| PSI Blog 20070626 Welcome to "The Scientific Worldview"
This is a blog that takes the name of my magnum opus on scientific philosophy called "The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein (Understanding the Universal Mechanism of Evolution)." Reviewers have called it “revolutionary,” “exhilarating,” “magnificent,” “fascinating,” and even “a breathtaking synthesis of all understanding.” There is very little math in it, no religion, no politics, and no BS. It provides the first outline of the philosophical perspective that will develop during the last half of the Industrial-Social Revolution. It is the book that Thomas Kuhn warned us about. You can order it here: (http://www.thescientificworldview.com/).
The purpose of this blog is to:
- Explore the ramifications of univironmental determinism as the universal mechanism of evolution.
- Critique various aspects of systems philosophy generally characterized by microcosmic mistakes not already discussed in "The Scientific Worldview" (TSW).
- Critique various aspects of classical mechanics generally characterized by macrocosmic mistakes not already discussed in TSW.
|
The philosophical foundation of this blog, and of TSW in general, was developed as "The Ten Assumptions of Science" (iUniverse, 2004) (Chapter 3 in TSW). Thus, I hope that it will be unnecessary to include material covered in detail there. It is my wish to avoid the endless elementary philosophical debates already settled by those necessary assumptions. On the other hand, I am perfectly willing to refer others to the assumptions needed to continue advanced discussions. I will put the deterministic assumptions in bold italics and their indeterministic opposites in italics.
Glenn Borchardt, Director
Progressive Science Institute
Berkeley, CA 94705
Posts
30 comments:
Hey, no fair! I have been blogging about the scientific worldview on and off for more than a year!
Just kidding. Glad to see ya!
aerik:
Welcome aboard and thanks for the link. Looks like you could do a great review of my book.
Glenn
I haven't gone out and bought a book in a while. I think for the sake of consistency, I had darn well better, in your case.
aerik:
Great! Hope you enjoy it.
Glenn
Hi, Thought I would pay you a visit. I was wondering if we could do a link exchange? I would like to add you to my www.SkepticalBeliefs.com blog site. I really like your blog.Let me know k?
C U Soon
Sheila:
Thanks for your interest. Your link is on the site.
Glenn
Your perspective seems to correct to some extent but kindly take a look of following to know where your perspective has major philosophical problems. A very brief synopsis would clarify & justify the relevance of my work to paradigm shift in physics. Aristotle considered space as finite & absolute, time as absolute and matter as absolute thereby God had no power on space, time & matter but according to Aristotle God had the power as Prime Mover of everything (matter). Newton through his laws held that matter moves in nature not because of God but because of inherent nature of matter by which matter attracts other matter. Coming to how Newton's Laws are wrong? From the time of Aristotle space was considered as finite & absolute till 1905. Thus at the time of Newton also same perspective of space was held.
Now then finite space means that the universe has boundaries and according to Law of Gravitation the stars/galaxies on the periphery of the universe will be attracted towards the central universe and according to 2nd Law of Motion these peripheral stars/galaxies will accelerate towards the centre of the universe finally to collapse there. Thus finite space (the nature of space known at the time of Newton) and Law of Gravitation are contradictory. Newton assumed sun at rest but under Newton's Laws the rest condition of any celestrial object is just not possible. Having rejected the Descartes's aether and assumed the space as vacuum; in the 1st Law of Motion he states that objects with uniform (linear) motion faces/offers absolutely no resistance but second Law of Motion Newton states that objects pose resistance to the change in motion which he represented by inertia or mass. He assigns no physical reason to this resistance to the change in motion and it is here the philosophy/rationality was sacrificed on mathematics. Now even today physicists do not know what is mass & where it is in the particles. Adoption of Newton's Laws was the greatest scientific error in the history of science. This was done by Newton to reject the existence of aether which was scientifically introduced by Descartes. Newton introduced irrational & incorrect laws which closed the doors of investigation into physical reality of universe especially by rejecting the existence of aether which together with nature of light contained the secrets of physical reality. It is very well known that Newton laws cannot be correct as explained by Mach & others; whatever corrections were required those corrections Einstein introduced with the help very confusing trickeries (described in detail in my article "Experimental & Theoretical Evidences of Fallacy of Space-time Concept and Actual State of Existence of the Physical Universe" http://www.indjst.org; March2012). Now a paradigm of physics was defined by Einstein under which four constituents of the universe were reduced to two namely space-time concept and matter & energy transmutability where space is emergent, sum total of matter & energy is absolute & transmutableis and time is interconnected with space & emergent and there is no clue as to physically what is light/radiation . Philosophically for any existence including God there are two basic requirements namely space & substance. Both of them; Newton & Einstein; had rejected aether before introducing their laws & theories. Whereas aether has been shown to be existing and containing the secrets of light & time. Once aether is accepted space is again finite & absolute and filled up with aether, the electric dipoles, and it is aether through which forces of nature are transmitted as against the irrational action at a distance through fields without knowing the physicality of the fields, time is emergent & relative depending upon motion of the observer, and as humans perceive it, time is emergent and matter is not absolute but emergent.
continued from previous comment A
In brief the scenario is as under
Aristotle:- Space- absolute & finite; time- absolute, matter-absolute, light/radiation- not properly known
Newton:- Space, time & matter same as Aristotle; light a wave-motion with corpuscular theory
Einstein:- Space- interconnected with time & emergent, Time-emergent & interconnected with space & relative, matter & Energy (light/radiation) is absolute & transmutable and light/radiation as wave-motion with no clue as to what is light/radiation physically
Final state of existence:- Space-absolute & finite, time- emergent & relative depending on the motion of the observer/body with respect to aether at rest frame of reference, matter-emergent & finite, light/radiation- a electromagnetic disturbance of electric dipoles of aether creating a wave motion and all forces of nature being electromagnetic forces which is being transmitted through aether, the electric dipoles.
Following is the list of my published articles in peer-reviewed journals & sites where these articles are available
1. Experimental & Theoretical Evidences of Fallacy of Space-time Concept and Actual State of Existence of the Physical Universe (www.indjst.org; March2012)
2. Foundation of Theory of Everything: Non-living Things & Living Things (www.indjst.org; Sep 2010)
3.Michelson-Morley Experiment: A Misconceived & Misinterpreted Experiment (www.indjst.org; April 2011)
4. Energy Theory of Matter & Cosmology (www.indjst.org; August 2010)
5. 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies' by Albert Einstein is Based on Trickeries (www.elixirjournal.org Feb.2012)
6.Ultimate Proof of Energy Theory of Matter & Cosmology (www.indjst.org; August 2010)
7. Theory of Origin & Phenomenon of Life (www.indjst.org; August 2010)
These publications are also available on www.gsjournal.net, www.wrldsci.org, viXra, Intellectual Archives, ResearchGate, Academia.edu in my profile.
Mohammad:
Thanks for your comments and list of reviewed publications. Glad to see that you are able to use the A---- word (aether) in your work. On the other hand, you are entirely correct that we have some philosophical differences. At PSI, we have begun all our work in scientific philosophy by first establishing our foundational assumptions. You can discover what they are by reading "The Ten Assumptions of Science" or Chapter 3 in "The Scientific Worldview." We encourage all investigators to prepare a list of their own fundamental assumptions, which by definition, always have opposites (e.g., infinity vs. finity), are not completely provable, and must be consupponible. I notice that you mentioned a lot about previous workers who assumed finity and thus were especially enamored with the idea of absolutes as well. Those who presuppose finity generally do not agree that fundamental assumptions are necessary. I hope that is not true in your case. We would have to agree on the fundamentals before we could have a meaningful discussion of the details.
Could you spell out the ten assumptions in science. There are just four perceptable constituents of the universe and all assumptions have to be concerning these four constituents.
Mohammad:
The universe consists of only one thing: matter in motion. Thus, there are only two basic phenomena: matter and the motion of matter.
"The Ten Assumptions of Science" are explained in the book of that name. Note also that you can get it as an ebook for only $6. Just go to: http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/assumptions.html
Dr. Borchardt,
I read your paper from the Proceeding of the NPA. It appears that you and I are in general agreement regarding the subject. I have just discovered your website and intend to do more reading, including the book.
For many years I thought I was alone with my theory but I recently became aware of investigators that are challenging the BBT and have decided to communicate.
Thank you for your efforts.
I recently read a paper by Professor Christof Wetterich, Institut für Theoretische Physik -- Universität Heidelberg which you might find interesting.
I just sent him a reply that reads as follows.
Dear Professor Wetterich,
I very much enjoyed your theory “A Universe without expansion”. I am not a professional Cosmologist but for decades I have studied various theories. I have never accepted the “Big Bang Theory” as anything more than a concept. It did not fit with my theory. You might want to apply your thoughts to the following theory. Consider a Universe in which these statements are true.
a) The Universe is three dimensionally infinite.
b) The Universe has always existed and will always exist.
c) It is heterogeneous with regard to a fundamental unified field of energy (dark energy). The energy field varies in intensity.
d) It is not static. Energy is constantly being exchanged from one region to another.
e) What we observe as mass, gravity and light are perturbations in the energy field.
f) Variations in the energy field cause physical phenomenon to vary and thus there are no constants. The only thing that is constant is change.
g) Time does not exist. It is a parameter that our minds contrived.
If these statements are valid then attempting to apply physical laws and mathematics to very distant observations would be folly and the parameters we observe in our region of the Universe would not apply to distant regions.
I have always believed that Hubble was mistaken with regard to the cause for the redshift in light and what it implies. It is my belief that it is a phenomenon that occurs when light is transmitted through the unified field.
Thank you for your continued research and I am looking forward to reading more of your works.
Tom Serandos
Thanks Tom for your comment. Go to the head of the class! You are already far ahead of the current cosmogony crowd. Glad to hear of your interest in IUT, which I predict will replace the BBT by the year 2050. I also found it encouraging that arXiv actually published an article that sort of denies universal expansion:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.6878v2.pdf
Of course, on close reading, it is clear that Wetternich remains a cosmogonist—maybe that is why it got through. You and I are closer to IUT, because we believe there is no end to the universe and that it is eternal.
With regard to your email to Wetternich: Please be reminded that Hubble never believed in universal expansion despite the pleas of the regressive physicists of the day. He was more of a “tired light” guy, which still is roughly the correct assumption, as you can see from my analysis in the Blog and on the PSI website. Whether you regard light as matter (Einstein) or motion (Borchardt), it cannot travel billions of years without losses. That belief is pure idealism, a trap that Hubble avoided. Here are two papers that explain what energy really is:
Borchardt, Glenn, 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, v. 6, no. 1, p. 27-31.
Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Einstein's most important philosophical error, in Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 18th Conference of the NPA, 6-9 July, 2011 ( http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5991.pdf ), College Park, MD, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, p. 64-68.
You also might want to follow along with the Westmiller critique as a study aid that now goes chapter-by-chapter through TSW. In addition, you might want to search through the blog on topics such as IUT, aether (your unified field), energy, etc.
Below is a "press release" by Mohammad Shafiq Khan concerning his objections to relativity. Like many other folks, he has some good points that you might find interesting. However, I don't think anyone will be able to satisfy his "challenge" by getting "out of the clutches of materialism." More stuff about immaterial fields and massless particles won't cut it. After all, the reason Einstein was so popular was precisely because he was "out of the clutches of materialism." That is what regressive physics is all about. Thus it is somewhat amusing to see religious folks like Mohammad trying to grapple with Einstein's "trickeries" when they have so many of their own.
Dr. Borchardt
I have read many of your works on Infinite Universe and how there is a fundamental error in the approach to physics. I am in agreement with you on almost all facets but my theory is a bit different with regard to the issue of the ether and how it functions. I spent many years working with scanning and transmission electron microscopes and what I observed reinforced my concepts that began over 40 years ago. Perhaps someday we can discuss the issues.
I would like to make a suggestion. You should consider generating your own language, symbols and formulas for explaining the IUT both micro and macro. The scientific community today is stuck in the past and for example, the word ether (Lorentz Ether theory) carries the connotation of a theory that was discounted long ago, although it should not have been so easily discarded when Relativity entered.
Glad to hear from you again. Like you, I have been thinking about calling it something other than aether. I used to call it by the newer term, ether, but Steve Puetz convinced me that original summed up the concept quite nicely. I decided that my whole approach required a completely transparent and direct confrontation. A revolution is a revolution. One either believes in perfectly empty space or in aether. You can see that aether has worked well for me when you read TTAOS, TSW, or UCT. You can find more on aether in my blog comments on it. Just search on "aether" or "ether." Aether deniers will not be convinced even though they have at least a half dozen surreptitious terms for aether. Most don't even realize that the MM87 experiment was a test for a "fixed" aether, which, of course, could not exist. When you ask them what physically causes gravitation and magnetism, you won't get an answer. That's because those fields are assumed to be "immaterial," that is, perfectly empty space.
The Earth grows exponentially. All planets GROW, as well as all large moons. We all know all suns grow, as do/must all Solar Systems, as well, Galaxies and finally the MATTER Universe. Why? Because as they gain mass their EM fields GROW outward. And bodies ride EM lines
Earth's phase change from Granitic rock to Basalts forced the slow shattering of the thin differentiated granitic crust into continental pieces, which, from 180 MYAgo to now and to the future continue to spread apart, as the Earth GROWS, beginning with the Process of Pair-Production, At the Earth's super-heated Solid H core.
Neal:
Thanks so much for the comment. Glad to have you looking at "The Scientific Worldview" blog.
Glenn
Dr. Borchardt,
I’ve been reading articles regarding “Rainbow Gravity”. The persons considering this phenomenon keep referring to the rift between relativity and quantum mechanics, space-time, singularity, etc. It seems as though that it does not matter what evidence that the general cosmology/astrophysics herd encounter they refuse to consider that the fundamental theories regarding the universe are in error and that we need to take a zero based approach. Vast sums of money are being spent chasing trivial particles in the hopes of convincing someone (perhaps themselves) that they know all there is to know about physics. My personal opinion is that the error that prevents new more useable theories from progressing is the concept of “Time”. The majority simply cannot discard this contrived parameter as not being a physical reality. Your thoughts?
Regards
Tom
Tom:
Thanks for the comment. I have not heard about any gravity rainbows. You are right. It is quite amusing to see the cosmogonists squirming all over the paradoxes they have generated over the years. A lot of this stuff is ripe for humorous satire on the order of “Alice in Wonderland”. Maybe you or someone else should consider doing that. There certainly is enough material, with tons more arriving every day. It can only get sillier and sillier as the paradigm nears its eventual demise, which, by my calculations, will occur round about the year 2050.
As scientific revolutions go, this one is the biggie. The switch from the Big Bang Theory to the Infinite Universe Theory can only occur once. You also are right that the objectification of time characterizes the paradigm. Add that to their indeterministic assumption of finity and their aether denial, and you have a great definition for regressive physicists. Their belief in certainty and the hubris thereby generated only magnifies the potential for satire.
Hi Glenn,
I previously won your contest for best question. I had another question, and was hoping you could answer it here, if you have time.
What would happen if a disc 100 trillion light-years wide was floating in space, and if it had a handle sticking out of the center of it, and someone turned the handle to spin the disc. Would the far edges of the disc begin to move instantly, once the handle began to move? Also, would the speed that the edge of the disc move have no limit? And just depend on how big one could make the disc, and how much power one could apply to turn the disc? (And, finally, how would people who believe in there being a universal speed limit of the speed of light deal with this?)
Thank you for your time,
Tao
Thanks Tao:
Actually, I have no idea how regressives would answer your questions. Maybe some of our readers could help out.
Glenn
Glenn
I think that Fatio (Le Sage) model is abolished on false grounds due to no aberration in gravity. No aberration can be explained by assuming etherons to be absorbed by matter - not colliding.
Fatio's model implies that less particles are leaving a body. So, a radial and negative ether wind is caused by matter. This ether wind an be equal to the escape velocity. This can explain gravity.
Best _____________ John-Erik
Egads!
Absorption without collision?
Acceleration (e.g., gravitation) without deceleration?
Here is what really causes the acceleration called gravitation:
Borchardt, Glenn, 2018, The Physical Cause of Gravitation: viXra:1806.0165
(“Aether Deceleration Theory”)
Glenn
Egads!
English is a second language to me and I do not know what it means, but I guess it is some kind humiliation. Your tone is very arrogant.
Then you ask 2 questions. Why?
You seems to have forgotten that this post is about my theory and not about yours. You have not pointed out a single inconsistency in my theory and proved nothing at all.
With the best regards from ____________ John-Erik
Glenn
English is a second language to me. I do not know what 'egads' mean.
The force of gravity is composed of etherons moving in ALL directions. Therefore, gravity emerges inside matter WHEN these particles arrive. So, gravity does NOT move and no aberration is caused.
This means that Fatio's gravity is NOT refuted by aberration. Instead, near a body a lower number of particles are leaving. This leads to an ether wind in negative radial direction - a falling ether.
Transmission of forces means that the ether has mass. So, the ether can be falling with the same speed as other kinds of matter - the escape velocity. Therefore, a radial ether wind can explain BIG BANG as well as PIONEER ANOMALY by ether motions - not body motions.
(LET us see if this will be allowed on your blog.)
With best regards from ________ John-Erik
Absorption without collision?
Why not?
That might happen to a slight degree, but without collision there could be no acceleration. All physical causes must involve F=ma collisions per the 2nd Law.
How does this information refute the Einstein Tired Light Theory? 26.7 Billion Years is a long way from infinity? From my understanding is your theory proven correct if the age of the universe is older to the point of a number near infinity and/or if the age keeps increasing to the point that the Einstein Theory calculations do not compute? Please excuse my ignorance. I hope my questions are not too mediocre.
Respectfully,
Anon:
So sorry for the year+ delay. Been busy and missed your question. BTW: Einstein’s theory was what I call the Untired Light Theory. Einstein assumed light was a massless particle filled with perfectly empty space traveling perpetually through perfectly empty space. That was rank idealism and the regressive physicists ate it up. Hubble’s theory was the Tired Light Theory, which fits reality. Nothing travels from A to B without losing energy. As Hubble suggested, the cosmological redshift is merely a result of energy losses over distance. There was no universal expansion and thus no Big Bang.
Post a Comment