The Scientific Worldview

Mass and Temperature

2012-01-25T08:08:00.000-08:00

Bob de Hilster writes to NPA members:

I have long thought that mass did not change with velocity. Until I find a physical cause that explains how velocity changes mass, I am not convinced. Yet there are many people who are convinced that velocity does change mass.

About a year ago I was reading Glenn Borchardt’s book, “The Scientific World View”. On Page 139 he states: This increase in motion is measured as an increase in mass. For example, a hot teakettle has more motion and weighs more than a cold teakettle.” Well I’m not buying it!

So I sent Glenn an email and we exchanged more emails. I saw him at the NPA 18 conference in College Park MD, and I opened a discussion about this idea. Can heat or motion increase the value of mass? I was still of the opinion that mass does not increase. We ended cordially, agreeing on some vague concept of force.

Well it is one year later, and I have been having some dialog on the internet about mass increase with velocity. This got me back to Glenn’s statement. Then I had the idea that mass could increase because of thermal expansion rather than velocity.

Motion causes mass increase

Glenn’s book was saying that motion was the cause of mass increase. I could not make this work with the concept of gravity that I was using. My concept of inertia is that the instantaneous forces of gravity constantly cause the water molecule to accelerate and then decelerate in all directions. Inertia will keep the water molecules moving. The fact that they are moving faster will not increase the mass unless there is drag. That’s why I could not agree with his explanation.

Thermal Expansion

So I went to my physics book and found that objects expand when they are heated. What if the molecule of water expanded and gave a larger target for the force of gravity. Most text books indicate that it is the spacing between atoms that expand. Maybe it is the atom itself that is expanding. OK, now I am in deep trouble because I cannot prove this.

However the expansion occurs, if the percent of interaction increases, the mass will increase. I have an equation for the force of gravity. It includes mass and an interaction factor that calculates the percent of force that is applied as the gravity forces pass through an object. But which is it? Does the mass change or does the probability of the interaction increase?

We can test this idea here on earth and show that mass increases with temperature. But the answer still eludes us. In cosmological terms, we assign mass to the sun and the planets because of the relative motion. Whether there is a sun that is very hot or a moon that is very cold, doesn’t matter. We attribute a value of mass so that we can describe the motion of the planets around the sun.

Regardless, I am of the opinion that mass increases with temperature because of thermal expansion rather than motion (velocity).

Mass versus matter

Now I am in more trouble. I am going to say that mass is related to the interaction of the force of gravity with the object. If matter is the sum of all the atoms, then matter may not change when the tea kettle is heated, while the mass could change.

Bob:

Thanks for your perceptive thoughts on the reasons for the increase of mass with velocity.

Remember that the Fourth Assumption of Science is inseparability, “there can be no motion without matter and no matter without motion.” Contrary to Einstein, we assume that all matter has mass. Obviously, if we had zero mass, we would have zero motion and vice versa. The reason I put “connection” in quotes above is to reiterate that there is no “physical” connection between matter and motion or mass and temperature. This is because temperature, like motion in general, is not a microcosm. A microcosm has xyz dimensions and location with respect to other things. Temperature, like other types of motion, does not exist, it occurs. Temperature is not “part” of the universe, it is what the various parts do.

You mentioned force as if it was a thing. Force actually is a calculation, a matter-motion term. Force neither exists nor occurs. When we write: F=ma, we are writing a statement about the microcosm (m) and its motion (a). Despite the confusion engendered by regressive physics, there are no forces. There is only matter in motion. The “force” of gravity is a description of the collision of one type of microcosm with another. Indeterminists objectivise force (see: http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5991.pdf) because, like Einstein and other positivists and operationalists, they do not know what is doing the colliding. In UCT, Steve and I dispense with “force,” hypothesizing, instead, that aether_-1 particles are responsible for the gravitation most obvious to us. Giving up “force” makes us look for that which is doing the “forcing.”

Having gotten that out of the way, let’s return to temperature. The temperature of a microcosm describes the motion of its internal submicrocosms. When you touch a hot tea kettle, some of those submicrocosms collide with your skin, transferring some of their motion to your skin. If those submicrocosms were not in motion, you would never get burned. And, as mentioned, if those submicrocosms were not in motion, they would have no mass (because you cannot have matter without motion). Similarly, the microcosm itself would have no mass if its submicrocosms had no mass. This is why matter is defined in neomechanics as that which contains other matter, ad infinitum.

In elementary school, we have been taught (usually by indeterminists) that mass is unchangeable, but with matter in motion that is never the case. Einstein’s take on it was that mass could be converted to “pure energy,” when the E=mc² equation merely describes the transformation of one kind of the motion of matter into another kind of the motion of matter. The pure energy part of it came about because, in denying the aether, there was nothing to transfer the “lost” motion to. See: http://scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/The%20Physical%20Meaning%20of%20E%20=%20mc2.pdf

The mysterious “energy” just flipped into space as a wave in empty space or as a “massless” photon.

When we measure mass, we must weigh a microcosm in a gravitational field. Here, we depend on the collisions of aether_-1 particles with baryonic matter to produce the measurement that we call mass. There is no possibility for the object being measured to be isolated. The very act of measurement requires that the object be a microcosm, which by UD definition, always must have a macrocosm. In this case, the macrocosm includes the supermicrocosms (aether_-1 particles) necessary for the measurement to take place. The dynamic univironmental interaction between the microcosm and its macrocosm is anything but constant. That is why no two measurements of the mass of a particular microcosm are ever identical—mass is never constant. The collisions between aether particles and submicrocosms within microcosms produce accelerations and decelerations. For particularly “tight” microcosms this can result in an increase in internal temperature despite the usual leakage of some of the imparted motion to the macrocosm. In effect, this increased motion of the submicrocosms causes them to impact aether_-1 particles with increased velocity, which amounts to an increase in resistance. And that is exactly what mass is, the collidee’s resistance to a change in acceleration produced by a collider. The increased velocity of submicrocosms also can be observed as an increase in expansion, as the walls of the microcosm and the macrocosm yield to the impacts. Nevertheless, I don’t think that an expanded microcosm has more mass than a non-expanded one. If that were the case, a helium balloon would gain mass with altitude. The submicrocosmic cross section (the exposed area of the submicrocosms) would not change, so I doubt that there is any scientific evidence for that.

What many of us object to is Einstein’s assertion that an object at a high velocity would magically have more mass than the same object at low velocity. He gives no physical explanation, just some imaginative mathematics. Of course, he can’t give the physics because his assumed macrocosm is empty space. However, when space is filled with aether particles, a high-velocity microcosm must encounter more aether particles per unit of time than does a low-velocity microcosm. There are two effects experienced by the high velocity microcosm: 1) it tends to slow down due to the interaction with the macrocosm, just as the space shuttle slows down when it encounters the atmosphere on re-entry; 2) it heats up, expands, and gains mass as its submicrocosms are accelerated by the impacts, as explained above.

So, Bob, it looks like we are on the same page with regard to changes of mass with temperature. The number of atoms in a microcosm need not change to get an increase in mass—only their velocities.

Censorship in Regressive Physics

2012-01-18T08:00:00.000-08:00

As expected, we have had some recent negative critiques by various modern physicists on the Amazon website where UCT (see below for acronyms) is sold. So far, none has been substantial—mostly just complaints about TTAOS. These exchanges remind me of the one that was related by John Chappell as #3 in the founding principles of the NPA:

"#3 DO NOT ASSUME THAT IF SPECIAL RELATIVITY WERE INVALID, THIS FACT WOULD LONG AGO HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED WITHIN ESTABLISHMENT PHYSICS.

The reason it has not been is that almost everyone with a sufficiently bold and critical view of the subject to develop sound arguments against SR has not been allowed to flourish within the establishment. Great numbers of reliable accounts of such intolerance have been told.

One of the most recent comes from a new NPA member who, when doing graduate work in physics around 1960, heard the following story from his advisor: While working for his Ph.D. in physics at the University of California in Berkeley in the late 1920s, this advisor had learned that all physics departments in the U.C. system were being purged of all critics of Einsteinian relativity. Those who refused to change their minds were ordered to resign, and those who would not were fired, on slanderous charges of anti-Semitism. The main cited motivation for this unspeakably unethical procedure was to present a united front before grant-giving agencies, the better to obtain maximal funds. This story does not surprise me. There has been a particularly vicious attitude towards critics of Einsteinian relativity at U.C. Berkeley ever since. I ran into it in 1985, when I read a paper arguing for absolute simultaneity at that year’s International Congress on the History of Science. After I finished, the Danish chairman made some courteous remarks about dissidents he had learned about in Scandinavia, and then turned to the audience for questions. The first speaker was one of a group of about 4 young physics students in the back. He launched immediately into a horrible tirade of verbal abuse, accusing me of being entirely wrong in my analysis, a simplification of the Melbourne Evans analysis–”Evans is wrong; you are wrong,” he shouted. He accused me of being way out of line to present my “faulty” arguments on his prestigious campus. When I started to ask him “Then how would you explain…”, he loudly interrupted me with “I don’t have to explain anything.” The rest of the audience felt so disturbed by all this, that the question session was essentially destroyed."

The complete list of principles is at: http://www.worldnpa.org/site/principals/. They are still good advice 20 years later.

As far as I can tell, the story above still is an accurate reflection on the deplorable state of physics at UC Berkeley, "the world's greatest public university." This hits me pretty hard since I was a visiting prof there in 1990, founded PSI in Berkeley, used UC libraries for researching TSW, and announced its publication there on March 13, 2007. That was the day Hawking gave his talk on his briefer history of time. All 3,800 freshmen were given free copies of the book by some kindly benefactor. They were supposed to read it during the holidays and get ready for the great man himself. A splendid gang of suits from the university guided him into Dwinelle Hall. Unfortunately, due to the deplorable state of his health, the entire presentation was just a recording--I didn't see him move more than a centimeter. To his credit, the recording did spend some time stumbling over what came before the Big Bang. About the only thing I got out of the whole thing was his quote from Woody Allen: "Infinity is a very long time, especially near the end." The questions and answers were also canned, so I never got a chance to ask him about the contradiction between the BBT and the First Law of Thermodynamics. He was quickly hustled out of the auditorium, surrounded by guards, so I never got the chance to give him my signed copy of TSW either.

I think the key to all this is John's implication that, like Woodward and Bernstein, all we need to do is "follow the money." One does not simply go to a Congress of indeterminists with hat in hand along with opposing assumptions that eventually will destroy their cherished, mutually agreed upon cosmogony. We should not kid ourselves. The monetary corruption in the electoral system also extends to our great universities. It is all bought and paid for.

What is to be done? We must realize that the revolution proposed by TSW and UCT requires great macrocosmic changes in society, which will come about very slowly. My prediction is that the BBT will be viable for at least another 30 years (TSW, p. 290). Our logic and their logic are founded on opposing assumptions. To the indeterminist, our assumptions make no sense; they are "delusional," "unbelievable," "crazy," "pseudoscience," and still to come: "crackpot." Regressive physicists have already conquered the intellectual (and financial) territory; now they only have to defend it. That's why they commonly say such things as "I don't have to explain it!" and "I don't have to read your unbelievable book!" Most are just repeating what Berkeley stuffed in their heads. What we must do is to continually point out the contradictions:

1. How could the universe explode out of nothing?

2. How could there be more than 3 dimensions?

3. How can a thing or a motion be both a particle and a wave?

4. How can a photon be massless?

5. If time is not an object, how can it be said to dilate?

6. Add more here.

There will always be a few extremely curious, especially young physicists who are working on these contradictions. Like the graduate students who switched majors to something more believable, they will be the ones most likely to seek solutions outside the Ivory Tower.

References and Acronyms

TTAOS is:

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

TSW is:

Borchardt, G., 2007, The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein, Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 411 p.

Hawking, S. W., and Mlodinow, L., 2005, A briefer history of time, New York, Bantam Books.

UCT is:

Puetz, S. J., and Borchardt, G., 2011, Universal cycle theory: Neomechanics of the hierarchically infinite universe, Denver, Outskirts Press (www.universalcycletheory.com), 626 p.

Perpetual Motion Machines

2012-01-11T08:00:00.000-08:00

Thanks to Marty Samson for the link to the perpetual perpetual motion machine debate at: ( http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/54128-continuous-frictioned-motion-machine/ ).

This is just the same old, same old. You see only subtle hints about what is going on behind the scenes here. It is the old battle between the deterministic Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed) and its indeterministic opposite, creation. Energy, once again, is being used here as the great obfuscator. As I explained in my E=mc² paper, energy is a calculation, a matter-motion term that is neither matter nor motion. Indeterminists, ever hoping for evidence of the creation of something out of nothing, readily jump on the PMM (perpetual motion machines) idea.

Lately, it has been the quest for “free energy.” However, all reactions, as assumed above, involve the transformation of one kind of matter in motion to another kind of matter in motion. Any “energy” discovered under that assumption will be no freer than the solar “energy” that our plants absorb each day. As you will discover in reading "Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe," the macrocosm contains all manner of supermicrocosms (e.g., aether-1, etc.). These unseen particles have the potential to be involved in what many of our modern-day aether-deniers would consider “free energy” or contraventions of PMM. Of course, if it were not so obvious gravitational motion could be considered “free energy” too. What could be freer than the motion of a meteorite as it smashes any supposedly “isolated system” we could devise? Nonetheless, that possibly unexpected result would not be a falsification of conservation, the law that states that PMM cannot exist.

Scientism: Swear Words in the Philosophical Struggle

2012-01-04T08:00:00.000-08:00

Scientism, defined as the belief that science is the only way to true knowledge, is in the Internet news again ( http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/12/26/a-new-definition-of-scientism/ and http://machineslikeus.com/news/scientism-scientistic-belief and http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2011/12/a_follow-up_post_about_scienti.php?utm_source=sbhomepage&utm_medium=link&utm_content=channellink for the standard deterministic opposition). From time to time indeterminists have used this epithet as a borderline ad hominem in the philosophical struggle between determinism and indeterminism. Determinists assume that all effects have material causes; indeterminists assume that some effects may not have material causes.

The anti-science argument encapsulated by the derisive appellation had some validity in the days of classical mechanics and classical determinism. Their underlying assumption of finite universal causality engendered hubris that failed whenever the promised complete answers were not furnished. Laplace’s Demon was not able to predict a single effect with the absolute precision demanded.

I predict that the 21^st Century form of determinism will be harder to slander in this way. This is because it is based on infinite universal causality (All effects have an infinite number of material causes), which is consupponible with the assumption of infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). The hubris is removed with the equally consupponible assumption of uncertainty (It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is possible to know more about anything). Univironmental determinism (What happens to a portion of the universe is determined by the infinite matter within and without) is at once the universal mechanism of evolution as well as the new scientific worldview.

Great Letter from a Student Disgusted with Modern Physics

2011-12-28T07:07:00.000-08:00

This is a letter from Sasha Zivaljevic, a former physics student who switched to philosophy. He is responding to an email that Steve sent announcing our new book:

Mr. Puetz,

Thank you so much! This couldn't have come at a better moment, I literally just finished watching a fractal zoom on the order of e.214 [ http://vimeo.com/1908224?hd=1 ]. From the author's description, "a magnification of e.12 would increase the size of a particle to the same as the earths orbit! e.21 would make a particle look the same size as the milky way and e.42 would be equal to the universe." I was struck by the immensity of what e.214 could represent, and then your message arrived, and I saw it: the local mega-vortex!

Of course, this moment is not the ideal for that reason alone. I'm a student of physics and mathematics that recently changed major studies to philosophy. Forgive the boring details, but I'm compelled to express my disappointment and regret towards the scientific culture. I'm amazed at the level of dogma in physics today, which is in no doubt due to the complete blackout of education in philosophy for physicists (and I suspect, science in general). It's an intellectual death sentence to march forward without at least an awareness of the premises under which one works. Your mentioning of Kuhn's work, which I am familiar with, is a breath of fresh air. Truly, paradigm shifts are defined in large part by the premises (or scientific assumptions, ch.3) that get overturned, be they epistemological, metaphysical, etc. I had many conversations with professors and grad students; my anecdotal impression is that science is not simply ignorant of these things, science looks upon them with contempt.

In the past I was a computer science (engineering) student at a top 5 university. I went on to do software at a major laboratory, where I was exposed to all kinds of research, a lot of cool machines and a lot of very smart people from all around the world. I thought it was 'engineering culture' that bothered me, the focus on tangible results, ends over means, and so on. I quit my job after 3 years and returned to school, thinking physics (pure science) is what I was looking for. Unfortunately, upon my return, it was never clearer to me that our universities are recruiting grounds for these large entities like the national labs and military contractors. I don't mean to stir up political topics - but, seriously, how are we to pursue truth if our universities are infected by these kinds of interests?

Side note- even mathematics is affected by this! Not the political dimension, but the philosophical. Surprisingly, many mathematicians I met didn't understand or care about Godel's incompleteness theorems!! In addition, I recently read 'God Created the Integers' by Hawking, and it was fascinating to see the early geometers idea of what a number *is*. Numbers were symbolic representations of lengths. Negative numbers in themselves meant nothing; they only made sense in the context of subtraction (one length taken away from another). I like the modern example of so-called 'imaginary numbers' - as if we are forced to accept them for utilitarian purposes, but secretly we think "don't worry, they don't really exist, they're imaginary!", just as once we may have regarded negative numbers from such a perspective.

What struck me most profoundly out of the excerpt you sent is the idea that there are no extra-Euclidean dimensions. Even time is not considered a dimension. I'm so curious to read more about this and the consequences of such an idea!

Also interesting to me is the mention of the role of mathematics. Of course, mathematical feasibility is not enough to suggest that a particular mathematical model is the right one, but isn't it interesting how powerfully predictive mathematics can be (assuming the model is correct)? e.g. predictions made by the equations of special relativity that even Einstein thought were ridiculous (black holes, etc.). I often wonder about the extent to which mathematical truth can be used to infer truths about physical reality.

Sorry for the long email; I'll wrap up and say, I can't wait to pick up a copy of this book!

Thank you!

Sasha

Infinity and Definition of a Point

2011-12-21T09:31:00.000-08:00

From Nathan Carlson, a reader of my first paper on IUT (http://scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/IUT.pdf):

Mr. Borchardt,

I was reading your paper on the Infinite Universe Theory, and it reminded me of something I had been pondering for quite some time now, a logical accounting for gravity. I had a rather interesting idea that if something exists as an atom (by the Greek meaning, an indivisible subject) then inevitably, it exists as a point. I then set about defining a point, starting with the idea of a small sphere, and found that unsatisfactory. I then had it as the meeting between two lines, but that does not properly define it either, as it accounts for two dimensions. So I came to my third definition which becomes useful hereafter.

A point can be defined as the intersection between an infinite number of infinite planes. This becomes more interesting when you bring a second point into that interaction. the intersections between these infinite planes become potential points as well. The closer the two points are, the greater the density of these potential points. I will call these I-points.

Now give the point mass (not realistically of course, because it would of course be made of an infinite number of smaller particles.) If these two points have mass, and an inclination to move, then this point field, (to me at least) is the plot of likely paths that the particles can take, and may even be an exact representation of possible paths the particles can take, though still an infinite set of paths, they are denser with two particles than one, with three than two, and in expansion to a possible infinite number of particles.

However, I'm not interested in calculating an infinite number of particles possible point paths. What interests me here is the logical explanation of gravity. I will redefine force here, not as push or pull but as an inclination of matter to move, (which could be proved by proving that it is impossible for matter to be without motion, also a talk for a later time I hope.)

Mass (m1m2) I will define as a collection of M-points (M-points being defined as a collection of I-points that have/constitute mass).

As these M-points get closer the I-points they are made of generate increasing point sources to exist in. In other words, Mass approaching Mass creates more possible spaces in the "etherosphere" for the Mass to exist in. Given an inclination to move, mathematically a point will over time take (and remain in) the path with the most options. Hence increasingly massive objects have an increasingly denser set of possible points for matter to exist in.

Massive objects instead of being attracted to each other are instead falling into a denser etherosphere. Hence your "Push", but not exactly. Instead it is the motion of mass (still relying on proof of impossibility of mass to remain stationary). The points generate their own increasing number of options for movement.

[[don't take this as a relation to the theory above, rather take it as an interesting spin tweaking one dimension]
Take the I-points and instead of having the infinite planes have only two dimensions, have them three dimensional with the X and Y infinite and the Z approaching zero (or infinite smallness) and then you have room for an interesting type of mass that is literally being squeezed through potential point paths generated by the density of the etherosphere.
]]

Take those two :) and you can see that the system cannot collapse in on itself into an entropic state of stillness because the closer any mass (made of M-points) gets to another the more potential places it will have to move into, increasing the potential for motion. The only way to approach that is to increase the density of the points, the farther a single point gets from a dense core (-singularity or not singularity but close in definition) the less options it has.

I hope that is a sufficiently interesting conversation starter, your paper was thought-provoking and I believe closer to the Truth than science has come in years. There are other things I'd like to discuss, like the law of Conservation of Mass, and the religious possibilities of an etherosphere; I don't believe that mass or even mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed, I believe that they cannot be created or destroyed by physical means or means known through things that exist with mass and physical existence. And I believe in the soul, if the etherosphere exists, then I believe that a soul could be a complex mapping of potential point spaces constituting an intelligence, or more grossly a computer.

My Sincere hopes that you find this useful, and an interesting hello,

Sincerely,

Nathan Carlson

Post Script: Please don't feel insulted by this, but I would hope that this leads to an interesting conversation and not a footnote in a paper. I would not imply, having not met or become familiar with you beyond your 2007 paper that you would plagiarize, or steal an idea. It is my intention rather to believe that you are an interesting and intelligent individual that, should this be of use to science, would detach any significance of personal recognition from you or I and leave the significance to the fascinating theory which shakes science and reshapes our understanding of our reality. I personally believe that science is hindered by the desire for personal recognition, and that better science develops from open source with excellent documentation.

Nathan:

Hello and thanks for your comments on infinity. You have quite the imagination! Since writing the IUT paper, Steve Puetz and I have just completed our definitive work on the subject (Puetz and Borchardt, 2011). As you may recall from the IUT paper (Borchardt, 2007), we consider microcosms (x,y,z portions of the universe) to be infinitely subdividable as well as infinitely integrable. None of these could be considered true points, because a true point in mathematics is the imaginary intersection of imaginary lines from all three directions. Neither the lines nor the point could exist, for existence is defined as that which contains matter, has the 3 dimensions (x,y,z), and has location with respect to other things. You are correct, therefore, that a true point cannot be a sphere. What you have realized, in essence, is that math is no match for the infinite universe.

BTW: In all our work at PSI, we consider force to be neither matter nor the motion of matter. Instead, force, like momentum and energy, is a calculation or matter-motion term in which we multiply a term for matter times a term for motion. Despite the claims of regressive physicists, force neither exists nor occurs. What we describe as force is our observation and description of matter in motion. Your definition of force as “an inclination of matter to move” is slightly better than the usual, but will not get you the correct theory of gravity. This Steve and I got by giving up matter-motion terms entirely. We don’t consider gravity to be a “force,” but the result of a Gravitational Pressure Gradient due to aether density and activity being greatest where complexed aether (baryonic or ordinary matter) is least. If you are serious about this, you can practice by substituting “matter-motion” for “force” whenever you come across it. Then the definition of “force as an inclination of matter to move,” becomes “matter-motion as an inclination of matter to move,” which clearly makes no sense. It’s best simply to stick with matter and the motion of matter, or in shorthand, “matter and motion.”

BTW2: Sorry that I can’t help you calculate souls from the aetherosphere. The Progressive Science Institute is an “organization that sponsors education and research on scientific philosophy free of political and religious influence.”

References

Borchardt, G. (2007). "Infinite universe theory." Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance (http://scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/IUT.pdf) 4(1): 20-23.

Puetz, S. J. and G. Borchardt (2011). Universal cycle theory: Neomechanics of the hierarchically infinite universe. Denver, Outskirts Press (www.universalcycletheory.com).

God Particle in the News Again—Tentatively

2011-12-14T14:46:00.000-08:00

When we perform experiments, we always find something out, even if it is that we are pretty ignorant. One way to handle ignorance is to be wishy-washy. That is just what the folks at CERN did yesterday. They announced that they still don’t know if the Higgs boson exists—maybe by next summer. The Higgs has been given the “god” appellation because it is supposed to give all other particles mass. Trouble is, it is supposed to be “about 126 times heavier than a proton and 250,000 times heavier than an electron” (Overbye, 2011). Doesn’t look like we will see any of these fat guys in our electrons soon. Egads! Does this even make sense? Sounds a lot like math girls gone wild to me.

More from Overbye (2011): “The Higgs boson is the cornerstone and the last missing part of the so-called Standard Model, a suite of equations that has held sway as the law of the cosmos for the last 35 years and describes all of particle physics. Physicists have been eager to finish the edifice, rule the Higgs either in or out and then use that information to form deeper theories that could explain, for example, why the universe is made of matter and not antimatter, or what constitutes the dark matter and dark energy that rule the larger universe.

The particle is named for the University of Edinburgh physicist Peter Higgs…who suggested that a sort of cosmic molasses pervading space is what gives particles their heft. Particles trying to wade through it gather mass the way a bill moving through Congress gains riders and amendments, becoming more and more ponderous. It was Dr. Higgs who pointed out that this cosmic molasses, normally invisible and, of course, odorless, would have its own quantum particle, and so the branding rights went to him.”

As I pointed out way back in October (http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2011/10/why-god-particle-does-not-exist.html), what gives particles mass is the fact that each particle contains other particles ad infinitum. This is in tune with the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). In contrast, the whole of modern physics is founded on finity, the indeterministic opposite, which assumes that the universe is finite, both in the microcosmic (e.g., Higgs boson) and the macrocosmic (BBT) directions. The days for the reign of finity are numbered.

It is nice that they have finally given up that old indeterministic idea that space is perfectly empty. Maybe they will rediscover aether particles, the constituents of electrons. At least those particles would be lighter than electrons, not heavier. Beats swimming through some Higgs goo just to get some rubbed off mass on your little particle body.

Note that Overbye has gotten the mainstream down, drawing the implications out to “dark matter” and “dark energy.” As we showed in UCT (Puetz and Borchardt, 2011), the missing dark matter is nothing special, just trillions of undetected planets running around without stars whose wobbles could give them away. You have to be pretty naïve to believe that all matter in the universe should be luminous anyway, or even that “dark energy” could exist. Energy is E=mc², a calculation, for crying out loud. Energy neither exists nor occurs, it is a matter-motion term we require to describe the motion of matter. The placement of those two dark terms in mainstream speak shows that they think of “dark energy” as some type of entity separate from matter, a violation of the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion). You wouldn’t be a modern physicist if you didn’t believe that matter could be turned into pure, naked energy, whether white or dark (Borchardt, 2009).

The Times reporter did get this gem from Steven Weinberg: “It’s always a little weird when something that comes out of the mathematics in theoretical work turns out to exist in the real world. You asked me earlier if it’s exciting. Sure is.”

Sure is.

References

Borchardt, G. (2009). "The physical meaning of E=mc²(http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/The%20Physical%20Meaning%20of%20E%20=%20mc2.pdf)." Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance 6(1).

Overbye, D. (2011). Data Hints at Elusive Particle, but the Wait Continues (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/science/tantalizing-hints-but-no-direct-proof-in-search-for-higgs-boson.html?scp=3&sq=god%20particle&st=cse). New York Times. New York.

Puetz, S. J. and G. Borchardt (2011). Universal cycle theory: Neomechanics of the hierarchically infinite universe. Denver, Outskirts Press (www.universalcycletheory.com).

Neomechanical Theory of Gravitation

2011-12-07T10:00:00.000-08:00

Duncan Shaw says:

I received your book yesterday and have already read much of it. Congratulations to you and Stephen. It is quite a masterpiece.

There are a number of similarities with my latest paper on gravity -- copy attached -- and a number of dissimilarities (Shaw, 2012). We both have incoming and outgoing "aether" and we both use the vacuum cleaner analogy. One of the main dissimilarities is that you use vortices and I do not. Also, I use heat that is generated by the impacts of incoming aether as the driving force of outgoing aether or its constituent parts, whereas you use rotation of cosmic bodies to launch the outgoing aether. While these are distinct differences, I think that we are close on our overall approaches.

I am particularly interested in your distinction between solid-mass and gaseous-mass and how that can account for the pressure difference that causes inflow. You are, I think, in good company. Isaac Newton, in his book Opticks, made a similar point in his Queries on the subject of gravity: see Queries 18 to 22, particularly No. 21.

Duncan:

Thanks for your comments. You touch upon some of the critical issues involving theories about the physical cause of gravitation. These are, of course, nonexistent for mainstream (MS) theories, which do not hypothesize a physical cause, such as the “attraction” attributed to Newton and the “curved empty space” attributed to Einstein. As Steve Puetz and I explain it in "Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe," gravitation is the property of all microcosms, from the smallest to the largest. Through relativism (All things have characteristics that make them similar to all other things as well as characteristics that make them dissimilar to all other things), we assume that no two microcosms, in this case aether particles, are identical. Although, the rest of this explanation jumps into the middle of the infinite hierarchy, it applies to subsubaether particles as well as galaxy clusters. In intergalactic space, each aether particle has a unique momentum (i.e., P=mv, where m=mass and v=velocity). The more massive, slower aether particles are pushed together by the less massive, faster aether particles. The closer these massive particles become, the more they shield each other from the impacts of the less massive particles. That is the key to neomechanical gravitation. The mutual shielding thus produces a complex, which, by definition is slower and clumsier than free aether particles. Vortices get involved (see Fred’s video on the Vortex Water Experiment at http://scientificphilosophy.com) because aether complexes, being slow and heavy, tend to be pushed toward the center of any rotating cloud of such complexes. Because of this handy juxtaposition, the complexes become even larger, forming what we know as baryonic or ordinary matter. As their concentration at the center of the vortex increases, they tend to displace free aether particles, pushing the aether particles to the periphery of the vortex. The result is a layering effect, with heavy complexes in the center (solids) and less heavy complexes (gases) on the periphery. This battle between large and small is nearly interminable, with aether particles converging and aether particles diverging as per complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things). As Steve explained so well in his analysis of celestial microcosms, any increase in the rotation of a vortex produces an accretion of matter, while any decrease produces an excretion of matter. As always, celestial microcosms come into being via convergence and out of being via divergence.

The upshot of the above is that the density of free aether is dependent on the absence of complexed aether--ordinary matter. Thus, the concentration of ordinary matter in any one place produces a Gravitational Pressure Gradient with its aethereal macrocosm. This gradient is analogous to the atmospheric pressure gradient that surrounds Earth—but in reverse. A helium balloon will rise in our atmosphere because the impacts of air molecules are greater from the high-pressure regions below than from low-pressure regions above. A massive object will do just the opposite. It will be pushed toward the center of the vortex (Earth) because the aethereal impacts are greater from above than below. Although the layering produced by vortex rotation tends to dissipate when the rotation stops, there always will be some layering, and therefore a Gravitational Pressure Gradient around every object. Again, this is because the presence of matter automatically requires the displacement of aether, and the tendency to produce an “aethereal vacuum.” Of course, the total absence of aether is never achieved because aether permeates ordinary matter as well. It flows through and around every larger microcosm, with the contact that produces gravitation often involving only the densest parts of the microcosm. In the helium example, nitrogen and oxygen molecules, being of greater mass, tend to succumb to aethereal impacts more easily than does helium. Helium, in turn, tends to succumb more to impacts from nitrogen and oxygen than from impacts due to aether.

Notice that the above explanation views gravitation as a universal, but local phenomenon. We know that there are no true pulls in nature, as recognized in Newton’s laws of motion. We gave up on other pushing theories for various reasons. The Le Sage Theory, for instance, hypothesizes an elementary particle that travels great distances between objects to produce the push via mutual shielding (Borchardt, 2007). Such a particle would have to travel from the Sun to Earth to do its pushing job. A change in the position of the Sun would not be felt on Earth until that trip was completed, which would be over 8 minutes at light speed, c. The effects of gravity, however, appear to be felt immediately. For that to be the case, the graviton or the motion of the waves within the gravitational medium would have to travel at a velocity over 2 X 10¹⁰c (Van Flandern, 1998). This is 20 billion times the speed of light! While c is no longer considered nature’s speed limit, like Einstein assumed (The OPERA Collaboration, 2011), speeds that great seem unlikely. Neomechanical gravitation solves that problem. The physical cause of gravity is due to the hypothesized aethereal pressure differences, which are local and ever proportional to mass, just as Newton said it was.

Thanks Duncan for the wonderful reference to Newton. The MS view is that Newton denied knowing the physical cause of gravity (i.e., hypotheses non fingo), considering it to be “attraction.” That was in 1713. This propaganda is clearly debunked with the hypothesis he put forth on page 325 in Query 21 of the second edition of Opticks (Newton, 1718), a part of which I put below. He had the Gravitational Pressure Gradient idea all along! We are certainly reassured to have come up with the same conclusion independently, even if three centuries late. Looks like those of us in progressive physics need to search the original sources just like you did. We must be continually aware, that as in all battles, the results of philosophical and scientific struggles are always written by the victors.

References

Borchardt, G. (2007). The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein. Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, p. 189.

Newton, I. (1718). Opticks or, a treatise of the reflections, refractions, inflections and colours of light. The second edition, with additions. By Sir Isaac Newton. London, Printed for W. and J. Innys, printers to the Royal Society.

http://books.google.com/books?continue=http%3A%2F%2Fbooks.google.com%2Fbooks%2Fdownload%2FOpticks_or_A_treatise_of_the_reflections.pdf%3Fid%3DTwhbAAAAQAAJ%26output%3Dpdf%26hl%3Den&id=TwhbAAAAQAAJ&q=queries#v=snippet&q=query%2021&f=false .

Puetz, S. J. and G. Borchardt (2011). Universal cycle theory: Neomechanics of the hierarchically infinite universe. Denver, Outskirts Press. (www.universalcycletheory.com)

Shaw, D. W. (2012). "The cause of gravity: A concept (in press)." Physics Essays.

The OPERA Collaboration (2011). "Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam." arXiv:1109.4897v1 [hep-ex] http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897 .

Van Flandern, T. (1998). "The speed of gravity - What the experiments say." Physics Letters A 250(1-3): 11.

From p. 325 in Newton (1718):

Time is Motion

2011-11-30T10:15:00.000-08:00

Steve asks:

I still disagree with the statement.... Time is motion. To be more precise, it should be worded as.... "Time is an aspect of motion." According to almost all conventional descriptions of motion, it has three aspects -- an object, a path, and time. To suddenly state that motion only has one aspect (time) is confusing to many readers, including me.

For example, Wikipedia gives a good description of motion at the following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_(physics)

"In physics, motion is a change in position of an object with respect to time.... Motion is typically described in terms of velocity, acceleration, displacement, and time."

When people think of motion, they tend to think this way.... the path that something follows, and the time it took the thing to follow the path.

By changing the definition of motion (it only involves time and not the path that a thing follows), then I need to know why. In previous discussions, you insisted that time is motion, but never explained why the current definition of motion needs to exclude the distance that a thing traveled. To continue making the statement that time is motion, it seems essential to give reasons why the object and the path are being excluded from motion. A lot of readers of our work will want to know why, including myself.

Steve, thanks for the question. There is a wealth of detail underlying my claim that “Time is motion.” I believe that there are only two fundamental phenomena in the universe: matter and motion. Of course, with our Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion), we “tie” these two phenomena together. In other words, “motion” is simply the mechanist’s shorthand for the “motion of matter.” You are essentially voicing the criticisms of Newton’s First Law of Motion, which go like this: What could we possibly say about an object in motion if there is no other object to which that motion can be measured against? Newton’s ideal object moves through a finite universe, which at some point may be thought by the idealist as “pure empty space.” That is why he uses the word “unless” rather than the word “until.” Despite the critics, Newton’s First Law was accepted as the most important law of the universe. I also consider it the most important observation ever made, making Newton the greatest scientist who ever lived.

Newton’s failure to include a referent other than his concept of “absolute space,” was always handled in classical mechanics by being very careful to include one. If you did that, you could be like Newton; you would not have to choose between finity and infinity. You could measure the distance between object A and object B by comparing it to some conventionally agreed upon standard you hoped would remain unchanged. Then, you could measure time by comparing the object’s motion to the motion of some conventionally agreed upon standard you also hoped would remain unchanged. The rest of classical mechanics followed, with rampant success throughout all of science, as noted in Wikipedia.

In neomechanics, however, we use the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). This automatically provides the referent—we assume that there always is a referent. We still have to do the measurements in the same old way, but we now can think about them differently. In the infinite universe, things are always moving toward or away from other things. There is always a path and travel over that path occurs either quickly or slowly with respect to the motion of other things. Foremost, we do not have to be there to measure any of this.

The fact is that both matter and motion are abstractions. In neomechanics, we define matter as that which contains other matter, has xyz dimensions, and location with respect to other matter. We define motion as what matter does. Abstractions are generalizations we use for thinking. Fruit, for example, is an abstraction. One cannot really eat a fruit; one only can eat an apple or an orange, or some other specific member of the category. Thus, there is no matter and no motion per se, only specific examples of matter exist and only specific examples of motion occur. Motion, like matter, has an infinite number of “aspects” or qualities. To choose one of these aspects of motion as “time” and some other aspect of motion as “not time” is illogical. Time and motion are identical.

As I mentioned, all phenomena in the universe can be categorized as either matter or motion. When it comes to time, we have a choice; we can consider it to be matter or motion. I choose motion. Einstein chose matter. Einstein’s objectification of time makes SRT and GRT invalid, as I showed in the paper I just published (Einstein’s Most Important Philosophical Error) ( http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5991.pdf ). Anyone who really understands that paper will understand that time is motion and that relativity, with all its paradoxes need not be entertained any further. In particular, the seemingly endless discussions of the Twin Paradox are a waste of time.

Universal time is the motion of everything with respect to everything else. Of course, we can only measure specific time, the motion of one thing with respect to another thing. Nonetheless, time is not a measurement. The dinosaurs experienced time (motion), but they did not measure it. Again, time is not an aspect of motion; time is motion itself, whether it be specific time or universal time. I realize that it takes a bit of time to get your head around that concept. We are all struggling to escape from the conundrum that Einstein left us with. That is why I define modern physicists as those who do not know what time is. The average person seems to think that time is a great mystery or that “it” flows or that one could go back in time, as if it was a thing like a house with receding doorways. Again, many with solipsistic tendencies believe that time does not occur unless it is observed or measured. That is our background, and it takes each of us a while to overcome the propaganda surrounding such a simple phenomenon. Half measures embodied in the term “aspect,” which characteristically strive to keep the observer in the picture, nonetheless are steps toward the escape. They might eventually satisfy Wikipedia, but they are only steps. The complete liberation comes when we finally realize that: time is motion.

Velocity of Light: Part 2

2011-11-23T17:08:00.000-08:00

Frank asks:

Why the redshift? Isn't c a supposedly fixed constant regardless of the relative velocities of the producers of electromagnetic radiation and its observers? I like your explanation: c changes due to some interaction with a medium between distant galaxies and our telescopes.

Frank, sorry for not answering this sooner in Part 1. The full answer is in "Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe," the book that Steve Puetz and I were keeping under wraps at the time. Since then, we got it off to press and scientists at CERN, as well as other researchers, have shown that c is not the universal speed limit. A particle they called a neutrino was accelerated to a velocity greater than c. Of course, this challenge to Einstein gives the cosmogonists “some splaining to do.” As you imply, the velocity of light is simply dependent on the properties of the medium through which the wave travels. The upshot of our theory is that aether exists wherever ordinary matter does not. This means that the velocity of light waves will be greatest where aether density is greatest. The cosmogonist’s “perfect vacuum of empty space” has the greatest aether density and therefore the highest light velocity. All cosmic light sources, of course, have surroundings that contain baryonic matter that prevents light waves from attaining the highest velocity.

There are many reasons for the galactic redshift (the scatter in distance vs. redshift curves is huge, indicating that the relationship is multivariate). One of the most important is the gravitational redshift, which is otherwise interpreted by cosmogonists as a proof of GRT (Pound and Rebka, 1960). Each light source is surrounded by what is called a “gravity well.” It is said that light traveling from that source has to “fight gravity,” losing energy in the process. What actually happens is that, the refraction and deflection produced by the interfering baryonic matter increases with nearness to the light source. Due to this interference, the light path near the celestial body is slightly longer than it is in open space. These contortions in the light path amount to a short wavelength. As that light reaches open space, the contortions diminish, the light path straightens out, and the wavelength appears long. Another way of looking at it is from the velocity side. In an extreme example, suppose that 10 waves occur over a distance of 10 meters in 1 second (wavelength of 1 m). Now suppose that those same 10 waves occur over the 10-m distance in 0.9 second (wavelength of 1.11 m)—a redshift. If we nevertheless assume that c is constant, then we are forced to hypothesize silly concepts such as length contraction and/or time dilation like Einstein did to save the theory of relativity.

The upshot of the above is that the wavelength of light is slightly influenced by its velocity, which in turn is dependent on the purity and density of the aether that transmits it. As we hypothesized in UCT, aether density varies (cyclically yet!) throughout the universe, being greatest in the intergalactic regions. We cannot expect that the velocity of light measurements we determine in our messy solar system or within our slightly less messy Milky Way galaxy could possibly apply throughout the universe. Once we give up assuming that c is constant, things fall into place for the 3D universe. Light travels faster through intergalactic regions, stretching luminal wavelengths as a function of the amount of intergalactic distance traveled. The result is an increase in galactic redshift with distance in the 3D universe. As Hubble stubbornly insisted, the galactic redshift occurs primarily because of what happens in the medium between galaxy and telescope. It is not evidence for a universal expansion requiring the fantastic belief in 4 dimensions.

References

Pound, R. V. and G. A. Rebka (1960). "Apparent Weight of Photons."Physical Review Letters 4(7): 337-341. (see also my blog “Redshift of Galaxy Clusters”)

Puetz, S. J.and G. Borchardt (2011). Universal cycle theory: Neomechanics of thehierarchically infinite universe. Denver, OutskirtsPress.com.

New Support for Universal Cycle Theory

2011-11-16T08:00:00.000-08:00

From Steve Puetz:

I thought you would be interested in the following links recently forwarded to me from two different reviewers of Universal Cycle Theory. Both links are new types of evidence, supportive of the infinite hierarchical model of neomechanics.

1) The first spiral star ever detected by astronomers:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/31oct_spiralarms/

2) A NASA space telescope named "GALEX" has found stars forming in extreme galactic environments, places where researchers thought stars should not be. The finding could affect astronomy much as the discovery of microbial extremophiles affected biology in the 1970s.

FULL STORY at http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/07nov_stellarextremophiles/

A video version of this story is available at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k-XgLi1KgA

The astronomers were surprised by the star formation because these regions were considered to be "empty space." Of course, in neomechanics, interconnection (All things are interconnected, that is, between any two objects exist other objects that transmit matter and motion) means there is no empty space -- and collisions that produce vortices can develop anywhere in the universe. Hence, stars can form anywhere -- as long as the vortex has sufficient mass. It does not matter if the gas-cloud consists of atoms, aether-1, or aether-2. The only requirement is that the mass of the vortex is roughly the same as a stellar vortex.

Our latest book: Universal Cycle Theory

2011-11-09T08:00:00.000-08:00

Steve Puetz and I just published a new book that I am sure you will enjoy (Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe). Except for the generalities in "The Scientific Worldview," this is the first book to adhere to "The Ten Assumptions of Science" in developing a theory of the universe to replace the moribund Big Bang. In doing so, we have avoided using any of the nonsense involving more than three dimensions, matterless motion, wave-particle duality, time dilation, matterless fields, and other outrageous claims common to modern physics.

In short, we propose that vortex motion brings aether particles together, forming the less mobile complexes that we call ordinary matter. What we observe as universal gravitation is produced by the still-active aether particles that exist wherever ordinary matter does not. With celestial bodies, complexification is a function of the velocity of vortex rotation, with the density of ordinary matter decreasing with distance from the center. At the same time, the density and activity of aether increases with distance from the center. This produces a “gravitational pressure gradient,” which acts like our own atmospheric pressure gradient—only in reverse. The upshot is that gravitation is a local, albeit pushing, effect. After Steve’s prodding, I came to believe that the Le Sage Theory is untenable. We need not hypothesize gravitons travelling thousands of times the speed of light to account for the observed lack of gravitational aberration. Though fundamental, gravitational theory is only a small part of the book, which proposes a new view of matter and motion at all scales, from the subatomic to the Local Mega-Vortex.

Steve did a super job in getting all this research together during the two years of our collaboration. We did a great deal of brainstorming every step of the way. His previous work on cycles had led him to a belief in the reality of infinity, which is rare among mathematicians. Once he understood that momentum, force, and energy were calculations and neither matter nor motion, we were off to the races… It was a great pleasure working with Steve, a quick study, who could almost instantly grasp the neomechanical reality of the conventional data used to develop the theory. The book has a bit more math than “The Scientific Worldview,” but we have tried to keep most of it in the appendix. The jist of the book is in the first 400 pages.

So far, the reviews have been excellent, in fact, they are great summaries from slightly different perspectives. The videos by Fred Frees, the voice actor, are interesting impressions by an open-minded person who has little training in physics, but nonetheless shows a lot of common sense. Click on this to see more about the book:

www.universalcycletheory.com

Wave-particle Duality Nonsense

2011-11-02T08:00:00.000-07:00

Bill Howell:

Thanks for the link to Borg’s 2010 article on “Abolishing the wave-particle duality nonsense.” You asked what I thought about it. He has come to the same conclusion that many of us have: light is motion. He mentions many of the properties of light, such as refraction, that show it to be a wave and not a particle. He demonstrates, convincingly, that the inverse square law should only be used for spherical sources. When point sources are used (e.g., lasers, etc.) the inverse square law does not apply. Collimated light maintains its wave nature and should not be construed as a beam of particles. Of special note is his mention of Plank’s verbal objection to Einstein’s claim that light traveled in digital form. Plank believed, as we do, that the digital property of light only appears when it interacts with a detector. Coming from the primary initiator of quantum mechanics, this should have put the kibosh on Einstein’s corpuscular theory of light. It did not.

If Borg’s article can be faulted, it is his neglecting to mention anything about the medium necessary for light: the aether. Up until 1920, Einstein was an “aether denier”—that’s what made SRT famous. Nonetheless, the wiser, older Einstein (1920) said: "Careful reflection teaches us that special relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume its existence but not ascribe a definite state of motion to it ..." "There is a weighty reason in favour of ether. To deny ether is to ultimately assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever." This also should have put the kibosh on the corpuscular theory of light. It did not.

References:

Borg, X. (2010). "Abolishing the wave-particle duality nonsense." Retrieved 10/14/2011, 2011, from http://www.blazelabs.com/f-u-photons.asp.

Einstein, A. (1920). Sidelights on relativity: 1. Ether and relativity. 2. Geometry and experience. London, Methuen.

Freewill and Fatalism

2011-10-26T06:10:00.000-07:00

William Westmiller asks:

“I agree with your criticism of solipsism (we control the universe) and fatalism (the universe controls us) as irrational extremes. However, determinism seems to preclude human free will. If all of our actions are determined by prior states (micro or macro), do we have any ability to make choices?”

[William, once you read TSW you will understand the difference between classical determinism and univironmental determinism. I will restate it here because it a common question that I get. TSW was predicated on the idea that there is no freewill—all interactions in the universe are determined by what went on before. This is because, as a scientist, I regard the entire universe and everything in it to be natural. Determinists (and the best scientists) believe that there are material causes for all effects. That means also that any interpretation that leads to a freewill conclusion must involve a theoretical mistake. Even those indeterminists who believe their choices have no causes expect their choices to have effects.

Classical determinism was based on classical mechanics, with its belief in finite universal causality. This form of determinism was best illustrated by Laplace’s Demon, a super intelligent being who could predict the future by knowing the position and velocity of every particle in the universe. Classical determinism, classical mechanics and Laplace’s Demon were destroyed by Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, which I interpret as the Third Assumption of Science, uncertainty (It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is possible to know more about anything). This is consupponible with the Second Assumption of Science, causality (All effects have an infinite number of material causes) and the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). Infinity is what makes assumptions necessary and allows us to have “the feeling of freedom,” which indeterminists often mistake for an acausal freewill. The correct theoretical position, however, is not to follow this solipsistic tendency or its opposite, fatalism, but to adopt univironmental determinism (UD), the belief that what happens to a portion of the universe is determined by the matter in motion within and without. Univironmental determinism is not only the correct philosophy, but it is at once the universal mechanism of evolution.

So do we have the ability to make choices? Of course. Can choices be made independently of the univironment? Of course not. Should we give up, as fatalists do, saying that “it is all predetermined anyway.” Of course not. Each of us changes the world, whether we realize it or not. Even fatalists and couch potatoes take up space. We can have “the feeling of freedom” while changing the world for better or worse. What UD adds, now that you know the secret, is the theoretical framework pointing the way toward the material conditions that need to be changed within and without.]

Entrained Aether, Radiation, Light, and Time

2011-10-19T06:28:00.000-07:00

Paul Schroeder writes:

“But cosmology must address the everyday curvature of relationships. For example your colliding of micro/macrocosms is a linear interaction. What about discussing penetration by gravity? What happens to your ether inside a mass? What about transference of rotation from mass to pushing gravity? How did we arrive at orbital motions?”

[Paul, those are extremely perceptive questions, which were addressed in our new book (Puetz and Borchardt, 2011), “Universal Cycle Theory,” due out before the end of the month.]

“Finally, going beyond your univironment, we need the origin of motion and the original existence of microcosms. Your conservatism does say matter and motion of matter can neither be created nor destroyed. True only if you allow for motion without mass and you include radiation in your definition of matter. Again my system covers these issues.”

[As mentioned above, there can be no motion without matter. I don’t blame you for being confused about radiation. Einstein muddled this one real good by proposing the photon as a massless particle of motion. To this day, really smart folks believe that photons actually “exist” and that energy actually exists or occurs. It is part and parcel of what Einstein was all about. It was his most important philosophical error (Borchardt, 2011). Also see my blog on “What is Energy” http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2011/02/what-is-energy.html.]

“We also differ on matter creation. I see electrons as crossings of radiation beams as opposed to things being bombarded and pushed together.”

[What you propose is the creation of matter out of matterless motion. In UD each type of matter is formed out of other types of matter. The equation, E=mc², describes it well, as long as one avoids the conventional interpretation (Borchardt, 2009).]

“You wrote: “I don’t quite understand ‘light is motion’ and ‘time is motion’. Motion is a singular concept which you equate with light and time, two dissimilar concepts.”

[Paul, references above provide the details. In brief, we must remember that the universe only presents us with two basic phenomena, matter and the motion of matter. There are an infinite number of concepts that fit either of these two categories. Thus sound is motion, running is motion, earthquakes are motions, etc. Light is the wave motion of the aether, just like sound is the wave motion of the air. Light is not a thing, but the motion of things. Time is the motion of everything. Universal time is the motion of each thing with respect to everything else. Specific time is the motion of a specific microcosm with respect to another specific microcosm (i.e., a clock). Time does not exist; it occurs. There is no “going backward in time,” because there is no such place, as implied also by the Seventh Assumption of Science, irreversibility (All processes are irreversible).Time is not a dimension. Time is not a measurement (dinosaurs experienced time, but they did not measure it). Time is motion.]

“I also don’t follow the etherosphere concept.”

[There are two schools of thought about the aether.

In the first, which was tested by Michelson-Morley (1897) [MMX] in a campus basement in Ohio, was that aether is everywhere the same, penetrating everything, and is unaffected by gravity. Earth would travel through such an aether, being unaffected by it. Nevertheless, there would be a relative difference between Earth’s motion and the motion of the aether, whether the aether was fixed or in motion. Earth goes around the Sun at a velocity of 30 km/s, so that is the expected relative difference after averaging what would be a headwind and what would be a tailwind. Note that in a recent paper, Steven Bryant (2008) used a wave-length approach to recalculate the MMX data, getting 30 km/s for what has always been considered a null result. If Bryant’s work is confirmed, it would be a falsification of SRT, as well as the second school of thought:

In the second, implied by Figure 8-2 in TSW (p. 202) (see also: http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2008/06/is-ether-negatively-charged.html), aether is “entrained around Earth.” Although aether exists throughout the universe, some of it travels with Earth, just like our atmosphere. This means that, like our atmosphere, there would be no relative difference between the motion of the “aetherosphere” and Earth. Data supporting this view began to accumulate after investigators did MMX-type experiments at high altitudes. With entrainment, we expect measurements of the relative difference in velocity to be a function of altitude. A velocity of 30 km/s would be obtained only when the effects of the entrainment are no longer significant. With entrainment, attempting to measure the relative difference in velocity at sea level would be like trying to measure the velocity of the jet stream in your basement. Figure 8-2 suggests that the 30 km/s value really could not be obtained at altitudes lower than the stratosphere. The figure also suggests that changes in the density of the aetherosphere are not only a simple function of gravitation, as they are with the atmosphere. The aetherosphere curve has a lower slope than the atmosphere curve, even though they both meet at the same point (a function of the square root of altitude vs. a direct function of altitude). Does this mean that the aether is charged in addition to having mass?]

“I do hope your book becomes the standard of future thought and possibly creates interest in my model. Philosophy sometimes seems so circular that can inhibit progress. Is that sort of an application of your predestination idea?”

[Paul, remember that progress in philosophy, like progress in everything else, actually is spiralic, not circular. The determinism-indeterminism philosophic struggle proceeds in fits and starts: three steps forward and two steps back. If there is any “predestination,” it involves the fact that humanity cannot avoid including more and more of the macrocosm in its considerations of the universe. Living in the two-sphere universe or Einstein’s solitary Milky Way universe or the Big Bang universe is quite different from what is destined to be considered an infinite universe.]

References

Borchardt, G. (2009). "The physical meaning of E=mc²(http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/The%20Physical%20Meaning%20of%20E%20=%20mc2.pdf)" Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance 6(1).

Borchardt, G. (2011). Einstein's most important philosophical error. Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 18th Conference of the NPA, 6-9 July, 2011 (http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5991.pdf). G. Volk. College Park, MD, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD. 8: 64-68.

Bryant, S. (2008). "Revisiting the Michelson and Morley experiment to reveal an Earth orbital velocity of 30 kilometers per second Galilean Electrodynamics 19(3): 51-56 (http://www.relativitychallenge.com/papers/Bryant.CICS.MMX.Analysis.06302006.pdf ).

Michelson, A. A. and E. W. Morley (1887). "On the relative motion of the earth and the luminiferous ether." American Journal of Science 39: 333-345.

Puetz, S. J. and G. Borchardt (2011). Universal cycle theory: Neomechanics of the hierarchically infinite universe (in press). Denver, OutskirtsPress.com.

Aether, Least Action, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

2011-10-12T05:29:00.000-07:00

Paul Schroeder, author of "The Universe is Otherwise" (Schroeder, 2006) writes in an email:

“…the infinite blob of aether cannot be assigned any functions.”

[Paul, I would never call the aether “an infinite blob.” The aether must consist of trillions of tiny particles in constant motion. It cannot be a single motionless entity normally connoted by the term “blob.” It cannot be fixed or a “cell-like” structure as some have proposed. Aether, like all microcosms, must contain submicrocosms as per infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions) and relativism (All things have characteristics that make them similar to all other things as well as characteristics that make them dissimilar to all other things).]

“The concept of ‘least action’, which I did not previously know about, and the second law of thermodynamics, which I ignored as nonsensical for open space, are both directional – toward slowing and cooling. As such they conflict with the eternal and thus with the infinite.”

[Paul, these two laws are merely recapitulations of the law of the universe: Newton’s First Law of Motion: An object in motion tends to stay in motion unless it collides with something. As I explained in my "Resolution of SLT-order paradox" paper (Borchardt, 2009) and in the discussion of complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things) in TTAOS and TSW, your statement that “they conflict with the eternal and thus with the infinite” is not true. Only systems theorists, who typically under-emphasize the macrocosm, could make that interpretation. As univironmental determinists, we believe that the microcosm and macrocosm are equally important. This is tied to your next question:]

“Where do motion and heat come from originally? My system is the answer. Paep gravity beams (Schroeder, 2006) have always existed, providing the original motion and subsequently the heat upon interacting. My paeps continually recycle providing eternity and allowing infinity to resolve into everyday specifics."

[Paul, remember that the two basic phenomena presented by the universe involve the existence of matter and the occurrence of its motion. As explained repeatedly in my previous blog, no particular microcosm or motion can be regarded as more fundamental or more elementary than any other. There are no “god particles,” “concrete objects,” paeps, or aether particles that “have always existed.” Every microcosm has a beginning and an end. Every microcosm forms from submicrocosms, which form from subsubmicrocosms ad infinitum. To suggest otherwise is to proclaim a fixity never observed and assumed not to exist when we use inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion). Because matter must always be in motion, it continually interacts with the macrocosm and is thereby changed. In an infinite universe it is pointless to ask where motion came from originally. The inertial motion of Newton’s object came from the motion of some other object, ad infinitum. Only those who don’t really believe in infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions) would eternally ask the eternal questions: Where did matter come from? Where did motion come from? In an infinite universe the answer is always the same: From somewhere else. Infinity is the "grandest passing of the buck." It is time that we got used to it.]

References

Borchardt, G. (2008). "Resolution of SLT-order paradox" from http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_3.pdf.

Schroeder, P. (2006). The universe is otherwise (http://www.booksurge.com/The-Universe-Is-Otherwise-External-Gravitation/A/1419632310.htm), BookSurge Publishing, 198 pp.

How to Follow “The Scientific Worldview”

2011-10-10T18:10:00.000-07:00

It has come to my attention that simply signing up as a “Follower” does not get you automatic notices of blog entries or comments. If you want to get these, you can now sign up for email alerts, RSS feeds of posts, and/or RSS feeds of comments. I try to put out a post every Wednesday, whenever I am in the office.

New to the blog are:

A world map showing the locations of visitors to the site (currently about 20/day).

A list of the top ten most popular postings.

An alphabetical list of all posts.

Thanks to everyone who submits questions or comments. That makes it easier to come up with topics of interest to univironmental determinists and/or critics of TSW.

Why the God Particle Does Not Exist

2011-10-05T17:00:00.000-07:00

From Bill Westmiller:

“On a cursory read of the Amazon reviews and a few articles on your website, I'll give you at least 95% conformity. The sole exception is 8.1, since my theory postulates an irreducible 'microscopic' particle that is common to all matter.”

Bill:

You are not alone. Most physicists hypothesize an irreducible (elementary particle) or "god particle." Microcosmic finity was the primary supposition underlying Greek atomism and its offspring, classical mechanics and classical determinism. That is why the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions), is undoubtedly what puts my work ahead of the mainstream. You might want to do a thorough reading of Chapter 8 (pp. 88-97) in "The Ten Assumptions of Science" (TTAOS) (pp. 89-97 in "The Scientific Worldview"). Microcosmic infinity, in particular, is a thread that runs throughout all ten assumptions of science. It is what makes them “consupponible,” that is, if you can assume one of them, you must be able to assume all of them without contradiction. For instance, the Second Assumption of Science, causality (All effects have an infinite number of material causes), would not be possible without it. All things (microcosms) must be bathed in an infinite sea of particles (supermicrocosms) so that no two reactions can be exactly alike. Similarly, interconnection (All things are interconnected, that is, between any two objects exist other objects that transmit matter and motion) obviously requires it. Frankly, I don’t see how you can agree with anything in TTAOS without also agreeing with infinity.

Despite their claims to be “relativists,” modern physicists have not disentangled themselves from this one presupposition that most distinguishes classical mechanics—finity. They are ambivalent about the macrocosmic variety, as shown by the currently popular oxymoronic “parallel universe” and “multiverse” theories. Nevertheless, like yourself, most are firm believers in microcosmic finity. You are in good company, because the billion-dollar bet at CERN is all set to discover the Higgs boson, a hypothesized elementary particle otherwise dubbed the “god particle.” Only one problem: it cannot possibly exist.

There are many reasons for this. One is its association with the photon, the oxymoronic massless particle hypothesized by Einstein. Another is the fact that all microcosms must contain submicrocosms ad infinitum. An elementary particle can have no parts. If it did, then these would have to be considered even more elementary. Even if an elementary particle, filled with solid matter, actually existed, it would pose the most critical problem of all. In tune with the idealism that engendered it, all of these particles would have to be identical. To be non-identical, any two “elementary” particles could not be “partless.” At least one of them would have more “solid matter” than the other. For that to be the case, that solid matter would have to be subdividable, i.e., made up of submicrocosms. This, of course, negates the “elementary” claim.

Now let us suppose that these elementary particles really are identical, as claimed by those who hypothesize them. This would contradict the Ninth Assumption of Science, relativism (All things have characteristics that make them similar to all other things as well as characteristics that make them dissimilar to all other things), producing a logical conundrum for believers in TTAOS. This is not so bad for those who prefer the indeterministic opposites anyway, but it presents yet another logical problem. Identical elementary particles, hypothesized to be the constituents of all things, have no reason to associate with each other. They could not be charged or have opposed polarity, because that would mean that at least half of them were not identical and therefore not elementary. Identical particles would bang around the universe forever, never having reasons for joining with other particles to form anything. As hard as it is for us to believe that all things must contain other things and must have other things outside them, it is even harder to believe that the universe could be constructed of elementary particles.

Recently, the CERN folks have admitted that the Higgs boson may be a “mirage” (Evans, 2011): “The centre's research director Sergio Bertolucci told the conference, at the Indian city's Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, that if the Higgs did not exist ‘its absence will point the way to new physics.’” You betcha.

Reference:

Evans, R. (2011). "Higgs boson may be a mirage, scientists hint." Retrieved August 22, 2011, from http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/22/us-science-higgs-idUSTRE77L5KS20110822 or http://reut.rs/rkw3ca

Redshift of Galaxy Clusters

2011-09-30T11:53:00.000-07:00

With regard to the redshift recently found by Wojtak et al., Fred Frees writes:

Can you elaborate why this is "confirmation" of relativity? How could these results be "predicted"?

What explanation of the last "confirmation" explains the satellite's gyroscopes not pointing in the same direction? Is this just a case of seeing what they want to see?

Fred:

This is simply a follow up proof of the commonly known gravitational redshift that was first demonstrated in the Pound and Rebka (1960) experiment at Harvard. Light from any celestial object becomes redshifted slightly due to the presence of what astronomers now call a “gravity well.” Actually, Pound and Rebka was a subtle falsification of Special Relativity Theory (SRT), as shown by the wording of the title. Photons, of course, are not supposed to have “weight” or mass according to SRT. Pound and Rebka never ventured a guess as to what the “weight” of a photon was and essentially did not address the promise in the title. Of course, if one objectifies light, as Einstein did (Borchardt, 2011), then the resulting corpuscles (photons) must be affected by gravity as he claimed. Ignoring the “massless” contradiction, Pound and Rebka claimed that the result was a confirmation of General Relativity Theory (GRT), although I understand that others were able to use regular math to explain the result. The conventional explanation is that photons moving away from a massive source lose energy, becoming redshifted in the process. Photons moving toward a massive source gain energy, becoming blueshifted in the process. I predict that the next “confirmation” will involve galaxy super clusters.

If you consider light properly, as motion, then you have a problem explaining the Pound and Rebka results via conventional theory. Steve and I recently solved this problem in our soon-to-be published book “Universal Cycle Theory” (Puetz and Borchardt, 2011). The solution involves neither SRT nor GRT, both of which we consider invalid due to their inherent objectification of motion.

I have not analyzed the results of Gravity Probe B (the gyroscope satellite experiment) yet, but I have not seen a “confirmation” of either SRT or GRT that did not have trouble with data collection or interpretation. You have to realize that when you spend $700 million on an experiment, there are tremendous pressures to come up with a result appealing to those who footed the bill.

References

Borchardt, G. (2011). "Einstein's most important philosophical error (http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5991.pdf)." Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance.

Pound, R. V. and G. A. Rebka (1960). "Apparent Weight of Photons." Physical Review Letters 4(7): 337-341.

Puetz, S. J. and G. Borchardt (2011). Universal cycle theory: Neomechanics of the hierarchically infinite universe (in preparation). Denver, OutskirtsPress.com.

Wojtak, R., S. H. Hansen, et al. (2011). "Gravitational redshift of galaxies in clusters as predicted by general relativity." Nature 477(7366): 567-569.

Velocity of Light: Part 1

2011-08-10T22:59:00.000-07:00

Frank asks:

Why the red shift? Isn't c a supposedly fixed constant regardless of the relative velocities of the producers of electromagnetic radiation and its observers? I like your explanation: c changes due to some interaction with a medium between distant galaxies and our telescopes.
If c is some fixed constant, why should light have different velocities in different media, like water, air, hot air v. cold air, the vacuum of space, etc.?

Good questions Frank.

Before answering this, one must first state one’s assumptions about what light is. In UD, of course, a phenomenon is either matter or motion. Unlike Einstein, we consider light to be motion. For that to be possible, light must have a universal medium, commonly referred to as the aether, as was finally admitted by Einstein in 1920. Modern physicists nevertheless continue to use Einstein’s initial conception of light as matter—a particle that travels through completely empty space at a constant velocity, c. This particle, the photon, has mysterious, unprecedented properties.

First of all, it must be massless. This is because Einstein’s own equation for relativistic mass ( m_rel) forbids it to have rest mass (m_o):

m_rel = m_o /(1-v²/c²)^1/2

If the rest mass, m_o, were anything at all, then m_rel would be infinite. This is because v in the equation always is assumed to be c. Then, c²/c² equals 1. The square root of 1-1 is zero. Then, m_rel = m_o/0 equals infinity. How a thing can have no mass and still be a thing remains unexplained.

Second of all, the photon was next conceived as a “wave packet” imagined to contain the vibrations we call light. This conception was not so bad for short wave lengths, but really fell apart when it was extrapolated to all electromagnetic radiation. Some EM waves are over 10 km long. That one must be some photon!

Even if, like modern physicists and cosmogonists, you were able to swallow the above without breaking a sweat, you would also have to believe that space was perfectly empty. Then, your mysterious photon could travel at c with nothing at all to slow it down. I can’t imagine at all how such a creature could arrive from a distant galaxy with the waves within its packet having been red-shifted as the result of having been ejected from a receding object. The red shifts that I am familiar with are a result of the Doppler Effect, which in my view, can only occur in a medium. The red shift could not occur in completely empty space, and it certainly could not be the property of a single photon.

The upshot of all this is that I do not trust the purveyors of this illogical, obsolete view of light to tell me anything useful about the galactic redshift. The galactic redshifts are a fact. They need to be explained, but the aether, not the photon, is absolutely required for them to make any sense. If the aether is required, then the velocity of light is dependent on the characteristics of the aether. Would the density of the aether be the same throughout the universe? No. Would the velocity of light be independent of the density of the aether? No. Would c ever be constant? No. Would wave motion through the aether be affected by the Doppler Effect? Yes. Stay tuned for what the real cause of the galactic red shift could be.

The True Significance of “Multiverses” and “Parallel Universes”

2011-08-04T16:25:00.000-07:00

Frank writes:

“When reading the cosmology literature, I'm always left wondering.” “Parallel universes, plus the theory of our own splitting constantly into an infinity of universes, are just too weird to believe.”

Frank:

Thanks for the comment. It is always good to know the concerns of readers. You have hit upon one of the major ways in which systems philosophy evolves. When we draw an imaginary boundary around any portion of the infinite universe and study it to the exclusion of all else, we invariably make microcosmic errors. That is, we tend to overemphasize the microcosm and deemphasize the macrocosm. Nevertheless, our inevitably increasing experience with the macrocosm forces us to consider things that exist outside of whatever “system” we have chosen. We do this timidly, with the language following along in retarded fashion. Thus, when galaxies were first discovered, they were given the oxymoronic name “island universes.” We have long since abandoned that terminology, even though we tend to use the same approach on a grander scale.

Although equally oxymoronic, today’s multiverse and parallel universe theories are signs that the Big Bang Theory (BBT) is now in its declining years as the archetype of systems philosophy. Even conventional folks are thinking “outside the box” once again. This is analogous to what is happening in “systems ecology,” which likewise indicates that ecologists have learned that it is not enough to study a “system.” One must include its environment as well. So now, the observed universe is getting an environment—the first few toddling steps toward the realization that the universe actually is infinite. Through the back door, multiverse and parallel universe theories undermine the BBT. As weird as those conceptions are, we should see them as precursors to a grander vision: the demise of cosmogony and the ultimate acceptance of Infinite Universe Theory.

The Scientific Worldview: A Short Course, Part 1

2011-07-26T20:19:00.000-07:00

I have been invited to give this video conference on Saturday. This will be Part 1 of an overview of "The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein." Previous video conferences covered "The Ten Assumptions of Science" and are available as a video of the slides and an audio recording at NPA (click here). You can wait for the recording also, but on Saturday I will be on camera and the audience gets to ask questions (with or without camera).

To participate, you only need a computer, and internet hookup, and sound.

Click here to RSVP.

The Scientific Worldview

Date: Saturday, July 30, 2011
Time: 07:00 AM - 09:00 AM (U.S. Pacific time)
New York: 2011-07-30 10:00 AM
Rio: 2011-07-30 11:00 AM
Rome: 2011-07-30 04:00 PM
Delhi: 2011-07-30 07:30 PM
Sydney: 1969-12-31 07:00 PM

Length: 2 hours

Guest Speaker:


	Dr. Glenn Borchardt Author, Philosopher, Scientist Interests: Infinity, Infinite Universe Theory, Philosophy of Science, Univironmental Determinism, the Scientific Worldview Nationality: USA Books: 2 Abstracts: 8 Read details...

The Scientific Worldview provides nothing less than the first outline of the philosophical perspective that will develop during the last half of the Industrial-Social Revolution. Borchardt first acknowledges the perpetual philosophical struggle that underlies our understanding of the universe and our place in it. The choice we must make is not between faith and reason, but between determinism and indeterminism. He warns us that scientific philosophy must begin with determinism and end with determinism: the belief (or faith) that all effects have material causes. His elaboration on this theme provides a clear philosophical foundation, The Ten Assumptions of Science, intriguing in itself for its innovation in proposing a complement to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Worldviews differ simply because they are founded on ultimately unprovable dialectically opposed assumptions. Just as one cannot determine the causes of all effects, one cannot travel to the end of the universe to prove whether it is infinite or finite. His belief in microcosmic and macrocosmic infinity is woven throughout the assumptions and throughout the book. The central concept of the resulting philosophical system is univironmental determinism, a new, universal, mechanism of evolution founded on the simple proposition that whatever happens to a thing is a result of the infinite variety of matter in motion within (the microcosm) and without (the macrocosm). Borchardt points out that the first mechanism of evolution, natural selection, was classically, overtly, and embarrassingly macrocosmic. Like Newton and the atomists before him, Darwin had totally neglected the insides of his evolutionary model. It was left to systems philosophers in the 20th century to include genetics to formulate what is otherwise known as neo-Darwinism, the current mechanism of evolution. Borchardt faults this mechanism as being overly specialized and relatively useless for understanding the evolution of the non-biological world. Univironmental determinism thus goes beyond Newton (classical mechanism), who overemphasized the macrocosm, and Einstein (systems philosophy), who overemphasized the microcosm. These two earlier scientific world views must be abandoned in favor of a worldview that unites both approaches under univironmental theory. Borchardt outlines numerous examples of univironmental analysis, resulting in some surprising, yet theoretically satisfying speculations: Gravity is a push, not a pull; light is motion; time is motion; there is an ether; Big Bang cosmology must be rejected as microcosmic; humanity will not cause its own extinction; the global demographic transition in 1989 marks the midpoint in humanity's juvenile development.

More details:

This course on “The Scientific Worldview” (TSW) assumes familiarity with “The Ten Assumptions of Science,” which were presented during previous video conferences (available on the NPA website). The assumptions also appear as Chapter 3 in TSW. Attendees are encouraged to follow along in the text in preparation for each conference. I recommend taking the short quiz on p. 345 before and after reading the book. Hopefully, your improved understanding of univironmental determinism will be obvious when you score both tests after finishing the book. The first video conference will start with:

Part I

Chapter 1 Introduction

We begin with the introduction to scientific philosophy, how it differs from the philosophy of science, and why we need determinism now more than ever.

Chapter 2 The Renaissance of Determinism

A short review of the determinism-indeterminism philosophical struggle from Democritus to Sartre, emphasizing its spiralic nature due to humanity’s ever-increasing contact with the real world.

Chapter 3 The Ten Assumptions of Science

A really short review showing their interconnections and the part played by infinity.

Chapter 4 Theory of the Univironment

Replacing systems philosophy and classical mechanism with a balanced consideration of the object (microcosm) and its environment (macrocosm).

Chapter 5 Neomechanics: The Reduction

How Newton’s laws work in an infinite universe with the advent of infinite universal causality. I will discuss acceleration and deceleration of microcosms, absorption of matter and motion, and the emission of matter and motion.

The Cause of Inertia

2011-07-19T14:08:00.000-07:00

From Rick:

In reading Collingwood's discussion of Newton's "free motions", I started wondering at the whole concept of inertia. "Modern science" has the mathematical description of what we call "gravity", but not so much the cause or the actual process. Even though they can map out elaborate mathematics of gravitational effects on motion, they never even hint at a causal mechanism. It would be heresy to do so, because it would involve the forbidden "aether".

"Modern Science" teaches the math for inertia, but never the physical causes involved in the actual process of inertia. I'm amazed at the tautological style in which we are taught science ideas like "gravity" and "inertia". Teachers never stop to say, "by the way, we have no freaking idea why or how this happens". The Catholic nuns in grade-school had the same teaching style when it came to Jesus. "He loves you, but if you don't love him back, you're going to be tortured forever". But I digress.

I'm thinking that inertia is nothing but the same "shadowing" process that causes gravity. What I visualize is based on questioning Newton's laws; Why should a particle remain in motion until it bumps into another particle? When two particles collide, why don't they just move away from each other, and then stop dead? Why is there a continuing motion away from each other?

Rick:

Thanks for the questions. You really know how to get at the heart of the matter.

First Question: “What I visualize is based on questioning Newton's laws; Why should a particle remain in motion until it bumps into another particle?”

Aside from UD, the single most important scientific law was Newton’s First Law of Motion (Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon). An inertial body like this requires no further motion (or “energy”) to stay at rest or in motion. The First Law is the essence of mechanism. Some folks have tried to give a teleological flavor to this motion, as if the object had "free will" or a mind of its own—as if it “wanted” to travel in the required straight line. Or that it had a so-far undiscovered tiny engine that propels it throughout the universe. Others ask: “Where did the motion of the object come from in the first place?” This question always was and is a problem for believers in finity. Who or what gave the object that first push? Of course, with infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions), we assume that there was no first push. We assume that each object receives its motion from other objects ad infinitum.

Of course, as the “Law of the Universe,” the First Law of Motion was only an idealistic skeleton of what it could be. Newton’s object had nothing inside it (unless “empty space” or “solid matter” could be considered something) and didn’t necessarily require something outside it. With neomechanics, we transform Newton’s idealized object into a microcosm, a portion of the universe that contains an infinite number of submicrocosms within and an infinite number of supermicrocosms without. The momentum equation remains the same (P=mv, where P=momentum; m=mass; v=velocity), but it no longer predicts perpetual motion because the required “empty space” does not exist. The macrocosm outside each microcosm always contains supermicrocosms capable of slowing it down (or speeding it up). Inertial planetary rotations and orbits generally slow down due to friction caused by the macrocosm--the days and years get longer. Earth’s day was only 6.5 hours 4.5 billion years ago.

Likewise, our own travels require engines because there is always something in the macrocosm that resists the otherwise “perpetual motion” we instill in our vehicles. This is why one cannot get a patent for a “perpetual motion machine.” Despite some unfortunate theoretical problems at the beginning of the 20th century, the folks in the patent office no longer seem to believe in empty space. Nonetheless, the office is often plagued by those imbued with systems philosophy who propose microcosms (machines) without macrocosms.

Second Question: “When two particles collide, why don't they just move away from each other, and then stop dead? Why is there a continuing motion away from each other?”

Remember that Newton said “that objects at rest or in motion continue to stay that way unless they contact something.” The First Law is not a causal law, but a description of what happens in the absence of a cause. The Second Law of Motion (The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force impressed; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impressed) posits a cause (F=ma, where F=force; m=mass; a=acceleration). In other words, all causes involve a change in motion. Newton has observed that there can be no change in motion unless two bodies interact. Particles cannot “drop dead” without interacting with other particles. Newton doesn’t always say what the second body is (e.g., gravity), but he encourages us to look for it anyway. By the way, that is what is so irritating about modern physics, as you surmised. Einstein’s fields are immaterial. They contain no second body or particles; they are just mathematical descriptions void of actual physical objects. This is why we consider the modern version of physics to be a major regression in physics. We take a progressive step out of the morass by positing a macrocosm that contains material particles (aether) responsible for the often wonderful mathematics that describes their contributions.

By the way, the “shadowing effect” that you mention would never increase inertia. It could only decrease it. Anything that blocks otherwise perpetual motion comes under the Second Law. That’s why gravitation is described as a cause: F=mg (where F=force of gravity; m=mass; g=acceleration due to gravity).

Elderly Galaxies Plague Big Bang Theory

2011-07-15T09:19:00.000-07:00

Everyone should be aware of Hubble’s photos of the Ultra Deep Field, which by BBT calculations is only 400 million years old. It doesn’t seem to bother them a bit that the fully-formed galaxies they are seeing must have been at least 10 billion years old when the light from them started its 13 billion-year journey toward the Hubble telescope. These objects are now at least 23 billion years old, if they even still exist. The unobserved portion in the outer reaches of the NASA diagram is pure conjecture. The youthful objects predicted by the Big Bang Theory will never be seen because the Big Bang never occurred.

This is the UDF NASA page:

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/hubble_UDF.html

NASA's BBT diagram (seriously):

There are over 10,000 galaxies in this tiny patch of the sky (1/10 the size of the moon):

Close-up of a small portion of the above:

Can the Big Bang Theory Survive Chopra's Endorsement?

2011-07-06T08:00:00.000-07:00

Univironmental determinists should get a kick out of this one:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/guru-deepak-chopra-endorses-big-bang-says-there-was-no-time-before-creation/

Well, at least he got one thing right: Without matter there is no motion (i.e., time).

Natural Philosophy Alliance Meets to Challenge Einstein and the Big Bang

2011-06-30T10:27:00.000-07:00

Next week, about a hundred dissidents will be meeting at the University of Maryland to discuss the crisis in modern physics. This will be the 18^th annual meeting of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, which is composed of retired physicists, engineers, and other independent thinkers who are not financially dependent on mainstream physics. Most simply cannot stomach claims that the universe exploded out of nothing, that there are more than three dimensions, that time dilates, and that we should believe much of the other nonsense promulgated by Einstein and his academic cohorts. Speakers range from the usual positivists and solipsists to a few univironmental determinists. There is little censorship of ideas, so everyone gets a chance to propose alternatives for getting out of what I call “Regressive Physics.” The NPA presents a smorgasbord of the philosophy of science. There is no party line, although about 80% of the members assume that there must be an ether. The quality of the papers varies from totally confusing to absolutely brilliant. This year, Steve Bryant and I are trying for the latter category with the following:

Einstein’s Most Important Philosophical Error

http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5991.pdf

Failure of the Relativistic Hypercone

http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6000.pdf

The Twin Paradox: Why it is Required by Relativity

http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6001.pdf

The links go to the full versions of the papers. The first paper has less mathematics than the last two. If you don't know what time is after that one, then you didn't spend enough time on it. In the second one, we (mostly Steve) show how Einstein incorrectly substituted length for time in one of his derivations. After the 3rd paper, no one will have any excuse for taking the "Twin Paradox" seriously again. All promote PSI’s campaign to consider time as motion.

Details on the meeting are at: http://conf18.worldnpa.org/

Ethics and the Scientific Worldview

2011-06-15T08:00:00.000-07:00

Strictly speaking, the terms “good” and “bad” used to describe ethics are purely subjective and have no place in scientific discourse. What is good for the fox is bad for the rabbit and vice versa. Scientists, on the other hand, are often thought to have the highest ethical standards. Why is that? Our standards are high for a very practical reason: our only mistress is truth. In science, we define truth as the relative agreement with observation and experiment. Good scientists try to be aware of the truths discovered by their predecessors and followers. We constantly are looking over our shoulders, making sure that unwarranted subjectivity does not enter our analyses and interpretations. We are to discover the truth and tell no lies. Any failure in that department gets around. Fudging data can result in disbarment from the scientific community. That gets to the guts of what ethics really are.

Ethics, as I define them, are maps that we use to negotiate the environment. Ethics tell us what is allowed and what is not allowed—based on historical knowledge. Most of us could use some help with this. At the same time, each ethical decision is an experiment performed on an ever-changing environment. Like all maps, these are humanly derived and not without errors and dead-ends. Despite the claims of indeterminists, ethics are never absolute, for they are always changing with the changes in the environment. Thus, under feudalism stoning an adulteress was considered ethical and necessary for enforcing marital loyalty in the community. Now we do it in more subtle and more complicated ways, although sometimes with a similarly unfortunate result.

Ethics also are used to control human behavior for subjective ends. In my opinion, those who shout the loudest about ethics should receive the most scrutiny by the rest of us. Whether scientists, guided by their definition of “truth,” should receive special attention is questionable. The truth is that ethics are determined by everyone. Your ethics are as good as mine (unless you have served jail time for actions I deem inappropriate). Of course, some folks are more influential than others—it is now considered, for instance, to be ethical to lower taxes for the rich and wages for the poor. Some poor folks may not think that is ethical. So you see how it works: ethics are purely subjective. On the other hand, we will see how certain ethical principles work out. Ethics ultimately involves the age-old political question suited to every economic system: Should we do it together or do it apart? Every answer to that question amounts to an experiment. With an environment that increasingly contains more people, what do you think the answer to that question will be in the current period? You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.

Heat Increases Mass

2011-06-08T15:05:00.000-07:00

Bob de Hilster asks:

On page 139 of your book you state that increased heat causes increased mass.

Can you give me a specific reference that explains this?

Thanks for the question Bob.

The reference to that is in the classic text:

Lewis, G.N., and Randall, M., 1923, Thermodynamics and the free energy of chemical substances: New York, McGraw-Hill, 653 p. (see pages 48-50)

It may not be in the 2^nd edition (probably because of the influence of the Einsteinian Regression):

Lewis, G.N., and Randall, M., 1961, Thermodynamics (2nd edition of Thermodynamics and the free energy of chemical substances, revised by K.S. Pitzer and Leo Brewer): New York, McGraw-Hill, 723 p.

The transfer of heat motion from supermicrocosms in the macrocosm to the submicrocosms in the microcosm causes mass increase. This is the reverse of the mass decrease described by E=mc². In that case, some of the submicrocosmic motion is transferred to the macrocosm via acceleration of ether particles (the supermicrocosms of interest). As I showed in my E=mc² paper (http://scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/The%20Physical%20Meaning%20of%20E%20=%20mc2.pdf), this is not the usual disappearance of mass into “pure energy” or matterless motion as taught in modern physics, but the transfer of one kind of the motion of matter into another kind of the motion of matter.

One way of viewing this is to realize that the common definition of mass is the resistance to motion within a gravitational field. Each submicrocosm within a microcosm has motion described by the momentum equation (P=mv). Any acceleration of those submicrocosms via cross-boundary impacts increases their motion and results in an increase in the calculation for momentum. Impacts against the inside walls of the microcosm (a tea kettle, for instance) then occur with what we conceive as increased momenta. This becomes most obvious when you touch the side of a hot kettle. Measurements of mass generally use gravitation (F=mg), in which ether particles or some such push against the kettle. The newly accelerated submicrocosms within the kettle push back harder than when they are cold. Thus, this increased internal momentum is seen by the measuring device as an increase in mass. In other words, the number of submicrocosms within the microcosm has not increased, only their activity, since we haven’t added any submicrocosms to the kettle.

All this gets deeply into philosophical questions such as the one about what is matter? The above is guided by the 4^th Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion). Thus if matter had no motion, it would disappear. Since time is the motion of matter, it would be senseless to presume that there could be time without matter. My definition of matter is “that which contains other matter and is surrounded by other matter.” This also follows from the 8^th Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions), which is required to remove the deficiencies of classical mechanics.

In classical mechanics, we tended to assume that mass is something unchangeable and independent of its environment. Neomechanics, on the other hand, teaches that mass, like matter, is dependent on its univironment (the matter in motion inside and the matter in motion outside). That is the way the universe is. The outside of a thing is just as important as the insides of a thing. Without infinity the universe would never work. The unchanging finite particles of the atomists and the empty space of Einstein could never make a universe.

Eleventh Assumption of Science?

2011-06-01T12:33:00.000-07:00

From Rick:

Also, after re-reading your list of 10 Assumptions, I thought you might add an assumption about Scaling, e.g., "We see familiar patterns of motion repeat at various scales as we see further into the micro and macro IU". I'm sure you could do better. I don't mean to be so presumptuous with your thesis.

Thanks Rick. I always keep my eyes open for the 11^th assumption of science. Once we thought it was that the universe is 3D, but we could find no suitable indeterministic opposite. Also, the 3D concept seems well explained by inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion), particularly after we define matter as things that have xyz dimensions and location with respect to other things.

Your suggestion is more prescient than you think. Maybe you picked it up from the NPA paper that Steve Puetz and I gave last year (http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5229.pdf ). Anyway, we are nearly done with an entire book on the subject (tentative title: “Universal Cycle Theory”). Nonetheless, the cycle idea does not seem to have a suitable indeterministic opposite. Also, the concept seems to be a deduction from infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions), although one could argue that infinity covers only the material part, but not the motion. Again, inseparability seems to settle the motion question as well. As you can see, the hard part about discovering fundamental assumptions is finding their indeterministic opposites. These have to lead to a “freewill” deduction and many of the ideas that have been dear to the hearts of indeterminists over the centuries.

Zero-Point Energy

2011-05-25T08:00:00.000-07:00

A question from Rick:

“I wondered what you thought of the Zero-Point energy ideas flying around out there. More of a technical question than philosophical. I have a hard time believing things that I see on all kinds of UFO and conspiracy websites. But, the "fringe" isn't necessarily wrong. I almost prefer the fringe to the status quo.”

Good question Rick. “Zero-Point Energy” refers to the so-called “energy” of the vacuum or “field.” It involves the mysterious “fluctuations” in quantum mechanics. But as you know from reading my “E=mc²” and “Einstein’s Most Important Philosophical Error” papers, energy doesn’t exist. Instead, it is a calculation that describes matter in motion. The “vacuum” or “field” of positivists such as Einstein is nevertheless assumed to contain no matter in motion. The proper use of the word “energy” as a description of matter in motion conflicts with this, so its more confusing connotation normally is used in modern physics. The truth is that there indeed is matter in motion in the “vacuum” or “field.” For centuries, it has been called the “ether.” There is plenty of evidence that the phenomena being discussed around the term “Zero-Point Energy” involves the motion of ether particles. The CBR (cosmic background radiation) is one example in which the “vacuum” of intergalactic space has been found to have a temperature of 2.7K—instead of 0K predicted by Einstein. Temperature is the vibration (or motion) of matter. Thus intergalactic space contains matter: ether particles in motion.

Thus I agree with you that, in this case, the “fringe” is to be preferred over the conventional wisdom promulgated by modern physicists. Whether anyone outside the mainstream will ever be able to harness the motion of ether particles to provide “free infinite energy” is questionable. To transfer vibratory motion from a 2.7K macrocosm, one would have to produce a <2.7K microcosm. I am sure that cooling a microcosm that low would require much more “energy” than it would produce. There may be easier ways to harvest that last 2.7K, but I doubt that. On the other hand, a successful capture of ethereal motion would instantly be the end for positivism. But don’t hold your breath.

Letter from a Fellow Traveler on the Road to Scientific Philosophy

2011-05-18T11:48:00.000-07:00

Dr. Glenn,

I just had to butt into your day and thank you one more time for your great work. I sure hope all is well with you and yours.

I just got through re-reading "Einstein’s Most Important Philosophical Error" and "The Physical Meaning of E=mc2".

I re-read those as a prelude to my first reading of Collingwood's Essay on Metaphysics.I'm probably going to crack that book and get into it this afternoon. Hopefully on the patio if it doesn't rain. (Up next on my reading list is Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions.)

I've been looking through the latest NPA videos on YouTube, and I see you there in the crowd. Did you do any presentations or recorded discussions at that event? I was hoping...

I thank you for putting me on this intellectual, philosophical, scientific journey.

It's frustrating to see the human race go on it's merry indeterminate way (and the attendant bloodshed), but it's reassuring to have a confirmation of what I've felt since my early teens; "the word is not the object, the menu is not the meal, the signpost is not the path."

When I first started to doubt my Catholic upbringing, in my late teens, I noted that the Bible starts with "In the beginning was the Word." That really clicked with my earlier appreciation that words aren't just concepts floating around in space, as Plato envisioned them.I realized then that religion had its origins in the problem of people confusing human concepts with physical reality.

Your books and papers (and suggested reading) are having that same kind of paradigm-shaking effect that I felt back when my religious faith was demolished. It feels like a "return to innocence", at age 57 and grandfather of 7.

Best wishes and deep appreciation,

Rick Dutkiewicz

Allegan, Michigan

http://www.rickdoogie.com/

Massaging the Gravity Probe B Results to Fit Einstein's General Relativity Theory

2011-05-11T19:27:00.000-07:00

Thanks to David de Hilster who sent this "fair and balanced" assessment of the Gravity Probe B fiasco surprisingly offered by the mainstream media:

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/05/at-long-last-gravity-probe-b.html

See the paragraphs near the end. Although the data and conclusions are very suspect, see the highlighted part below:

Quoted from end of article:

Some other scientists aren't sure how much they trust the corrections. Five years ago, Ciufolini notes, Gravity Probe B researchers were reporting uncertainties more than 10 times bigger. Correcting for such large "systematic errors" is tricky business, he says: "I don't know the details, but it seems to me very difficult to get rid of more than 90% of the systematic error."

The previous measurement also puts a damper on the new results. In 2004, Cifuolini and Erricos Pavlis of University of Maryland, Baltimore County, measured frame dragging by tracking the orbits of the LAGEOS and LAGEOS II satellites, simple reflectors launched in 1976 and 1992 and used primarily to monitor the motion of Earth's surface. By very carefully monitoring which way the planes of the satellites' orbits turned or "precessed," they measured the effect to 10% accuracy, largely stealing the thunder of the Gravity Probe B team in some researchers' opinions. "At best they've just confirmed the work Ciufolini did," says Robert O'Connell, a theorist at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge. "So I find it a bit too much, all the hoopla" of a NASA press conference, he says.

In the end, Gravity Probe B's full value goes beyond the results of the experiment, Everitt told Science. "Why was it worth it?" he says. "Just the element of challenge in it, the element of invention in it. There was this constant challenge of inventing new technologies." He notes that 100 students earned Ph.D.s working on the experiment. Others offer a less favorable assessment. "This [$760 million] was government money," O'Connell says. "And to my mind it was misspent and poorly managed" by the government agencies involved.

NASA’s Gravity Probe B Proves Einstein Wrong Once Again

2011-05-05T15:53:00.000-07:00

Even today, after much head scratching, conventional wisdom still has it that Einstein is always right. After spending $750 million of your tax dollars and massaging the raw data for 5 years, NASA (2011) has finally announced the results of Gravity Probe B (GP-B). They say that the warped “space-time” around Earth caused the axes of their perfect gyroscopes to tilt at a rate predicted by relativity. The key to all of Einstein’s stuff, of course, is that there is no there there. Real causes do not exist in relativity. Einstein’s mathematical abstraction hypothesizes perfectly empty space. GP-B actually serves as a disproof of that notion. For the gyros to be disturbed, they had to be disturbed by something. The experiment provides yet another proof of the existence of the partially entrained ether that surrounds Earth (Borchardt, 2007, p. 202).

Even Francis Everitt, GP-B principal investigator at Stanford, was forced to “get physical” in explaining the experiment: "Imagine the Earth as if it were immersed in honey. As the planet rotates, the honey around it would swirl, and it's the same with space and time” (Space.com Staff, 2011). This “frame dragging” effect supports the view that the macrocosm around Earth contains supermicrocosms small enough to penetrate and interact with any experimental setup one could devise. The outer reaches of vortices (spiral galaxies are good examples) have slower velocities than their cores. The unseen ether apparently detected by GP-B is not space-time, but part of the vortex of which Earth is the core. Expecting the gyros to point toward IM Pegasi forever is like expecting to keep your umbrella upright in a windstorm.

By 1920 Einstein had recanted his earlier denial of the ether: "There is a weighty reason in favour of ether. To deny ether is to ultimately assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever." As usual, NASA relativists make no mention of Einstein’s change of heart and the implication that there could be a physical rather than an extra-dimensional mathematical cause for the apparent GP-B result. It is time for physicists to choose between ether, which now appears to be real, and space-time, which is entirely imaginary (Borchardt, 2011).

References:

Borchardt, Glenn, 2007, The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 411 p.

Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Einstein's most important philosophical error ( http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5991.pdf ): Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance.

Einstein, Albert, 1920, Sidelights on relativity: 1. Ether and relativity. 2. Geometry and experience: London, Methuen, 56 p.

NASA, 2011, http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/

Space.com Staff, 2011, http://www.space.com/11570-nasa-gravity-probe-einstein-theory-relativity.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+spaceheadlines+%28SPACE.com+Headline+Feed%29

Scientific American Joins the Anti-Big Bang Crusade!

2011-04-16T22:54:00.000-07:00

The End of Cosmogony is Near!

Material Fields

2011-03-09T15:39:00.000-08:00

Bill writes:

Thanks for the response. Since you think I’m ‘on track’, I’ll travel down the road a bit more and see if I can find that pot-hole in my understanding (which I’m sure is down there somewhere :-). We appear to agree that: 1) the patterns reflected by iron filing ‘tests’ indicate the presence of a medium, and that 2) the interaction between the microcosm and the macrocosm produces a pattern of constructive and destructive interference pattern which is indicative of wave motion occurring in the medium.

[You are right.]

With that as a base, I’m calling this area of microcosm and the macrocosm interaction a ‘field’. I’m intrigued by the concept that ‘fields’ are the manifestation of waveforms of different frequencies interacting within an aether medium which produces standing spherical waves, which in turn, create constructive and destructive interference patterns. One implication is that stable harmonic positions only occur at nodal points (creating the locations of constructive interference). If so, then our conceptual model of electron orbital’s in atoms would represent different harmonics (analogous to what’s seen in Cymatics). These harmonics are dependent on the different frequencies (and subharmonic frequencies) involved; and that ‘light quanta’ jumping between the various electron shells (as seen in atomic absorption and emission lines) are the result of the transference of energy [Sorry, but energy cannot be transferred. Only matter or the motion of matter can be transferred. We rarely use “energy” in UD, as it neither exists nor occurs. It is a calculation. You may substitute “energy calculation” for “energy” to complete your understanding of this.] between constructive-interference nodes. These harmonic nodes (or zones of constructive interference) would also explain chemical bonds. Going into the macro world, the concept of constructive and destructive interference patterns also suggest to me that Bode’s Rule is not simply a coincidence. Another implication is that particles and what we call matter might actually be dense spherical waveforms.

[From Wikipedia: “Bode’s Law relates the semi-major axis a of each planet outward from the Sun in units such that the Earth's semi-major axis is equal to 10:

a = 4 + n,

where n=0,3,6,12,24,48…, each value of n>3 twice the previous value. The resulting values can be divided by 10 to convert them into astronomical units (AU), which would result in the expression

a = 0.4 + (0.3)(2^m)

for m=-infinity,0,1,2…

For the outer planets, each planet is predicted to be roughly twice as far from the Sun as the previous object.”

Bill, you are right that the nodes calculated here are not coincidence, but the result of constructive interference. However, “waveforms” are not matter, but the motion of matter. Matter of a particular type survives best within a univironment that protects it. Constructive interference thus produces a protected univironment in which special microcosms can survive best.]

I may have not provided enough description for make the concept clear, but if so, I’d enjoy hearing where the pot-hole is. And in the event that I’ve driven completely off the road such that my idea is “…not even wrong”, so that you can’t comment on it, I’ll understand :-).

(As an aside, I noticed that you didn’t use the word ‘field’ and am wondering if you have a different perspective about this term like you do with ‘energy’ and ‘force’, and if so, I’d like to hear about what it is). (As another aside, you wrote that aether particles are probably moving at velocities greater than c. Does that mean that you don’t accept Einstein’s limit on matter traveling at speeds greater than c or that you mean that particles are not matter, or else is not the type of matter that is subject to this limit?)

[Being a positivist and immaterialist, Einstein hypothesized that his “field” was immaterial. It was purely mathematical. In UD, a field must contain particles that carry the motion attributed to it.

When I speculated that aether particle velocities might be greater than c, I was simply applying an analogy to air. Air molecules tend to travel in random directions at about 1000 mph even though sound waves in air travel at about 700 mph. The velocity of light, c, is simply the velocity of motion through the aether medium. It says nothing about the random motions of the particles that compose aether, which is only a guess on my part. Of course, in UD, light is not matter, but the motion of matter. Einstein, on the other hand, proposed a corpuscular theory of light, which is most certainly incorrect in the same way that the conception of heat as a “caloric fluid” was incorrect. In order for his equations to work within the positivist framework, Einstein had to consider his light corpuscles (photons) to be massless—another absurdity accepted by indeterminists worldwide. There probably is not a finite speed limit for microcosms, just as there is no finite limit for their dimensions.]

Big Bangers Grasping at Expanding Straws

2011-03-03T13:58:00.000-08:00

Mike just sent this link:

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/25492/

His money quote:

"That's in stark contrast to the various models of the Universe based on the Big Bang. Since the accelerating expansion of the Universe was discovered, cosmologists have been performing some rather worrying contortions with the laws of physics to make their models work.

The most commonly discussed idea is that the universe is filled with a dark energy that is forcing the universe to expand at an increasing rate. For this model to work, dark energy must make up 75 per cent of the energy-mass of the Universe and be increasing at a fantastic rate.

But there is a serious price to pay for this idea: the law of conservation of energy. The embarrassing truth is that the world's cosmologists have conveniently swept under the carpet one the of fundamental laws of physics in an attempt to square this circle."

What a mess! This article is good practice for those seeking to be univironmental determinists. Read the article and try to list how many of the Ten Assumptions of Science are violated.

What is Energy?

2011-02-23T08:00:00.000-08:00

Hello again Dr. Borchardt-

When I read your TTAOS and TSW books I was able to quickly comprehend and accept all but one of the 10 Assumptions. This ease of understanding wasn’t because they were consupponible (a word I’d never heard before and which still doesn’t appear in Wikipedia’s or Merriam-Webster’s online dictionaries by the way :-), but because they were not inconsistent with my own thinking and experience. The one Assumption that caused me to contemplate was Assumption No. 4- Inseparability, which posits (from Hegel) that ‘Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion’. I’ve finally worked thru what was puzzling me about this Assumption and it stemmed from my associating motion with energy.

As you write in TSW (beginning on page 53), this association has been confused and confounded for quite some time because matter has been viewed (and defined by Einstein) as equivalent to energy. I think your argument is epitomized by your statements- ‘Running is what legs do; motion is what matter does’; and, ‘Legs are not motion and running is not matter’. After cogitating on this, I realized that while your Assumption is correct, and even complete with respect to matter, it seems implicitly incomplete because it doesn’t address what ‘energy’ is. I do understand that the Assumption of Inseparability is not dealing with what energy is, but it seems (to me) that it either needs to, or that you need to add another assumption to the list. Energy is something. It’s a force or field (or some other word you prefer), but it is something- it’s what the motion of matter is conveying- it’s what makes the matter move and propagate. Let me try to clarify what I mean.

I can’t find the reference but I seem to recall you once writing in a blog that the term ‘energy’ could be substituted with the phrase ‘matter in motion’. Assuming this is a correct reflection of your views, then how do you explain the phenomenon revealed by Cymatics? If you’re not familiar with it, a short but good example is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uu6Ox5LrhJg&feature=related. Yes, the sound waves are moving the particles, but I’m talking about the patterns that the particles reveal at different frequencies. These patterns appear to be an emergent property of ‘energy’ and not simply of matter in motion. To me, these patterns seem like 2-D analogues of electron orbitals. Perhaps I’m still being confused by the paradigm of associating motion with energy. If so, I hope you can show me how (as you have so many other times). Thanks.

Bill:

Thanks again for the question. It all comes down to what is “energy”? You seem to agree with inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion), which is only common sense. It implies, however, that the universe presents us with only two basic phenomena: matter and the motion of matter. “Energy” is one of the many matter-motion terms we use in physics to describe matter in motion. Each of these terms is the result of a calculation in which we multiply a measurement for matter times a measurement for motion. The most common matter-motion terms are: momentum (P=mv), force (F=ma), and energy (E=mc²). None of these is either matter or motion. That is what is so difficult for people to comprehend. They tend to think of energy as matter in one instance and as motion in another. BTW: If I ever wrote that energy is matter in motion or that energy is the motion of matter, please tell me where it was so I can correct it in future editions.

The indeterministic claim that matter and energy are the same didn’t help anything (see my recent paper on “The Physical Meaning of E=mc²”: http://scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/The%20Physical%20Meaning%20of%20E%20=%20mc2.pdf ). I have often said that a “modern physicist” is one who does not know what “time” is. Now I can add that a “modern physicist” is one who does not know what “energy” is. That is because these terms are part of the eternal philosophical struggle between determinism and indeterminism. Ever since the invention of the concept of energy, it seems that indeterminism has been winning. Nonetheless, matter exists; motions occur. Matter has xyz dimensions and location with respect to other matter. So, legs exist and running occurs. I can put matter in my back pocket, put I cannot do so with motion. Energy neither exists nor occurs. We often say that we are “saving energy,” as if it were a thing that we could stockpile. We can save fossil fuels, but not the energy inside them. If energy exists inside them, could you please take some energy out and give it to me for future use? We often say that fast dancers are more energetic than slow dancers, as if energy and motion were equivalent. These common uses add to the confusion involving matter-motion terms. We have used them so much as shorthand terms that we have forgotten that they are mere calculations, neither things, nor motions.

I like your video demonstration of matter in motion. It clearly shows how grains of salt can be pushed around by vibratory motion. The patterns created depend on the frequency of the vibrations and the interactions produced by constructive and destructive interference. In general, notice that the low frequency, long period waves produce larger patterns than the high frequency, short period waves. The development of each of the patterns appears, at first, to be somewhat magical. That may be why you thought about them as “an emergent property of ‘energy’ and not simply of matter in motion.” I imagine that mathematicians have already figured out the equations of motion for each of the patterns, although, like all motions they are infinitely complex. This demo was especially interesting to me at this time, because I am currently writing a book with Steve Puetz on universal cycle theory (see http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Abstracts&tab1=Display&id=5229&tab=2). We will explain why so many motions occur as waves or cycles and how they contribute to infinite universe theory.

Stupidity and the Internet

2011-02-16T14:13:00.000-08:00

The question was asked:

Is the Internet breeding stupidity or shining a light on it?

Stupidity is doing the same thing twice and hoping for a different outcome. I prefer to think of what you have observed as the revelation of ignorance. The word comes from "ignore," our natural state when we are born. Education is supposed to be the remedy. That's where the Internet comes in. The fact that folks are poorly educated is not a bit surprising. With the Internet, we can see how bad education, particularly in the USA, really is. At the same time, the Internet provides great opportunities to obtain an education uncensored by authority figures. How do we know whether we are being educated or scammed? The scientific worldview assumes that "truth" is determined by the best agreement between theory and
observation/experiment. The same goes for information on the Internet. If it makes no logical sense (like four dimensions and an expanding universe), then it probably is nonsense.