20131211

Nature of Infinity


A letter from reader Dean Steeves:

Glenn:

First off, I would like to purchase a copy of your book “The Scientific Worldview” Please let me know how I can do so.

[GB: Best is to go to the PSI website ( www.scientificphilosophy.com ), where you can scroll down to see the various options at prices between $6 (iUniverse ebook) and $33.26 (hardcover). For the paperback or Kindle version just click on:


Second off, one of your statements I read on your blog site if I grasped it correctly is that you believe the universe is INFINITE.

Question:

When you say infinite do you mean infinite in linear size i.e. DIMENSIONALLY UNLIMITED or do you mean infinite in the sense of ETERNAL i.e. NEVER ENDING time (motion) wise or do you mean BOTH or NEITHER?

Thank you,
Dean

[GB: My conception of infinity comes from the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). Although various thinkers have assumed microcosmic infinity (e.g., Aristotle) or macrocosmic infinity (e.g., Newton) on occasion, this is the only form of infinity that is logically consistent, being independent of scale. An infinite universe, of course, has no beginning and will have no end, although each part of it always has a beginning and will have an end.]

DS: Are not you really referring to TRANSFORMATION HERE since energy (matter and motion) including what you call part can never be created nor destroyed.

[GB: What I mean by “parts” here are xyz portions of the universe, which have locality with respect to other portions of the universe. In "The Scientific Worldview"[1] (TSW) I call them “microcosms,” with the implication that each of them has an environment I call a “macrocosm.” You are right, according to the Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation, that matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed. Thus each microcosm consists of submicrocosms that join as a result of convergence. No matter or the motion of matter is harmed in the process. BTW: I consider energy to be a calculation rather than a thing or a motion. It simply is a description of matter in motion. Thus, energy neither exists nor occurs. What exists is the matter and what occurs is the motion of that matter. I think you get that, since you used matter and motion as well. Many folks seem to think that energy is matterless motion, per Einstein.       

 All things, except the infinite universe itself, come into being via convergence and go out of being via divergence per complementarity, the Sixth Assumption of Science. Even if one did believe all that nonsense about a pre-existing “singularity” being triggered into an explosion by a “quantum fluctuation,” the Big Bang Theory would be an especially strange cosmogony. In the real world, we create things by bringing their various parts together, not by blowing them apart.]

DS:  I do not believe it ever happened. To me it’s not what you see is what you get, it’s what you see HAS ALWAYS BEEN, ALWAYS WILL BE and ALWAYS REMAINS THE SAME relative to how it works. Some people call it God, I just call it ENERGY (matter and motion).

[GB: We seem to agree that the Big Bang never happened. WYSIWYG is often useful, but here, the “remains the same” part is clearly not WYSIWYG. According to the universal mechanism of evolution, univironmental determinism, every microcosm in the universe is continually in motion, changing via exchanging matter and the motion of matter with its macrocosm.]

DS: Agreed in principle with the awareness that the bringing together is in fact a RECONCILIATION of what appears to be opposing forces such as for example centrifugal and centripetal. IMO creation is the PROCESS of overcoming the appearance of resistance? In other words, energy (matter and motion) exists in a perpetual state of DUALITY that in appearance can seem/feel like opposition; however, once the duality is RECONCILED then SUBSTANCE emerges. PRESTO, we have our FINITE UNIVERSE.  This to me is the process called creation.

[GB: Actually, there really are no “forces,” opposing or otherwise (i.e., even regressive physicists admit that centrifugal and centripetal motions are “pseudo” forces). Force, F=ma, is a calculation describing the collisions between microcosms. What brings them together is simply their inertial motions as described by Newton’s First Law. The “creation” of baryonic matter from aether-1 particles occurs when those normally high-speed particles are forced out of their normally linear motion into vortex motion via collisions with the macrocosm. As in the atomic model, the aether particles may continue to travel in circles at high velocities just as electrons do around the nucleus. Also, like the atom, the resulting aether vortex (e.g., electron) travels at much lower velocities. This process is similar to the “roundup” that cowboys use to slow the herd for the night. As with aether, it is as if we were unable to see the cattle when they were moving linearly at high speed, and then, we were suddenly able to see them when their circular motion forced them into a vortex with little, if any lateral motion. This “creation of matter from aether” theory was further developed in my E=mc2 paper[2] and our Neomechanical Gravitation Theory paper.[3]

So you can see that the formation of baryonic matter is in tune with your statement about conservation of matter and motion as well as our assumption of infinity. On the other hand, we do not propose an “opposition” between matter and motion. Check out our Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion). The essence is that motion is what matter does. Motion is not “part” of the universe; it is what various parts do. Matter has xyz dimensions and motion does not. Nonetheless, the objectification of motion has been ever popular. It was one of the reasons that Einstein’s indeterminism was so readily accepted.[4]

After reading "The Scientific Worldview," you may wish to read "Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe"[5] to get further details and their implications. Among the most important is our conclusion that the infinite universe has no largest structure, just as it has no smallest structure. Infinity implies that solid matter and empty space are only ideas. Reality always exists between these two idealizations. Nonexistence is impossible. Whenever one asks: Where did this or that thing come from? The answer in the infinite universe always is: From somewhere else. The infinite universe always has a good deal of passing of the buck, necessarily circular reasoning, and the requirement that the correct assumptions are necessary for understanding it.]





[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2007, The scientific worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein ( http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/The%20Scientific%20Worldview.html
 ): Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 411 p.


 ): Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, v. 6, no. 1, p. 27-31.


[3] 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.


[4] Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Einstein's most important philosophical error, in Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 18th Conference of the NPA, 6-9 July, 2011 (http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5991.pdf
), College Park, MD, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, p. 64-68.


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



No comments:

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