Resolution of Paradoxes in Regressive Physics
Dear Dr. Borchardt,
From the information presented in World Science Database I would appreciate the opportunity to interact with you. Presented below is a sketch of the approach I’m utilizing in trying to comprehend some of the conceptual enigmas associated with contemporary science. I have labeled these enigmas “Pivotal Concepts”.
From “Snakes In a Box” to Pivotal Concepts
As a young kid my Uncles told me that my Grandfather had found two snakes eating each other. Each had the other’s tail in its mouth. He placed them in a secure box and when he opened the box the next day, it was empty. The snakes had eaten each other! Try as hard as I could, I could not visualize how it could have happened. But it had to be true, my trusted Uncles had told me.
I entered college with the same faith in my professors and encountered concepts, i.e. snakes in a box, such as the dual nature of light that I could not reconcile. Later, an acquaintance asked: “Why do you think you are wrong and are just unable to grasp such foundational concepts?” From that point my quest has become to understand: What is the structure of the Universe that makes our laws and theories useful? This approach is somewhat different than trying to disprove a theory.
Listed below are some “Snakes in a Box”, now designated Pivotal Concepts. Explanations for observations upon which they are based have been developed.
1. Matter and energy are inter-convertible, i.e. E0 = m0c2.
2. The speed of light c is independent of the relative motion of the source and observer.
3. Light is both a wave and a particle – the dual nature of light.
4. A light signal traveling in a vacuum at c undergoes a reduction in speed when it enters a transparent medium, but resumes the speed c upon exit back into the vacuum. Explanation also accounts for photon drag.
5. Regardless of the intensity of a source, the velocity of energy released never exceeds c, and the electromagnetic radiation component from a source only occurs at c. This requires that the mediation of energy may go from zero to c when radiation is emitted and vice versa when the absorption of radiation occurs.
6. In the area of optics, signal transmission may be represented by rays, which may change directions, be divided, and recombined.
7. When two rigid bodies collide, i.e. an elastic collision, equal quantities of momentum are exchanged.
Please visit http://www.pivotalconceptsinscience.com for my approach to explaining pivotal concepts based on ultimate components. It has been a lone venture and I would appreciate your input. An expanded version of The Ultimate Components from that presented in Pivotal Concepts is available @ <http://www.researchgate.net> under William Blackmon.
Thanks so much for the great list of regressive paradoxes. I liked your snake anecdote—sort of like the “snipe hunt” trick we used to play on newbies. You wait all night along the trail holding the bag to catch the snipe. Only one problem, there will be no snipe. Just goes to show that there is a sucker (baby) born every minute. Fortunately, naïve indeterminism tends to disappear with experience.
Paradoxes occur because one or more of their underlying assumptions is incorrect. One of the best examples is Olbers’ Paradox, which concludes that the universe is finite because, otherwise the night sky would not be dark at night. An infinite number of stars eventually would light the sky at every point. As in many paradoxes, the false assumption upon which that paradox is based is highly idealistic: it assumes that the space between those points is perfectly empty. This unprecedented assumption ignores the fact that nothing we know ever travels from point A to point B without being changed in the process. Today’s big bangers have added a new, equally idealistic and unprecedented twist, by assuming that space itself is expanding. Of course, there is no such thing as perfectly empty space. Otherwise the cosmic background radiation would yield a temperature of 0.0 degrees Kelvin. Instead, it is 2.7 K. Temperature is the motion of matter, so that proves that intergalactic space is by no means perfectly empty (see http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2012/08/paradox-resolution.html ).
Paradoxes are of major importance in regressive physics. Although they invariably indicate theoretical weaknesses generated by false assumptions, their existence is easily accepted by indeterminists who have become accustomed to similar contradictions in their religious lives. They provide mystery, amusement, and solace to those happy to see that the greatest minds are similarly plagued. It is a tough trade-off: Resolve the paradox, but give up the long-held indeterministic assumption on which it is based. For regressive physicists, it is the ultimate Faustian bargain.
Your list gives me a chance to review some of the major contradictions in physics today: ]
1. Matter and energy are inter-convertible, i.e. E0 = m0c2. [GB: As I have explained (http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2014/01/neomechanics-of-massenergy.html ), this is false. In short, energy is only a calculation and cannot possibly be equal to mass. It is true that the mass of an object increases when it absorbs motion and decreases when it emits motion. The amount of matter remains unchanged.]
2. The speed of light c is independent of the relative motion of the source and observer. [GB: This is correct. Light is wave motion in the aether. Like all wave motion, light velocity is dependent on the characteristics of the medium. Thus, because it is not a particle, it is not accelerated by the motion of the source, as a particle would be. The measurement of light velocity, however, is partially dependent on the motion of the observer. For instance, you will encounter more waves sooner if you move your boat toward the source of water waves than if you remain motionless.]
3. Light is both a wave and a particle – the dual nature of light. [GB: False. Light is a wave in particles of aether. This is a paradox only to aether deniers.]
4. A light signal traveling in a vacuum at c undergoes a reduction in speed when it enters a transparent medium, but resumes the speed c upon exit back into the vacuum. Explanation also accounts for photon drag. [GB: As I mentioned, like all wave motion, the velocity of light is dependent on the medium. The particle density of the aether medium decreases when aether is crowded out by baryonic matter. This causes the velocity of light to diminish from 300,000 km/s in vacuum to 225,000 km/s in water. If light was a particle, such changes in velocity would require immense accelerations by unobserved magical forces. The velocity of sound in baryonic media also decreases with density—of the baryonic media. Thus the velocity of sound through steel is about 5,120 m/s, while it is 343 m/s in air. Being a wave and not a particle, the transition between the two does not involve deceleration. I cannot imagine what “photon drag” is, because photons do not exist, just as “soundons” do not exist.]
5. Regardless of the intensity of a source, the velocity of energy released never exceeds c, and the electromagnetic radiation component from a source only occurs at c. This requires that the mediation of energy may go from zero to c when radiation is emitted and vice versa when the absorption of radiation occurs. [GB: As explained above, this is exactly what would be expected if light were a wave and not a particle. Such sudden changes in velocity would be impossible for a particle.]
6. In the area of optics, signal transmission may be represented by rays, which may change directions, be divided, and recombined. [GB: These are all wave properties.]
7. When two rigid bodies collide, i.e. an elastic collision, equal quantities of momentum are exchanged. [GB: Partially correct. This is the indeterministic definition of Newton’s Third Law of Motion. Realize, however, that momentum is a calculation and that momentum neither exists nor occurs. All that exists is the colliding bodies and all that occurs is their motions.]
[GB: William: So you can see that we have a long way to go before we would reach agreement on most of these “pivotal concepts.” Even my co-author, Steve Puetz, took three months to finally agree that “time is motion.” Without that realization, we would never have written “Universal Cycle Theory.” BTW: If you should happen to find any paradoxes or contradictions in that book, we sure would like to know about it.]