space,’ which implies that some phase of a single universal entity should occupy the entire universe volume” (p. 106). Unfortunately, he uses the annoying “single universal entity,” to avoid the stigma attached to the proper designation: aether. His timid justification is that the “ether” of the Michelson-Morley Experiment[2] was incorrectly assumed to be fixed. In fact, the MMX result was lower than expected only because aether was entrained around Earth just like our atmosphere.[3] I agree that nothing in the universe is fixed per the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion).[4] In other words, the fixed “ether” was falsified, but the “aether” consisting of particles in motion was not.

My greatest disappointment with this book was Farmer’s adoption of “universal entity cohesion” as the driving force responsible for things coming together. It is as if he never heard of Newton's Second Law of Motion and its observation that force describes a push, not a pull. Like Newton and others who promulgated the attraction hypothesis, Farmer presents no physical mechanism by which an actual pull could be performed. That is because there is none.

His theory has another fundamental flaw in that it picks on the galaxy as the fundamental microcosm most likely to be recycled endlessly. I have to admit that I once entertained the same idea. Actually, all microcosms tend to be recycled as long as the univironmental conditions for doing so are present. They follow the Sixth Assumption of Science, complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things). None of the “recycled” microcosms are exactly the same as the original, but similar microcosms are produced until the univironment inevitably changes. This also means that the “age of the eternal universe” can never be determined. Each portion of the infinite universe will have a different age, with each portion coming into being via convergence and going out of being via divergence.

All in all, Billy’s reform was admirable, but like other reform attempts it was close, but no cigar.










[1] Farmer, B.L., 1997, Universe alternatives: Emerging concepts of size, age, structure and behavior (2nd ed.): El Paso, TX, Billy L. Farmer, 129 p.
[2] Michelson, A.A., and Morley, E.W., 1887, On the relative motion of the earth and the luminiferous ether: American Journal of Science, v. 39, p. 333-345 [http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/michelson.html; http://www.anti-relativity.com/MM_Paper.pdf]. [Often referred to as “MMX.”]
[3] Borchardt, Glenn, 2007, The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, p. 202. [http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/].
[4] Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The ten assumptions of science: Toward a new scientific worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p. [Free download at http://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.13320.21761].



20170727

Playing the Big Bang Theory game

PSI Blog 20170727 Playing the Big Bang Theory game

All games have rules. If you don’t play by the rules, you might get sent home forthwith. The more I study it, the more I get the feeling that the Big Bang Theory is just a game. No real scientist could be serious about such a fabrication. Nonetheless, here we are, enduring the last days of the last cosmogony.

Those playing the game seem to know the rules well (e.g., the universe had an origin; Einstein is always right; mathematics determines what is possible, etc.). The winners maybe don’t get $200 million dollar contracts, but there are awards and prestigious academic positions aplenty. Folks standing on the ground outside the paradigm, like myself, just don’t get it. The logic escapes us.

Now, in preparing his forthcoming book “Notfinity Process,” PSI member George Coyne already has come up with 61 problems with the Big Bang Theory. Generally, it only takes a few such falsifications to disprove a theory, but like relativity itself, this is a tough nut to crack because of its association with religion. At the moment, the Big Bang Theory seems as everlasting as the universe. I am sure that George will come up with ever more problems before the theory meets its eventual demise. I hope he keeps his list up-to-date on a special webpage. It should be a great resource for future historians of science.

Typical of one of the problems that go to the heart of the matter is the one about the “universe from nothing,” which we already lambasted in a Blog by PSI member Rick Dutkiewicz.[1] Like Krauss’s “Universe from Nothing,”[2] there have been numerous defenses of the Big Bang Theory. One of the most famous was the ad hoc proposed by Alan Guth, an MIT professor, who wrote “The Inflationary Universe” back in 1984.[3] The math had not been working out well, so Guth simply jiggered it enough to keep the theory going.


Guth is famous for saying "The universe could have evolved from absolutely nothing in a manner consistent with all known conservation laws."[4] Like the rest of us of a practical nature, George wonders about “the mathematical or cosmological difference between ‘nothing’ and ‘absolute nothing.’ If there is a difference then it must be possible to compare various amounts of "nothing" from a small amount to a very large amount.”

Of course, all that Guth stuff is nonsense, but George persists in asking “What conservation law is Guth referring to that supports his claim?”  

According to George’s excavation, Guth assumes that “gravitational energy is negative, and because it is in balance with the positive energy of matter, he concludes it is possible that the Universe evolved from ‘absolutely nothing’ without violating any known conservation laws.”

As George says, “To argue that the BBT agrees with all conservation laws depends on accepting that energy exists as a positive substance in matter and a “negative” one in the form of gravitation. However, even if one were to accept that premise, it still does not account for how matter emerges from nothing.”

This is an excellent example of how regressive physics has gone wrong. Energy is not a substance, it is a calculation. Even NASA promotes the idea that the universe consists of energy as well as matter. But according to progressive physics, the universe only consists of matter in motion. There is no energy “substance,” so repeating that old shibboleth will not help the universe to pop out of nothing. We are stuck with the Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed). Physicists should pay more attention to thermodynamics and give up trying to objectify energy. Looks like the whole theory is a game about nothing.













[1] Dutkiewicz, Rick, 2012, Dutkiewicz Blasts Krauss Interview on “A Universe From Nothing”: The Scientific Worldview: Blog 20120620: Berkeley, CA, Progressive Science Institute [http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2012/06/dutkiewicz-blasts-krauss-interview-on.html].
[2] Krauss, Lawrence M., 2012, A universe from nothing: Why there is something rather than nothing: New York, Free Press, 224 p.
[3] Guth, Alan H., 1998, The inflationary universe: The quest for a new theory of cosmic origins, Basic Books, 384 p. [https://rebrand.ly/robot9b7e].
[4] Ibid, p. 12.

20170719

Quantum Mechanics Crashes into Infinity

PSI Blog 20170719 Quantum Mechanics Crashes into Infinity

Another good one from George Coyne:

“Here is an article by Steven Weinberg from Jan 19, 2016

Chapter 1 The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics


Here is an excerpt:

"The trouble is that in quantum mechanics the way that wave functions change with time is governed by an equation, the Schrödinger equation, that does not involve probabilities. It is just as deterministic as Newton’s equations of motion and gravitation. That is, given the wave function at any moment, the Schrödinger equation will tell you precisely what the wave function will be at any future time. There is not even the possibility of chaos, the extreme sensitivity to initial conditions that is possible in Newtonian mechanics. So if we regard the whole process of measurement as being governed by the equations of quantum mechanics, and these equations are perfectly deterministic, how do probabilities get into quantum mechanics?"

[GB: Thanks George for the nice illustration of the regressive quandary that mathematicians get into when infinity raises its ever-present head. Remember that neomechanics is simply the addition of our assumption of infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions) to classical mechanics. This is consupponible with our revised assumptions of causality (All effects have an infinite number of material causes) and uncertainty (It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is possible to know more about anything).

The upshot is that any measurement anyone could make always has a plus or minus. Only an infinitely long equation could make perfect predictions, which, of course, will never happen. As quantum mechanists have found out, the infinite subdividability of the universe pertains to even the smallest of microcosms. The Infinite Universe always provides yet another collision from yet another microcosm that contributes to the variability that we are forced to present as the margin of error. Infinite subdividability makes it impossible to have “equations [that] are perfectly deterministic.” In the Infinite Universe, there always are still smaller microcosms whose motions we cannot determine precisely. That is how “probabilities get into quantum mechanics.”]

  



20170712

Worldview hysteria and conversion disorder

PSI Blog 20170712 Worldview hysteria and conversion disorder

Figure 1 Brasoveanu’s view of modern physics.[4]

Jesse writes:

“I am now fully on board with your view that there is no point in debating the regressives. I had the misfortune of discussing with a few pHd physicists on Quora and they started ad hominem's immediately. They got quite hysterical.

I pondered that awhile. I believe it has to do with what I am now calling "Foundational Wordview" (FW) that I loosely define as: "Any assumptions that are made by individuals that highly influence how they view and interpret phenomena in the world."

These FW's can be in any field and pop up in very unlikely places. Many religious people hold them (many don't). Many climate change people hold them. Many physicists hold them. Many politically active people hold them.

I have found that if you test the FW's of most people, it initiates a "Fight or Flight" response that is dramatic. It is basically hopeless to engage in conversations with these people because they either run away or fight you. There is no listening involved. It's an interesting field of study in it's own right. How are these formed? Are there any people without them (I keep trying to think if I hold any)? Has anyone figured out how to shatter them?”

[GB: Thanks for the comment Jesse. As you imply and Wikipedia confirms, the use of an ad hominem is a sure way of losing a debate: "Argumentum ad hominem is now usually understood as a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.”[1] Being on the eventual winning side of the arguments you mention, we do not need to resort to name calling. Most dissident physicists have come across hysterical behavior involving those topics.

Ironically, hysteria is now called “conversion disorder,” in which “The sensory and motor manifestations of conversion disorder take many forms and are designated conversion reactions because the underlying anxiety is assumed to have been “converted” into physical symptoms.”[2] Maybe we should redefine “conversion disorder” to indicate the response we get when especially emotional types are confronted with Infinite Universe Theory. So far no physical effects have been reported by those who have read any stuff from the Progressive Science Institute (other than dithyrambosis, which, as you found out, can lead to lack of sleep and spousal boredom due to equations and lengthy words).

I agree that more work needs to done on what you call Foundational Worldviews. I touched on this in previous books, such as “The Ten Assumptions of Science,” in which I traced it to the philosophical struggle between determinism and indeterminism. How one gets to either view depends on the univironment, which, in this case, amounts to the person and the environment. My ever-popular Blog on scientific curiosity gives us a hint.[3] The gist is that, in science we determine the truth by interacting with the external world via observation and experiment. Children who have had their hands slapped enough times tend to stifle their curiosity. Religions are notorious for discouraging curiosity, which might lead to philosophical confusion and eventual unbelief. Cloisters keep us from venturing too far afield in search of beliefs without contradictions.

About Foundational Worldviews you ask: “Are there any people without them (I keep trying to think if I hold any)?” Of course, everyone has them, except that they tend to become increasingly deterministic with increasing contact with the infinite variety of the external world. You can begin to find out what yours are by studying "The Ten Assumptions of Science."

You ask: “Has anyone figured out how to shatter them?” Well, that is exactly what we do at PSI. There is no way to replace a powerful paradigm without replacing the foundational assumptions of that paradigm first. That will not be easy. The bigger the fish, the harder they fall. The connection between cosmogony and religion appears almost everlasting. The “shattering” you write about is serious philosophical and economic business. Nonetheless, it is proceeding apace with every step out of the indeterministic box. Cosmogonists are now talking about oxymoronic multiverses and parallel universes. The Internet spreads deterministic information with light speed. Once having learned something about the Infinite Universe, it is hard to unlearn it. Ultimately, however, it all comes down to this: horse, water, drink. You cannot teach someone who does not want to be taught. With regard to the traditional indeterministic beliefs that underlie cosmogony we only need to ask: How is that working out for you?]




[4] Not all mainstream physicists are happy with modern physics and cosmogony. In addition to presenting this amusing cartoon at a conference, Dan has written a reformist book proposing a unification of SRT and QMT: Brasoveanu, Dan, 2008, Modern Mythology and Science, iUniverse, 94 p.