Regressive physics, reform, and progressive physics in relation to the eventual demise of the Big Bang Theory

Blog 20160210 Regressive physics, reform, and progressive physics in relation to the eventual demise of the Big Bang Theory

Regressive Physics

Astute readers know that the Big Bang Theory could not have arisen without the help of regressive physics. I define “regressive physics” as the indeterministic step backward that physics underwent at the beginning of the 20th century. This resulted in some fanciful indeterministic interpretations leading to all manner of paradoxes and contradictions that persisted despite numerous falsifications. As early as 1913, Sagnac showed that light was not a particle in the classical sense, but that it was a wave in the aether.[1] Einstein's particle had miraculous properties leading to the various contradictions. Nonetheless, believers want to believe. At PSI we dismiss relativity outright due to its objectification of motion.[2]

Reformism in Physics

The regression was so powerful because its underlying indeterministic assumptions were accepted by the populace. I doubt that there is a physics course anywhere that does not mention relativity in anything but favorable terms. Its contradictions remain, however, bedeviling critical thinkers across the globe. So much so that folks have proposed hundreds of theories that would handle particular contradictions in one way or another.[3] De Climont’s list contains the names of over 8,000 dissident scientists opposed to aspects of relativity and quantum mechanics since 1905. He counts over 550 alternative theories about aether. No wonder the press has trouble highlighting any one of them.

I classify many of these theories as “reformist,” a type of theory that rejects some aspects of the regression but still accepts other aspects. One other characteristic of reformism is the general lack of a set of consupponible fundamental assumptions. I can quickly spot a reformist theory just by reading the first few sentences. For instance, some reformists seem to think, along with Einstein, that time (motion) can dilate and that the universe is 4-dimensional. Some are aether deniers and others think that energy (a calculation) actually exists. True, many reformist theoreticians have interesting analyses involving recalculations and new interpretations. But the fact there are so many different theories just goes to show that mixing a little determinism with a little indeterminism is not especially productive.

Progressive Physics

By now, readers of this Blog and of the PSI website should know what progressive physics is all about. We follow univironmental determinism, the assumption that what happens to a portion of the universe is determined by the infinite matter in motion within and without. The overthrow of a major paradigm such as the Big Bang Theory cannot be accomplished without replacing its fundamental assumptions. All our analyses adhere strictly to "The Ten Assumptions of Science,"[4] which are, in most cases, the deterministic opposites of the indeterministic assumptions that underlie Special Relativity Theory, General Relativity Theory, and the Big Bang Theory. Following those assumptions, our analyses leave little doubt that those theories are headed for the garbage bin of history.

[1] Sagnac, Georges, 1913a, The demonstration of the luminiferous aether by an interferometer in uniform rotation: Comptes Rendus, v. 157, p. 708–710.

---, 1913b, On the proof of the reality of the luminiferous aether by the experiment with a rotating interferometer: Comptes Rendus, v. 157, p. 1410–1413.

[2] 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, College Park, MD, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, p. 64-68. [10.13140/RG.2.1.3436.0407]

[4] Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The ten assumptions of science: Toward a new scientific worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p.


George Coyne said...

“Sagnac interference” definitely falsified Special Relativity Theory.

Doug Marett (2012) provides a good explanation of how this Sagnac effect contradicts relativity. His article concludes:

“It is often argued that the predictions of Special and General Relativity have been continuously verified and that therefore the theory is unquestionable. However, other theories, such as Lorentz ether theories modified to take into account gravitational effects, can also make similar claims. There are in fact multiple mathematical routes by which a correct prediction can be arrived at, but these theories may imply very different interpretations of what our physical reality is. And this is at the heart of what is wrong with the theory of relativity – it may make successful predictions based on math, but implies a nature of time and space which are not only inconsistent with logic and reason, but are even contradictory/”


Westmiller said...

GB writes:
"The overthrow of a major paradigm such as the Big Bang Theory cannot be accomplished without replacing its fundamental assumptions."

I agree with 95% of your assumptions, but I don't think it's possible to "overthrow" incorrect assumptions by reference to logical contradictions or incoherence alone. When empirical facts from valid experiments can be shown to refute "regressive" assumptions, then people will notice and reconsider.

That's my approach: take the experimental "proofs" of false theories and demonstrate why the facts conflict with the purported conclusions. For example, GPS doesn't prove relativity theory because that theory has nothing to do with the actual operation of the system.

If "assumptions are just choices and none can be proven", as you indicate, then experimental facts are irrelevant and cannot justify one choice or the other ... even if one of the choices seems intuitively absurd.

I'm not minimizing your contribution: it's important to demonstrate logical contradictions on purely philosophical grounds. I agree with (nearly) all of your arguments for why certain assumptions are consistent and coherent. But, I don't think people will accept them until they've reviewed the facts, established by scientific experiment, and concluded that reality is consistent with your assumptions.

Physicist Steven Bryant takes a different approach, which is to show that the mathematical analysis of experimental results are invalid, either because of a misrepresentation of the variables or improper use of functions. That too is important and valuable. However, if the math is wrong, but it still produces useful approximations, users are not likely to totally reject the theory itself.

It's a psychological issue too. As long as indeterminism is easy, fun, and profitable, most people will adopt it as the "best theory".

Glenn Borchardt said...

Bill, you wrote: "If "assumptions are just choices and none can be proven", as you indicate, then experimental facts are irrelevant and cannot justify one choice or the other ... even if one of the choices seems intuitively absurd."

Sorry, but that is not true. We assume that "there are material causes for all effects," but we cannot completely prove that without finding the cause for all effects, which is impossible. The reason we choose that impossible to prove assumption, is that it works.

You write that "As long as indeterminism is easy, fun, and profitable, most people will adopt it as the "best theory". Unfortunately, this is true even though it is of little use in real science.

joogabah said...

As a hypothetical support for acknowledging "assumptions", imagine Nick Bostrom's assertion that if humans are capable of creating virtual reality that is indistinguishable from actual reality at any point in our future, then we are most certainly already living in a simulation. That alone was enough to move me from "atheist" to "agnostic". We live in a pivotal moment in human history. Is it likely that we just happened to be born right at that moment, or that it is important for some reason as part of an historical simulation that perhaps new humans undergo as a form of schooling prior to being admitted into a society with a technological prowess so advanced that it is dangerous to give access to new personalities without subjecting them to an all immersive experience of what humanity does to itself absent certain values.

Brings a whole new meaning to being "saved" - as in control-s.

He who endures until the end... ;)

Even religion can find possible interpretations in a materialist context.

Glenn Borchardt said...

Sorry joogabah, but this life definitely is not a simulation. If it were, you would have been given proper instructions on how to perform. I have heard of this idea of living in a simulation before. It makes no sense to me. I am trying to understand why anyone would want to abandon reality for some willy-nilly simulation. I suppose it results from a disappointment about what this life offers. Remember that life is beautiful and that it only lasts for a few microseconds. You need to get a grip. If you don't like your present "simulation" or whatever you call it, change your environment. Anything would be better than thinking you are living in a simulation. Remember that there are only two mistakes you can make in philosophy: fatalism and solipsism. In the first, you mistakenly believe that the macrocosm (your environment) controls you and in the second you mistakenly believe that you, a microcosm, control what happens to you. It actually is an interaction between both: univironmental determinism. Also, remember that religion assumes the opposite of materialism. Good luck with that.

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.




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.