Eventually, every theory
reaches its explanatory end. That is because the universe is infinite and no
statement about it or even a tiny portion of it can be completely definitive.
In these days of regressive physics and cosmogony, we face all manner of fanciful
and “cranky” add-ons. Well-meaning reformists hope to save relativity and
cosmogony by attempting to devise theoretical additions that will solve their
inherent intractable contradictions. As I have mentioned previously, this is
not unusual, because that is essentially how science works. To do science, we
must be on the lookout for contradictions. That is where cutting-edge science
is done.
For instance, if
meteorologists predict that it will snow tomorrow and it does not, they will
have a contradiction to resolve. Since nature is not contradictory, they will
have to review their observations and calculations to see what went wrong. Thus
if those calculations totally ignored wind speed, it would be a simple matter
of including it next time. Of course, there are an infinite number of reasons
for such a failure in prediction to occur. Some of the “add-ons” to
meteorological theory have become so sophisticated that the arrival of a
snowstorm sometimes can be predicted within a minute or two. We seldom need one-second
precision, so at that point we may consider the theory to be complete—until it
is not. The macrocosm is always in motion, so a theory that works today may not
work as well tomorrow, or next year, or next decade.
The approach described
above is the “ordinary science” of Kuhn.[1]
It normally does not involve “cranky” or “fanciful” add-ons. However, during
the anarchic period common to prerevolutionary times, things can get quite
interesting, if not crazy. Right now, there probably are thousands of cosmogonists
trying to figure out what “dark energy” and “dark matter” are. And, of course,
there are said to be over 8,000 dissidents hard at work attempting to fix the
contradictions in relativity and quantum mechanics.[2]
As I mentioned in the previous Blog, we are about to suffer through a few
decades of futility along those lines before relativity and the Big Bang Theory
come tumbling down.
So, how do we avoid cranky
add-ons to theory? The answer is quite simple: Stick fast to "The Ten
Assumptions of Science."[3]
And, as I have said many times, if you do not like those fundamental
assumptions, discover your own, following Collingwood’s[4]
criteria of course. At the present moment, one of the most important of these
assumptions is the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is
infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). That assumption
alone resolves the majority of today’s vexing contradictions. With this one
assumption, we can rule out many cranky and fanciful claims promoted by
regressives and reformists alike:
1.
That the universe is finite.
2.
That the universe is expanding.
3.
That light is a particle.
4.
That aether does not exist.
5.
That energy exists.
6.
That there are more than three dimensions.
7.
That matterless motion is possible.
8.
That finite particles exist.
Those are only a few of the
outrageous claims still being made today. If you included any one of them in
your attempt to resolve any part of the current regressive mess, you are sure
to fail.
There are many add-ons to
theory that may not appear to use any of the above but still might be
considered fanciful. For example, meteorologist Alfred Wegner started the plate
tectonics revolution in geology by emphasizing the fit between the coasts of
Africa and South America.[5]
That certainly was considered “cranky” at the time—it was not accepted for half
a century. Actually, the objections to it were cranky, being
based on the indeterministic assumption that there could be matter without
motion—a contradiction of the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability
(Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without
motion).
So how can we spot a truly
cranky add-on to theory? Generally speaking, cranky add-ons tend to be
elaborate violations of Occam’s Razor—the principle that the simplest solution
is the most desirable and the most likely to be correct. Here is an example:
Light is known to have
mostly T-waves, which are commonly a property of solids, such as iron or rocks.
Sound is known to have P-waves, which are commonly a property of gases. If one
treats light as purely a wave phenomenon, which it is, then one has a problem:
How could the aether transmit motion as a T-wave?
The cranky way to resolve
this is to insist that aether is nonetheless a solid. Various reformists have imagined
aether to be a mesh-like fabric that acts like a solid. The geometries of these
imagined fabrics can get supremely elaborate. The more highly structured they
become, the more unlikely they are to actually exist. In addition, like the “fixed”
aether of long ago, these attempts at portraying solidity essentially are
violations of inseparability. There can be no fixity for aether particles, just
like there was no fixity for the biological microcosms influenced by evolution
and the continents influenced by plate tectonics.
The not-so cranky way of
resolving the T-wave problem for light is quite simple: The aether particles
responsible for the transmission must be vortices. Vortices are common at large
scales, with the solar system, the Milky Way, and other mature galaxies being
obvious examples. It is then a small step to hypothesize that aether particles,
too, must be vortices.
Collisions between the relatively spherical nitrogen and oxygen molecules in air
are likely to produce the direct fore and aft motions responsible for the L-wave
transmission of sound. On the other hand, collisions between disc-shaped aether
particles are likely to produce the sideways motions mostly
responsible for the T-wave transmission of light. This hypothetical speculation
resolves the problem with a slight change in particle shape, for which there is
plenty of evidence among larger microcosms. It also does not violate the
principle that all microcosms in the infinite universe are constantly moving
with respect to all other microcosms.
[1] Kuhn, T.S., 1996, The
structure of scientific revolutions (3 ed.): Chicago, University of Chicago
Press, 212 p.
[2]de Climont, Jean, 2016, The worldwide list of
dissident scientists
[https://books.google.fr/books?id=KnzBDjnGIgYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=climont+dissident&hl=fr&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=climont%20dissident&f=true].
[3] Borchardt, Glenn,
2004, The ten assumptions of science: Toward a new scientific worldview:
Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p. [http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/].
[4] Collingwood, R.G.,
1940, An essay on metaphysics: Oxford, Clarendon Press, 354 p.
[5] Wegener, Alfred, 1912
[2011], The Origin of Continents and Oceans: New York, NY, Dover Publications,
272 p.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment