20211025

Impossibility of falsifying myths

PSI Blog 20211025 Impossibility of falsifying myths

 

Abhishek Chakravartty asks:

 

“You wrote that creation is not subject to falsification because it is a myth that belongs to a religious belief system. Can you explain why creation cannot be falsified although it is a myth?”

 

[GB: Abhi: Please reread the Galston link. In summary, myths are present in the heads of people. We have no way of testing them. Falsification is possible only for evaluating things and motions that exist or occur outside people’s heads. Anyone can claim the universe was created by gods, dogs, turtles, dark energy, or what have you. On the other hand, specific claims about actually existing things (i.e., xyz portions of the universe) can be tested. For instance, there are claims that the universe was created 6,000 years ago. If we found anything older than that, the claim would be falsified (i.e., shown to be false). I have done that myself hundreds of times through isotope dating and pedochronology. While that claim has been put to bed, there could be an endless number of creation claims. We could never test all of them in the same way we could never prove “there are causes for all effects.” In essence, infinity prevents us from falsifying fundamental assumptions, whether they be scientific or religious.

 

The Big Bang Theory is just another creation theory, which like more overtly religious versions of the creation myth, cannot be falsified. Only specific claims for it can be falsified. For instance, the discovery of elderly galaxies at the limits of observation falsifies the hypothesized 13.8-billion-year age of the universe. Unbelievers have discovered much more evidence for falsification. George Coyne alone lists 66 flaws in the theory.[1] Will any one of these bring down the Big Bang Theory? That is doubtful as long as the religious assumption of creation (Matter and motion can be created out of nothing) holds sway over its opposite, the scientific assumption of conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed).[2]]

 

      



[1] Coyne, George, 2021, Notfinity Process: Matter in Motion (2nd ed.), JCNPS, 408 p.

 [2] Borchardt, Glenn, 2020, Religious Roots of Relativity: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 160 p. [https://go.glennborchardt.com/RRR-ebk].

 

 

20211018

Cosmic acceleration and dark energy do not exist

PSI Blog 20211018 Cosmic acceleration and dark energy do not exist

 

Thanks to George Coyne for this heads-up:

 

 “Hi Glenn,

 

As you and I do not believe that the Universe is expanding, there was never the acceptance that the misconceived expansion was accelerating. Now there is a 2019 study debunking the acceleration.

 

Here is the paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1808.04597.pdf

 

It is also described in this Big Think article: 

 

https://bigthink.com/hard-science/new-study-cosmic-acceleration-dark-energy-dont-exist/?fbclid=IwAR3hL03-oDnUNYEMB31vlD9_3nNURyMFCkkmAauJZtC8O57hTioBwYcfxvk

 

[GB: Note that the Nobel Prize was given to Saul Perlmutter, Brian Schmidt, and Adam Riess “for the discovery of the accelerating expansion of the Universe through observations of distant supernovae”.[1] That was an ad hoc proposed as a solution to observed red shifts indicating galactic recession at velocities greater than c. The choice at that time was: 1) throw out Einstein’s light-speed limit for the universe or 2) find some data indicating the “early universe” expanded faster than the usual misuse of the Hubble constant allowed:

 



 

Astute readers know all this speculation is based on these erroneous assumptions:

1.  Light consists of massless particles.

2.  Light travels through perfectly empty space.

3.  Light displays perpetual motion.

4.  The cosmological redshift is a result of the Doppler Effect or of expanding empty space.

5.  Universal expansion is propelled by matterless motion otherwise known as dark energy.]



[1] While I don’t agree with the theory, I believe Guth actually was among the first to propose it:

Guth, A.H., 1997, The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins, Basic Books

Guth, A.H., 1998, The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins, Basic Books, 384 p.

Guth, A.H., and Steinhardt, P.J., 1984, The inflationary universe: Scientific American, v. 250, no. 5, p. 116-128, 154.

 

 

20211011

Are Extra-Euclidean dimensions falsifiable?

PSI Blog 20211011 Are Extra-Euclidean dimensions falsifiable?

 

This week's book prize goes to Steve Puetz for his question on Extra-Euclidean dimensions:

 

“Hi Glenn,

 

Regarding a "Dimensionality" assumption - All matter and space within the universe has three dimensions (3D), generally referred to as length, width, and height. (It's opposite is non-3D, multidimensional.)

 

{This might be close, but I don't see where religions propose non-Euclidean dimensions. I think those are ad hocs, which I don't see as appropriate for fundamental assumptions.}

 

The problems that I foresee are twofold:

 

1) In fact, many theoretical physicists propose that the universe has 4, 6, 8, or 11 dimensions, etc. Just perform a Google web-search on "dimensions of the universe" and you will find 141 million items.

 

2) More importantly, none of the original 10 assumptions prohibit these non-3D theories, as far as I can tell. We need some way (either from the 10 assumptions, or a new assumption) to prohibit these theories, when embracing the neomechanical worldview.

 

Regards,

Steve”

 

[GB: The fundamental assumption that forbids extra-Euclidean dimensions is the First Assumption of Science, materialism (The external world exists after the observer does not). Its opposite is the First Assumption of Religion, immaterialism (Material things have no objective existence, strictly being products of consciousness). This dichotomy is so stark that most philosophers find ways to soften the blow. Another way of stating this irrevocable opposition is through the concepts of reality vs. ideality.

 

Reality vs. Ideality

 

Reality concerns the external world and ideality concerns the inner world. As Einstein characteristically said “Imagination is more important than knowledge.”[1] Realists assume only the external world exists, containing material things (i.e., XYZ portions of the universe), while idealists assume their dreams and imaginings exist. Thus, while materialists and realists are constrained by the three dimensions supported by observing or experimenting with everyday objects, immaterialists and idealists are not. They can have as many “dimensions” as their math or thoughts can manage. As long as these imaginings remain microcosmic, that is, present only in brains, they are not amenable to falsification. However, whenever these are communicated to the macrocosm (outside world) they are subject to falsification just like any other claim made about the external world. That is why scientific tests of prayers always result in falsification.[2] On the other hand, scientific idealizations can escape that fate because they may give some semblance to things that actually exist in the universe. For instance, ideally the Moon is spherical, while in reality it is an oblate spheroid just like Earth. The match between scientific idealization and reality is never perfect because the universe is infinite. Scientists expect slight variations like that, while the non-scientist imbued with the Ninth Assumption of Religion, absolutism (Identities exist, that is, any two things may have identical characteristics) might not.

 

Falsifiability and Myth

 

Here is an interesting blog entry by David Galston on falsifiability and religion:

 

http://www.questcentre.ca/blogs/view/falsifiability-and-religion

 

“Does falsifiability apply to religion? Philosophers of religion have loved this question, and have loved to answer this question with both a "yes" and a "no." On the yes side are those who will say that evolution does indeed prove creation is false. Or, in another way, the theory of creation is falsifiable and has been demonstrated to be false. We can verify that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old and this verification falsifies the claim that the earth was created about 6,000 years ago.”

 

“There is, however, a problem with claiming that creation like evolution is falsifiable. The problem is that on this level creation and evolution are both accepted as science. So, philosophers of religion will also answer our question with a “no.” Creation is not subject to falsification because it is a myth that belongs to a religious belief system. Creation-language is a separate language-game from scientific evolution. It’s not possible to apply the rules of science to a myth.”

 

Extra-Euclidean Dimensions as Symptoms of the Coming Demise of Regressive Physics

 

Similarly, extra-Euclidean dimensions, being purely imaginary, cannot be falsified because they are not properties of real objects. There have been attempts to bring those imaginings into the external world through “reification” or “objectification,” that is, by considering motion as matter. That was Einstein’s most important mistake.[3] Time is motion. Time is not an object; it is what objects do. It does not exist, it occurs. The "4th dimension" in GRT stems directly from Einstein's sleight of hand substituting "l" (length) for "t" (time) in SRT. That has nonetheless been acceptable to idealists not concerned with illegal category switching--as long as it confirms their long-standing imaginings. "String Theory," which involves up to 26 so-called "dimensions" has not been, nor will it ever be, supported by observation and experiment. Even regressive physicists such as Lee Smolin have doubts that it will ever result in objective predictions.[4]

The upshot: Extra-Euclidean dimensions are imaginary. Like gods, heaven, and hell, they are not testable parts of the external world. They are not falsifiable because they do not exist.]



[1] Viereck, G.S., 1929, What life means to Einstein: The Saturday Evening Post, October 26, p. 17, 110-117.

 

 

[2] Masters, K.S., Spielmans, G.I., and Goodson, J.T., 2006, Are there demonstrable effects of distant intercessory prayer? A meta-analytic review: Annals of Behavioral Medicine, v. 32, no. 1, p. 21-26. [10.1207/s15324796abm3201_3]. See also: Borchardt, Glenn, 2020, Religious Roots of Relativity: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 160 p. [https://go.glennborchardt.com/RRR-ebk].

 

[3] Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Einstein's most important philosophical error, in Volk, Greg, Proceedings of the 18th Conference of the Natural Philosophy Alliance: College Park, MD, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, v. 8, p. 64-68 [10.13140/RG.2.1.3436.0407].

 

[4] Smolin, Lee, 2007, The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next, Mariner Books; Reprint edition, 420 p.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20210920

Steve Bryant video interview on Einstein’s math mistakes

PSI Blog 20210920 Steve Bryant video interview on Einstein’s math mistakes

 

Email from Steve Bryant, author of “Disruptive,”[1] which I reviewed here:

 

"Hey Glenn, not sure if you caught my presentation / discussion with David a couple of Saturdays ago. If possible, would you be willing to share the video with your followers/community?

  

 Here’s the link: 


http://stevenbbryant.com/2021/08/einstein-says-10-which-is-incorrect-and-invalidates-relativity-theory/

 

Hope all is going well!

 

Steve"

 



[1] Bryant, S.B., 2016, Disruptive: Rewriting the Rules of Physics: El Cerrito, California, Infinite Circle Publishing, 312 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/Bryant16].

 

  

20210913

Consupponibility and falsifiability

 PSI Blog 20210913 Consupponibility and falsifiability

 

Steve Puetz gets this week’s book prize:

 

“I have a couple of questions. If you can answer them, it will be a tremendous help....

 

What benefits do fundamental assumptions provide (such as the 10 Assumptions of Science) if they do not contribute to some type of testability (falsifiability) of theoretical formulations?  

 

[GB: Unbeknownst to Collingwood or Popper, fundamental assumptions are not falsifiable because they all involve infinity. For instance, we assume there are physical causes for all effects. This works for us most of the time, but when it doesn’t, we assume there are causes anyway. “Kinetic” theories are like that. For instance, gravitation currently is obvious and even has an equation although a physical cause has not been found. That is why Aether Deceleration Theory is the best gravitation theory because it hypothesizes aether as the collider necessary to produce the observed acceleration of gravitation. The beauty of The Ten Assumptions of Science is the consupponibility among them. Regressive physicists and reformists have learned to live with the cognitive dissonance engendered by the historical miss-mass needed to conform with religious ideas.[1]]

 

“Regarding the demise of the philosophy of science in the 20th century. Can you send me some references to describe what happened here?  As I recall, many major universities fired philosophers who were opposed to Einstein's ideas.”

 

[GB: Steve, just check this PSI Blog:

 http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2012/01/censorship-in-regressive-physics.html. That involved UC Berkeley, where I once was a visiting prof (but not in physics). I don’t know how widespread the firings of dissident physicists were. If you or anyone else has a reference, I would love to have it.

 

Also, here is the NPA Charter written by Dr. John Chappell:

http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2020/02/natural-philosophy-alliance-npa-charter.html. It provides a little background on what we are up against.]



[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2020, Religious Roots of Relativity: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 160 p. [ https://go.glennborchardt.com/RRR-ebk ]

 

20210906

Faster than light speed?

 PSI Blog 20210906 Faster than light speed?

 

This week’s book prize goes to Joe Lennon, who asks:

 

“Glenn, I was thinking about something concerning faster travel thru “Outer-space”.  What holds everything up out there, and what also slows objects traveling via that medium is baryonic matter.  So, isn’t the key to increasing travel velocity having an electromagnetic emission
unit.  Electro-magnetic, and “weak nuclear" matter (whatever that is) severs or unravels atomic bonds.  Wouldn’t a unit that emits either of these properties break apart the baryonic matter that slows a vehicle's speed.  It makes sense that light travels so fast if it is an electromagnetic wave. Such a wave would sunder all of the baryonic matter that it encounters. The same should work for a vehicle equipped with machines that emits Electromagnetic matter, right?

 

Also, wouldn’t g-force on a crew piloting such a vehicle also be lessened this way? This should apply to achieving high Mach speed in a planet’s atmosphere as well.”

 

[GB: Thanks for the question Joe. Many readers probably wonder why I haven’t answered the old faster than light question before. Mostly, it is because the velocity of wave motion is determined by the medium. The question itself appears to descend from Einstein’s ad hoc considering light to be a particle. A particle is a microcosm, an XYZ portion of the universe, so the obvious conclusion would be that any microcosm, no matter how large, also would be limited to the speed of light. That is, if you believed, Einstein’s misuse of the Lorentz Correction Factor (see Infinite Universe Theory, p. 315) and that light is a massless particle with perpetual motion through perfectly empty space.

 

You are correct in implying outer space contains baryonic matter (space junk, asteroids, hydrogen atoms, etc.) that would tend to slow travel and might even destroy the rocket (or flying saucer). The resulting resistance would increase as a function of velocity. It would take over 80 years to reach the nearest star via today’s tech. It would take 4 years even at the speed of light.

 

So far, throughout our examinations of 4.5 billion years of geological formations, we have not found one footprint or one piece of exotic metal from anyone from Alpha Centauri. Looks like we won’t be returning the hypothesized favor imagined by UFO buffs any time soon.]

 

20210830

Water pressure vs aether pressure

 PSI Blog 20210830 Water pressure vs aether pressure

 

Abhi asks:

 

It has always been observed that objects with densities greater than that of water sink in water and objects with densities less than that of water float on water. This means that water has a tendency to push objects with densities greater than itself towards the baryonic matter on which the water is placed and also a tendency to push objects with densities less than itself away from the baryonic matter on which the water is placed. Can you explain why water has such tendencies?”

 

[GB: Thanks, Abhi for an easy one. Remember that the direction a microcosm (i.e., “object”) moves is determined by the univironment. In this case, we can be concerned mostly with the macrocosm, that is, the supermicrocosms that tend to collide with a particular microcosm. The heavy object is pushed toward the center of Earth by highly active water molecules and aether particles. The light object is pushed toward the surface of the water by highly active, massive water molecules that produce collisions whose F=ma is greater than the F=ma of the countervailing collisions produced by tiny aether particles.

 

Another way of looking at this phenomenon is with Newton’s First Law of Motion. A microcosm is accelerated when a supermicrocosm collides with it; and decelerated when that microcosm collides with another supermicrocosm. This may appear a bit complicated because the pressure in water (baryonic matter) increases toward Earth because it is pushed toward Earth by highly active aether particles during gravitation. The pressure in the aether medium increases away from Earth as we surmised in our explanation of the Pound-Rebka experiment.[1] EM waves moving away from Earth traveled faster than those traveling toward Earth. Because of the slightly increased velocity, the waves were redshifted (further apart).[2] This implies short-range aether particle motion was greater as well. Having higher velocities means the force (F=ma) engendered by each particle was greater also, revealing that aetherial pressure increased with distance from Earth (collisions per cm2). Once those aether particles collide with baryonic matter, they decelerate, producing a low-pressure halo containing “dark matter” around baryonic matter.[3] This is both a result of gravitation and a cause for further gravitation since all microcosms tend to move from high to low pressure areas.

 

Baryonic matter, which is simply complexed aether particles, moves similarly, but with the more massive microcosms crowding out the less massive ones. Many types of wood and other “lighter” microcosms are no match for heavy water molecules. These provide more force to their Earthward sides, causing them to float despite the relatively meagre impacts of the nitrogen, oxygen, and aether particles above them.

 

I like this explanation because it removes the contradiction posed by Newton’s gravitational attraction hypothesis. One could naively ask: If everything is “pulled” toward Earth, how come the wooden object floating on the water is not pulled likewise. You also could ask Einstein why his perfectly empty space-time doesn’t do a better job on the wooden object.]   



[1] Borchardt, Glenn, and Puetz, S.J., 2012, Neomechanical gravitation theory, in Volk, Greg, Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 19th Conference of the NPA, 25-28 July: Albuquerque, NM, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, v. 9, p. 53-58 [10.13140/RG.2.1.3991.0483].

[2] Note that Pound and Rebka used the old “time dilation” trope to explain this. Time is motion and cannot dilate.

20210823

Reading List for Neomechanics

PSI Blog 20210823 Reading List for Neomechanics

 

[GB: Thanks so much to Joe Lennon, one of our most avid readers, for compiling this list. Joe recognizes ideas don’t just pop out of nowhere. As the old cliché goes: “We all stand on the shoulders of giants.” Joe awaits comments leading to additional references and removal of others.]

 

by Joe Lennon

 

Why did I create this list?

 

When I’m interested in something, I want to obtain as much of a view of the world related to, and surrounding that topic, as I can find.  I do this in order to learn the truth about it.  This brings it out of isolation for me, and provides me with a larger perspective.  I didn’t include information about opposing theories in this list, as Dr. Borchardt has given practical, logical, and scientific, non-fantastical reasons for astronomical phenomena and the origins of the universe; that is all that I’m interested in.  If I want the opposing information, I can tune in to syndicated episodes of any science fiction program, go read a novel, or listen to, read or watch the lies that are passed off as the truth about these topics.  

 

I have listed past researchers that Dr. Borchardt has mentioned in his interviews. I think that ties to the past are important as they have never failed to provide me with additional information about what I’m interested in, and in many occasions have shown me new horizons that I would not have found any other way.  Original source material is essential to learning the truth about anything.

 

Logic and the Scientific Method are the cornerstones of Physics and all other sciences.  Unfortunately, these disciplines are not commonly taught in schools today.  I was fortunate to have to study them as an undergraduate.  I don’t believe that it is possible to discern the truth of a matter without formal Logic and the Scientific Method.

 

I don’t believe that discoveries in Physics can be made without Math.  Unfortunately, Math has certainly been used to contaminate Physics, replacing what is probable and improbable, with what is theoretically possible and impossible.  Most people have been taught to love the latter, however, I do not.  So, in my search for a Math that would be helpful with Physics, I found some older texts, and some new ones that contained what seemed to me to be the basic information needed if I wanted to do research of my own in Physics.  However, at my age, this is mostly for passing information on to others who will be doing their own research someday.

 

I put all of this under the rubric of Dr. Borchardt’s Neomechanics, as for my purpose, this gives me a world view of a consistent, honest, hard-nosed, unrelenting search for the truth concerning the origin and Physics of the Universe.

 

THE NEOMECHANICAL GESTALT

 

The Scientific Worldview, with Associated Assumptions, Logic, and Scientific Method

 

Causality and Chance in Modern Physics Reissue Edition

by David Bohm

 

An Essay on Philosophical Method by

R. G. Collingwood 

 

Dialectics of Nature by Frederick Engles

 

An Introduction to Logic and Scientific Method by Morris R. Cohen (Author), Ernest Nagel (Author)

 

Cosmological Physics Ground Rules and How to Evaluate Cosmology Ideas  Copyright 1999-2010 David J. Dilworth 

http://www.cosmologyscience.com/COSPHYSICSGROUNDRULESDILWORTH.PDF

 

The Ten Assumptions of Science: Toward a New Scientific Worldview: Borchardt, Glenn: 9780595311279: Amazon.com: Books

 

Religious Roots of Relativity: Borchardt, Glenn: 9798559631448: Amazon.com: Books

 

The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein: Borchardt, Glenn: 9780595392452: Amazon.com: Books

 

Science Based Non-Einstein Physics

 

Sears, F.W., and Zemansky, M.W., 1960, College Physics (3rd ed.) Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley, 1024 p (2nd ed.)

 

The Principia: The Authoritative Translation and Guide: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy Paperback – February 5, 2016

by Sir Isaac Newton (Author), I. Bernard Cohen (Translator)

 

Pushing Gravity 

New perspectives on Le Sage's theory of gravitation 

Edited by Matthew R. Edwards 

http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/exlibris/aleph/a23_1/apache_media/I4TNEQS187PS8S47CHTT57IP5UE6LR.pdf

 

Matter and Motion

by J. Clerk Maxwell

 

The Electrical Researches

by J. Clerk Maxwell

 

Catalogue of Discordant Redshift Associations

by Halton C. Arp 

 

Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science

by Halton Arp 

 

Disruptive: Rewriting the rules of physics

by Steven B Bryant

 

Mathematical Methodology with Innovative and Classic Mathematics

 

How to Solve It: A New Aspect of Mathematical Method 

by George Polya

 

Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning [Two Volumes in One] by George Polya

 

Mathematical Discovery Combined Ed: On Understanding, Learning and Teaching Problem Solving by George Polya 

 

Symmetry Math (SM) versus Broken Symmetry (BS) Math: Why is SM needed? Is it heresy to show that BS math is illogical and produces numerous incorrect answers! (Kindle)

by Jack Kuykendall

https://www.slideserve.com/regina/symmetry-math-sm-by-jack-kuykendall

www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6525.pdf

 

Speed Mathematics Simplified

by Edward Stoddard 

 

Euclid's Elements Later Printing Edition

by Euclid (Author), Dana Densmore (Editor), T.L. Heath (Translator)

 

Trigonometry

by Alfred Monroe Kenyon (Author), Louis Ingold (Author)

 

Basic Mathematics by Serge Lang

https://www.docdroid.net/K1VENuF/basic-mathematics-serge-lang-pdf#page=13

 

Geometric Algebra Hardcover

by E. Artin 

 

Differential and Integral Calculus, Vol. One

by Richard Courant 

 

Differential and Integral Calculus, Vol. 2

by Richard Courant 

 

Collected Papers of Srinivasa Ramanujan

by Srinivasa Ramanujan Aiyangar (Author), G. H. Hardy (Author), P. V. Seshu Aiyar (Author), B. M. Wilson (Author)

 

Neomechanics

 

Note: "neomechanics" (classical mechanics + the infinity assumption) was invented by Borchardt, Glenn, 1984, The Scientific Worldview [review manuscript]: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 343 p. [10.13140/RG.2.2.16123.52006].) 

 

The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein: Borchardt, Glenn: 9780595392452: Amazon.com: Books

 

Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe: Puetz, Stephen J, Borchardt PhD, Glenn: 9781432781330: Amazon.com: Books UTC is only in paperback now

 

Infinite Universe Theory: Borchardt, Glenn: 9781973399056: Amazon.com: Books

 

Notfinity Process: Matter-In-Motion: Coyne, George S: 9781775158806: Amazon.com: Books