Writing for the Progressive Science Institute

Blog 20160413 Writing for the Progressive Science Institute

Occasionally, we get inquiries from aspiring writers who wish to write for PSI. Some wish to have us review their work. So I thought it was time that I presented some guidelines for those interested in doing that.

Guest bloggers generally are members of PSI who have demonstrated their understanding of "The Ten Assumptions of Science”[1] (TTAOS), univironmental determinism, and neomechanics.[2]  Usually, they have asked astute questions and commented appropriately on this Blog site. Writing is thinking, so you must be thinking about the “big questions” addressed here. Not only that, but you must be thinking along lines that show you are firmly grounded on the fundamental assumptions that we use. Transgressing any one of them generally gets the circular file, whether in the first paragraph or the last.

For example, regressive scientists often write about what I call “matterless motion,” a concept that is a clear violation of the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion). We just saw a demonstration of that with recent claims about the LIGO experiment detecting gravitational waves that purportedly “compressed and expanded empty space.” The experiment proved, instead, that there is an aether and that gravitation is a push, not a pull.

Do not get me wrong, I love speculation as much as anyone, but I try to adhere to univironmental speculation. That is what Steve Puetz and I did aplenty in "Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe,”[3] discovering the physical cause of gravitation in the process.[4] We need more investigations like that, even if we cannot afford high-priced instruments to prove our univironmental predictions. We may as well get those predictions out there as soon as possible—the window of opportunity will close in a few decades. Regressive physics and cosmogony will not be with us forever. The end is near, particularly, with books like Steve Bryant’s “Disruptive” pointing out that relativity is riddled with critical math errors and completely unnecessary.

That is our mission: To get rid of relativity and the Big Bang Theory. I explained where PSI fits into this quest in Blog 20160210. The jist of that puts us on the progressive side of the philosophical spectrum that purports to be “scientific.” It looks like this:

Progressive     Reformist     Regressive

As progressives, we are only a tiny fraction of that spectrum. Remunerated physicists and cosmogonists in the mainstream seem to be on the regressive side—they actually do believe that Einstein is right and that the universe started with a big bang. Of the 8,000 dissidents who cannot stomach relativity or quantum mechanics,[5] most appear to be reformists. That is, they dislike some parts of those theories, but wish to retain other parts. Like agnostics in general, reformists tend to mix deterministic and indeterministic fundamental assumptions, coming up with a hodgepodge that often is not much better than the unbelievable regressive theories.

Note that in Blog 20150909 I compiled a list of neomechanical impossibilities that you might want to avoid while writing for PSI. On the other hand, we greatly encourage writers to explore what I call the neomechanical possibilities, as mentioned in Blog 20150916.

All in all, writing about the foibles of regressive physics and cosmogony is great fun. You do not have to be a physicist or cosmologist, just an expert on TTAOS. Even a rock star like Rick Dutkiewicz can poke the big bang giant with some telling arrows. Check out his Blog 20120620 chastising a book entitled “A Universe From Nothing.” The author, famous cosmogonist Lawrence Krauss, wrote of matter fluctuating in and out of existence. In response, Rick’s best line was “I think his reasoning has random fluctuations of insanity.” I hope you can do as well.

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

[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 2007, The scientific worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 411 p.

[3] Puetz, Stephen J., and Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Universal cycle theory: Neomechanics of the hierarchically infinite universe: Denver, Outskirts Press, 626 p.

[4] Borchardt, Glenn, and Puetz, Stephen J., 2012, Neomechanical gravitation theory, in Volk, G., ed., Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 19th Conference of the NPA, 25-28 July: Albuquerque, NM, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, p. 53-58. [10.13140/RG.2.1.3991.0483]

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.




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.