20120718

The Four Pseudoforces


Reader Stephen Mooney writes:

You’re correct to propose an Infinite Universe Theory. The Big Bang theory is simply absurd.  However, there are three matters that you need to take into account.

The first is that the four forces of Physics are caused by the absorption of emission.

The second is what I call the first law of Physics: “matter is constructed into higher forms through the absorption of emission within the context of the increasing density of impacting emission, and its stability is relative to the density of the impacting emission”.  

The third is that although the Universe is infinite in distance and duration (space and time), it’s finite in its construction possibilities.


Stephen:

Thanks for the three comments, which allow me to expound further on some important points that Steve Puetz and I have previously discussed in UCT.

1.    First, the four forces of physics do not exist. That is because force, like momentum, energy, and space-time, is a matter-motion term. Matter-motion terms represent calculations that we perform in physics to help us understand matter and the motion of matter. Thus, the so-called “four forces” (gravity, electromagnetism, weak, and strong) really should be renamed the “four pseudoforces.” All forces describe the same activity: one microcosm hits another microcosm (F=ma). The reason the four pseudoforces got to be so popular is because the univironment in which these motions of matter occur is thought to be devoid of a macrocosm. When your surroundings are empty space or an immaterial field, you have nothing, that is, “no thing,” to produce the behaviour being attributed to that mysterious force. Regressive physicists, like other indeterminists, love this stuff. May the force be with them!
2.    In UD, we call this complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things). Thus, your first law actually works both ways. Things come into being via convergence; things go out of being via divergence (as expressed by the Second Law of Thermodynamics). Strictly speaking, I believe that your “emission” idea is the same as our neomechanical idea (TSW, neomechanics chapter). Both matter and the motion of matter may be emitted from one microcosm to be absorbed by another. Here is an example of the absorption of emitted motion:

Note that the internal motion within this microcosm has increased as a result. Similarly, the physical admittance of a supermicrocosm (emitted from somewhere else in the infinite universe) would increase the density of the microcosm. In addition, as we showed in UCT, vortex motion accelerates the concentration and density of microcosms, slowing their external linear motion by converting it into rotational motion. This produces some of the “stability” that you mentioned as the property of all structures.
3.    You say that the universe is finite in its construction possibilities. By this, I assume that you mean that some constructions are impossible, not that there is or will be an end to new, still to be realized constructions. Or as I have written: there are an infinite number of possibilities, but not a single impossibility (see: http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2012/06/does-infinite-universe-theory-mean-that.html).

2 comments:

Glenn Borchardt said...

From Stephen Mooney:

Glenn Borchardt,

I’ve developed two new laws of the Universe. The first states that “all bodies are attracted through the absorption of emission, with the greater the emission of a body the less its absorption capacity.” The second states that “the stability of matter is relative to the density of the impacting emission.”

My Physicalist perspective of the Universe has lead to my invention of the Typology of Science. Presently I’m writing an essay introducing the Typology. This is being progressively posted as a follow-up to an essay called “Right on Time (A brief history of a modern understanding of the fundamental nature of the Universe)”. This is located at http://home.spin.net.au/paradigm/time.pdf
So far the Typology has generated the fact that stars have 7 types and are constructed over 11 main stages, and that there are 29 transuranium elements when only 26 have been discovered by the conventional means of Science. New discoveries are emerging every day as I pursue the application of the Typology.

Yours,

Stephen Mooney

Mooney300@gmail.com

Glenn Borchardt said...

Comment 20140301 Mooney

Stephen:

Thanks for the comment. Glad to see that you are still working on Infinite Universe Theory. I disagree with your first law (“all bodies are attracted through the absorption of emission, with the greater the emission of a body the less its absorption capacity”) and agree with the second (“the stability of matter is relative to the density of the impacting emission”), with reservations.

Law No. 1
Sorry, but there is no such activity as “attraction.” There is no evidence for it, and there never will be. What we interpret as attraction is simply convergence per Newton’s First Law of Motion. Thus the suction or “attraction” produced by the vacuum cleaner is a result of macrocosmic (environmental) changes (air pressure reduction) that allow atmospheric air (and dirt) to move in a particular direction (where there is less air). The upshot is that the word “attraction” and its microcosmic implications should never be used in physics.

As I explained in "The Scientific Worldview," attraction, like the finite universe of the Big Bang Theory, is one of the archetypes of today’s systems philosophy. As in pre-Copernican times, it essentially involves a microcosmic mistake, the overemphasis of the microcosm and neglect of the macrocosm. Remember that the correct scientific philosophy is univironmental determinism, the observation that what happens to a portion of the universe is determined by the infinite matter in motion within and without. Whether a body (microcosm) emits or absorbs motion is a result of univironmental interactions. The second part of your first law is not necessarily true. A microcosm that has emitted motion within a particular macrocosm can just as easily absorb motion when the macrocosm changes.

Law No. 2
Your second law “the stability of matter is relative to the density of the impacting emission” needs to be rewritten. “Impacting” and “emitting” are opposites. Thus I do not really know what you mean, but I will guess: Matter or the motion of matter emitted from one microcosm can be absorbed by another microcosm. In other words, what is an emission from one microcosm can be an impact upon another. I imagine that your “impacting emission” is the same or similar to the light from distant stars that produces gravitation in Schroeder’s (2006) push theory or flowing aether particles that produce gravitation in Shaw’s (2012) push theory. In either case, you seem to be reaching out toward a more univironmental understanding of the relationship between the stability of matter and its surroundings. Steve and I carried out such a program in our recent book (Puetz and Borchardt, 2011) and in our short paper on the cause of gravitation (Borchardt and Puetz, 2012). As you imply, the integrity of matter is dependent on the density of the aether that impacts it from all sides. Because aether-1 pressure varies from place to place throughout the universe, the size, density, and stability of microcosms will vary, depending on where they are at any particular time.

References

Borchardt, Glenn, and Puetz, Stephen J. , 2012, Neomechanical gravitation theory ( http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6529.pdf ), in Volk, G., 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.

Puetz, Stephen J., and Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Universal cycle theory: Neomechanics of the hierarchically infinite universe: Denver, Outskirts Press ( www.universalcycletheory.com ), 626 p.

Schroeder, Paul, 2006, The universe is otherwise (http://www.booksurge.com/The-Universe-Is-Otherwise-External-Gravitation/A/1419632310.htm), BookSurge Publishing, 198 p.

Shaw, Duncan W., 2012, The cause of gravity—a concept: Physics Essays, v. 25, no. 1, p. 66-75.

Post a Comment

Thanks so much for your comment. Be sure to hit "Preview" to see if it will publish correctly. Then hit "Publish". Include your email address if you wish to receive copies of your comment as well as all other published comments to this Blog.

For those having trouble getting this comment section to work:

Nitecruzr writes:

[FAQ] Why can't people post comments on my blog?

The Blogger / Google login status, and the ability to post comments, is sensitive to both cookie and script filters. Your readers may need to enable (stop filtering) "third party cookies", in their browser and on their computer. The effects of the newly unavoidable CAPTCHA, and the Google "One account" login, requires third party cookies, even more than before.

http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/11/the-google-one-account-login-and-cookie.html

http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/10/comments-and-cookie-filters-october-2014.html

http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/10/the-new-commenting-captcha-is.html

Third party cookies filtering, in a browser setting, is the most common solution, overall - but your readers may have to search for other filter(s) that affect their use of Blogger / Google.

Any filters are subject to update, by the creator. If the problem started a few days ago, your readers may have to look on their computers, and find out what product or accessory was updated, a few days ago.

http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/01/almost-nobody-controls-their-own.html