Definition of Matter, Existence, Reality, and Fields
A Discussion with Captain Bligh (CB:), who says:
I don't know when I will get through all the past blog entries, but do you ever define Matter?
[GB: Matter is defined as that which contains other matter, ad infinitum. You also have to realize that matter is an abstraction, just like “fruit.” You can never eat “fruit,” you can only eat an apple or an orange, etc. Because the universe is infinite per the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions), each microcosm contains submicrocosms, and these submicrocosms contain subsubmicrocosms, ad infinitum. In addition, each microcosm exists within a “macrocosm” (its surroundings) filled with “supermicrocosms,” which are similarly infinitely differentiable as well as infinitely integrable. All microcosms have xyz dimensions and location with respect to other microcosms. Per the Ninth Assumption, relativism, no two portions of the universe are identical. Any other “definition” of matter will be confusing, because that would require an indeterministic belief in finity. That is our definition of “existence” and of “reality.”]
CB: Agree! I assume matter means something real, like the field?
[GB: Fields were considered by Einstein as being “immaterial,” so it is interesting that you would use them as an example of reality. I happen to agree with you that fields are real, that is, material, not immaterial. In other words, gravitational and magnetic fields must contain tiny microcosms (aether-1 particles?) that produce the effects we observe.]
CB: We agree! Particles are a particular problem. I assume that the field is wave energy, but can form particles.
[GB: No. The particles we observe are aether-1 complexes. They are not a problem unless you are an aether denier who must then imagine the universe exploding out of nothing via BS concepts such as “quantum fluctuations” or “virtual particles.” Waves require a medium through with they travel (e.g., water, air, etc.). Before Einstein mucked it up, that was taken for granted. A field is not wave energy. A field is a medium, most likely consisting of aether-1 particles through which waves travel. Waves do not form particles, waves simply occur in a medium containing particles. The particulate nature of a medium is noticed when individual particles within a wave contact ordinary matter (e.g., Photoelectric Effect, etc.). Remember that energy does not exist. Energy is a calculation describing the motion of matter. ]
CB: As I said before, I like to stay as close to the others in these descriptive terms, so Q fluctuations, virtual particles are merely ways to try and describe certain things. We agree that the aether IS the medium. I consider the medium to be a wave property form of energy. The real problem is that you seem to have matter doing "stuff" as a motion. Well, motion, action, and energy are equivalent descriptive words for matter in motion. Granted that matter can exist in positive or negative forms, unless you deny Dirac's work, but in any case the aether or field does change when cause and effect happen. Since I have not mentioned (I think) the neutral aspect to the field, I can see why your "matter" is slightly different than my "matter."
[GB: I understand your reluctance to give up long-standing indeterministic concepts invented by aether deniers who thus had no other choice. Do not be afraid to give up silly stuff such as “virtual particles.” They might come back to bite you in the end. There are no virtual particles. Particles either are particles or they are not. Aether particles form baryonic particles. The transformation can occur in reverse, so the word virtual (Webster: “very close to being something without actually being it”) had to be used, when “aether” had to be considered “nothing.” To see how silly all this is, see our review of the latest travesty, Krauss’s “Universe from Nothing.”
Yes, indeed, I do consider matter “doing stuff” as motion, although I would not put it that way (i.e., “stuff” is matter). You are correct that “action” is motion. Energy, however, is not. That is why there is so much confusion over it, especially when the described motion involves aether.]
CB: I tend to use bosons as dynamics in the field.
[GB: Bosons are probably not real. In any case, this newly formed accelerator rubble is said to have a mean lifetime of only 10-22 seconds and is 250,000 times the mass of an electron. The boson is a strange candidate for “giving mass to matter,” since it is not a constituent of matter, but external to it.]
CB: Again, "boson" is descriptive of an oscillation motion, action, or energy, in the aether. I think it wonderful that the standard model can be explained by the Mexican Hat effects happening in the field or "ether." I accept that theoretical explanation as perhaps true. Who knows?
[GB: The best I can figure out, the boson is yet another of the half dozen ridiculous attempts to recognize that space contains matter without mentioning the A-word (aether). Check out my blog on the god particle and the extensive comments by henk.]
CB: No need to since we are in agreement about those things. Like Time, and Gravity. Gravity is only a secondary effect. It, like inertia, is a field effect. Not a real thing at all using forces and field energies as real.
[GB: Sorry, but gravitation is by no means a “secondary” effect. All baryonic (ordinary) matter is affected by and requires gravitation, which is produced by differences in aether-1 pressure. Gravitation is indeed a field effect. It is not a “real thing,” it is the motion of real things. Again, forces and energies are not real. They are matter-motion terms we use for the calculations in physics that describe the motion of things.]
CB: Glenn, an "ether pressure" sounds awfully like an energy form to me. :)
[GB: Pressure is produced by the collisions of particles. As with all the motions of matter, we can use energy calculations to describe these collisions (e.g., ½mv2, etc.), but that does not turn pressure into energy.]
CB: My explanation allows the field to form matter (in two opposite attributes matter and anti-matter and to allow the matter to not sit there in space but to move. KE to some. Mass is present (from the field) and when present it (mass) in the field is automatically attracted to itself. Viola! Gravity. The field holds the mass in place relative to itself and that is Inertia! So, gravity and inertia are effects of field-matter relationship. This makes it so much simpler, if you can accept a neutral field, where there is no matter. This neutral status is potential. It is like a battery. Balanced positive and negative aspects of the field. I think I picked this up from Bohm's ideas. You do not deny the two aspects to the aether/field do you?
[GB: I disagree with almost all of this. There is no “anti-matter.” Remember that matter has xyz dimensions, so anti-matter is an oxymoron. There is no attraction. There is no such thing as a portion of the universe “where there is no matter.” If you read our NGT paper, you will see that we agree with your statement that “gravity and inertia are effects of [the] field-matter relationship,” providing that by field, you include aether particles.]
CB: I am thinking you are suggesting particles like (God Forbid) string theory. So, clarify for me or tell me which blog entry addresses this.
[GB: George, forbid away and get help from anyone you can imagine. Theories dealing with more than three dimensions are simply mathematical hocus-pocus. They may be nice mental games, but they can have no application to reality. It is true that they do serve as wonderful illustrations of the kind of stuff one can get published just by adhering to the indeterministic assumptions of the funders. I mentioned my opinion of String Theory back in 2009.]
CB: We agree, along with Smolin that string theory goes nowhere. Where in the world would the aether/field be that allows string to vibrate/oscillate in?
[GB: Agree, agree. Isn’t it amazing that such crackpot ideas involving more than 3 dimensions actually are taken seriously, while the mere mention of the word “aether” provokes mainstream hilarity and rigorous censorship?]
 Krauss, Lawrence Maxwell, 2012, A universe from nothing : why there is something rather than nothing: New York, Free Press. (Check out Rick’s wonderful critique at: http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2012/06/dutkiewicz-blasts-krauss-interview-on.html .)
 Borchardt, Glenn, and Puetz, S.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.