Mr. Douglas, Managing Editor, Evening Times
This letter is in reference to Joe and his work on relativity. Joe is one of many dissident scientists opposed to the misuse of idealism in modern physics. He is a member of the Natural Philosophy Alliance. Although, not being a mathematician, I cannot vouch for the correctness of Joe’s mathematics, I can assure you that the fundamental assumptions he used in his paper on “Planetary motion around the sun” are sound (for comparison, see my book “The Ten Assumptions of Science,” which I am scheduled to discuss on 8/30 (http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Events)). In essence, Joe and I assume that the universe consists of matter in motion. Matter has x, y, z dimensions. Matter exists; motion occurs. Motion is not a thing, it is what things do. We both agree that Einstein’s imaginary conceptualization of motion (time) as a dimension is invalid. As Joe states in his paper, “Anything that does not fit in three-dimensions then it is not physics!” I agree. Any supposedly scientific work that claims that more than three dimensions actually exist therefore is incorrect and unworthy of public financial support.
What Joe calls “space-timers” are those folks whose work is founded on the belief that the imaginary concept of “space-time” actually refers to something real. It does not. Space is real (it always contains matter); time is motion (all clocks measure motion). “Space-time” is not real. Because one of the primary assumptions of the Big Bang Theory (BBT) requires space-time to be real, I, and many of us in NPA, believe that the BBT cannot be correct. It would be extremely fortuitous for us to be at the center of the visible universe having a diameter of 27.4 billion light years and over 1023 stars similar to our own sun.
Like many in the NPA, Joe’s rhetoric in response to this travesty in physics shows his frustration and alarm that the belief in non-Euclidean dimensions has dominated the field so thoroughly and for so long. Those who believe in only three dimensions and actually know what time is are weeded out of the discipline at an early stage. Almost all critics are outsiders or retirees. The relativity-BBT paradigm has developed a strong, inbred group of folks whose very financial existence requires them to vehemently attack anyone who might suggest that they are mistaken. In my view, this has occurred because the underlying assumptions in modern physics have much in common with the idealistic bent of society at large. Space-time may be the least of the imaginary “things” that people mistakenly believe to be real.
Mike, if you decide to do a story on this topic, you will be doing a great service to science. Although Joe is much more optimistic about the timing of the overthrow of General Relativity and the BBT, it has to happen sometime. Maybe you will be the one to light the fire.
This is a blog that takes the name of my magnum opus on scientific philosophy called "The Scientific Worldview." 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, no psycho-babble, and no BS. It provides the first outline of the philosophical perspective that will develop during the last half of the Industrial-Social Revolution.
20090814
Infinity or Determinism?
Dear Glenn,
After a prolonged absence, I opened Vagabond’s Communication Page (May June issue) www.vagabondpages.com/may09/communication.html, and what caught my attention was the title “Determinism” which was the subject line of your email and I don’t see the connection with the topic. Is this a mistake? -- because “Infinity” would be a more appropriate title than Determinism. Please let me know.
I have always been fascinated by the idea of infinite universe, infinite big and infinite small. As my mind and senses operate in 3-4 dimensions I will ignore right now the infinite dimensions which have beautiful mathematical formulas but seem to me abstractions, like abstract paintings. So, from the platform of my own dimension, putting aside other dimensions like, for instance, “string theory”, I have the following question which can or cannot be answered, in my view, it cannot: If I have no problem with an infinitely big universe because it is not space that is lacking, how may the universe be reduced to infinity? Where can matter remain matter in practically no space and, how can matter be something other than matter? For our 3-4 dimensional mind, matter and space are inseparable. If you have some comments I would gladly publish them if you don’t mind.
Thank you very much
Greetings,
William
William:
Thanks so much for your interesting questions. I was struck by your philosophical bent and just thought you might be interested in The Scientific Worldview (TSW). So few people seem to have the background and nonprejudicial mind necessary for understanding the philosophy of univironmental determinism (the proposition that whatever happens to a portion of the universe is determined equally by the matter in motion within and without). This philosophy assumes micro and macro infinity, and with it, an assumption of causality derived from Bohm (1957). I have labeled Bohm’s view as “infinite universal causality.” It states that there are an infinite number of causes for any effect. In science, we are lucky to determine the primary causes, labeling the remaining causes as unknown. This is why there is a plus or minus in every real measurement. Classical mechanics and what is commonly referred to as “determinism” used finite universal causality, based on the assumption that there were a finite number of causes for a particular effect. With it, Laplace’s Demon was erroneously assumed able to postdict the past and predict the future with perfect accuracy and precision. Classical mechanics also contained the (usually hidden) presupposition that the universe was microcosmically and macrocosmically finite.
I share your suspicions about mathematics. My view is as follows:
Reality involves a Euclidean universe that consists of matter in motion. Matter exists, that is, it has xyz dimensions and location with respect to other material objects. Matter always contains other matter within it, ad infinitum. That is, there are no partless parts, as was erroneously assumed by the atomists. Motion is what matter does. Motion is not “part” of the universe.
Ideality involves our ideas about matter and the motion of matter. We use the ideality of math to provide imperfect predictions regarding the motions of matter in the real world. But unlike those overcome with idealism, we must continually remind ourselves that the world is real and that our ideas are not. Thus we may have the idea of perfectly empty space and the idea of perfectly solid matter, but neither could possibly exist. All real things lie on the continuum between those two ideas. Space always contains “matter” and matter always contains “space.” Therefore we agree that space is matter. In TSW I also assume that time is the motion of matter. Time is not a thing. Unlike material objects, I cannot put time in my back pocket (even though it would be nice).
The concept of 4-dimensional spacetime is just that, a concept, an idea. Spacetime cannot exist. Only space (xyz) can exist. I can see my desk occupying a particular xyz space and I can imagine it occupying a similar space tomorrow, but that does not make spacetime material. The concept of spacetime may be useful, but like other matter-motion terms (TSW, p. 53-63) it is neither matter nor motion. This is where the Big Bang and string theorists have traded reality for ideality. These folks actually believe that more than 3 dimensions are possible, in fact, it is a job requirement. Moreover, they will not agree that the universe presents us with only two phenomena: 1) matter and 2) the motion of matter. A “modern physicist” seldom will know what time is.
I urge you to read TSW or some of the papers abstracted from it. Pdfs and links are available on the PSI website. My blog http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2007/06/welcome-to-scientific-worldview.html contains numerous questions that I have answered from the univironmental point of view.
References:
Bohm, David, 1957, Causality and chance in modern physics: New York, Harper and Brothers, 170 p.
Links to these are at www.scientificphilosophy.com:
Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, Ten assumptions of science and the demise of 'cosmogony': Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, v. 1, no. 1, p. 3-6.
Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The ten assumptions of science and the demise of cosmogony [abs.], in Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Southwestern and Rocky Mountain Division, Metropolitan State College of Denver and the Colorado-Wyoming Academy of Sciences, 79th Annual Meeting of AAAS-SWARM, p. 22-23.
Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The ten assumptions of science: Toward a new scientific worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p.
Borchardt, Glenn, 2007, Infinite universe theory: Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, v. 4, no. 1, p. 20-23.
Borchardt, Glenn, 2007, The scientific worldview and the demise of cosmogony: Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, v. 4, no. 1, p. 16-19.
Borchardt, Glenn, 2007, The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 411 p.
After a prolonged absence, I opened Vagabond’s Communication Page (May June issue) www.vagabondpages.com/may09/communication.html, and what caught my attention was the title “Determinism” which was the subject line of your email and I don’t see the connection with the topic. Is this a mistake? -- because “Infinity” would be a more appropriate title than Determinism. Please let me know.
I have always been fascinated by the idea of infinite universe, infinite big and infinite small. As my mind and senses operate in 3-4 dimensions I will ignore right now the infinite dimensions which have beautiful mathematical formulas but seem to me abstractions, like abstract paintings. So, from the platform of my own dimension, putting aside other dimensions like, for instance, “string theory”, I have the following question which can or cannot be answered, in my view, it cannot: If I have no problem with an infinitely big universe because it is not space that is lacking, how may the universe be reduced to infinity? Where can matter remain matter in practically no space and, how can matter be something other than matter? For our 3-4 dimensional mind, matter and space are inseparable. If you have some comments I would gladly publish them if you don’t mind.
Thank you very much
Greetings,
William
William:
Thanks so much for your interesting questions. I was struck by your philosophical bent and just thought you might be interested in The Scientific Worldview (TSW). So few people seem to have the background and nonprejudicial mind necessary for understanding the philosophy of univironmental determinism (the proposition that whatever happens to a portion of the universe is determined equally by the matter in motion within and without). This philosophy assumes micro and macro infinity, and with it, an assumption of causality derived from Bohm (1957). I have labeled Bohm’s view as “infinite universal causality.” It states that there are an infinite number of causes for any effect. In science, we are lucky to determine the primary causes, labeling the remaining causes as unknown. This is why there is a plus or minus in every real measurement. Classical mechanics and what is commonly referred to as “determinism” used finite universal causality, based on the assumption that there were a finite number of causes for a particular effect. With it, Laplace’s Demon was erroneously assumed able to postdict the past and predict the future with perfect accuracy and precision. Classical mechanics also contained the (usually hidden) presupposition that the universe was microcosmically and macrocosmically finite.
I share your suspicions about mathematics. My view is as follows:
Reality involves a Euclidean universe that consists of matter in motion. Matter exists, that is, it has xyz dimensions and location with respect to other material objects. Matter always contains other matter within it, ad infinitum. That is, there are no partless parts, as was erroneously assumed by the atomists. Motion is what matter does. Motion is not “part” of the universe.
Ideality involves our ideas about matter and the motion of matter. We use the ideality of math to provide imperfect predictions regarding the motions of matter in the real world. But unlike those overcome with idealism, we must continually remind ourselves that the world is real and that our ideas are not. Thus we may have the idea of perfectly empty space and the idea of perfectly solid matter, but neither could possibly exist. All real things lie on the continuum between those two ideas. Space always contains “matter” and matter always contains “space.” Therefore we agree that space is matter. In TSW I also assume that time is the motion of matter. Time is not a thing. Unlike material objects, I cannot put time in my back pocket (even though it would be nice).
The concept of 4-dimensional spacetime is just that, a concept, an idea. Spacetime cannot exist. Only space (xyz) can exist. I can see my desk occupying a particular xyz space and I can imagine it occupying a similar space tomorrow, but that does not make spacetime material. The concept of spacetime may be useful, but like other matter-motion terms (TSW, p. 53-63) it is neither matter nor motion. This is where the Big Bang and string theorists have traded reality for ideality. These folks actually believe that more than 3 dimensions are possible, in fact, it is a job requirement. Moreover, they will not agree that the universe presents us with only two phenomena: 1) matter and 2) the motion of matter. A “modern physicist” seldom will know what time is.
I urge you to read TSW or some of the papers abstracted from it. Pdfs and links are available on the PSI website. My blog http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2007/06/welcome-to-scientific-worldview.html contains numerous questions that I have answered from the univironmental point of view.
References:
Bohm, David, 1957, Causality and chance in modern physics: New York, Harper and Brothers, 170 p.
Links to these are at www.scientificphilosophy.com:
Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, Ten assumptions of science and the demise of 'cosmogony': Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, v. 1, no. 1, p. 3-6.
Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The ten assumptions of science and the demise of cosmogony [abs.], in Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Southwestern and Rocky Mountain Division, Metropolitan State College of Denver and the Colorado-Wyoming Academy of Sciences, 79th Annual Meeting of AAAS-SWARM, p. 22-23.
Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The ten assumptions of science: Toward a new scientific worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p.
Borchardt, Glenn, 2007, Infinite universe theory: Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, v. 4, no. 1, p. 20-23.
Borchardt, Glenn, 2007, The scientific worldview and the demise of cosmogony: Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, v. 4, no. 1, p. 16-19.
Borchardt, Glenn, 2007, The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 411 p.
20090805
How do you tell the difference between correct ideas and incorrect ideas?
Test them in the external world through observation and experiment. Thus, Einstein’s “gedanken ‘experiment’” (i.e. “thought ‘experiment’”) is no experiment at all. The “ex” in “experiment” means precisely that—an adventure into the external world. We are all born as solipsists, thinking that we control the universe. As we mature, we necessarily find that this is not true. Some even go to the other extreme, becoming fatalists who believe the universe controls them. The truth is that the correct philosophy is univironmental determinism, the proposition that what happens to a portion of the universe is determined by the matter in motion within and without. At base, we need to determine whether or not ideas are correct so that we can negotiate the macrocosm in relative safety. I may have an idea that I can fly. I can test that idea by jumping off El Capitan and flapping my arms. Through observation of the experiments of others, however, I have learned that the idea is incorrect.
Other claims of truth or falsehood are logical deductions from acknowledged assumptions or hidden presuppositions. Nonetheless, until they are tested, such claims are no more likely to be true than the assumptions on which they are based. As part of the philosophical struggle, indeterminists often deny that one can distinguish between correct and incorrect ideas. Therefore, they claim that the Ideality of religion is not to be tested against the Reality of the external world. Thirty-five years ago such objections squelched an attempt to perform a scientific test on prayer (Brush, 1974). Recently, however, the test was performed and published in a peer-reviewed journal, albeit with an obfuscatory title (Benson and others, 2006) that was interpreted by an enterprising journalist (Stein, 2006). Nowadays, only the most backward folks rely exclusively on prayer in lieu of medical intervention. When children are involved that approach even appears to be illegal (Baenen, 2009).
References:
Baenen, J., 2009, Father in dispute over son getting chemotherapy pleads with wife to bring him home, Associated Press, May 21.
Benson, H., Dusek, J.A., Sherwood, J.B., Lam, P., Bethea, C.F., Carpenter, W., Levitsky, S., Hill, P.C., Jr., D.W.C., Jain, M.K., Drumel, D., Kopecky, S.L., Mueller, P.S., Marekk, D., Rollins, S., and Hibberd, P.L., 2006, Study of the therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: A multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer: American Heart Journal, v. 151, no. 4, p. 934-942.
Brush, S.G., 1974, The prayer test: American Scientist, v. 62, p. 561-563.
Stein, R., 2006, Prayer doesn't aid recovery, study finds: Effect on healing of strangers at distance after heart-bypass surgery examined, Washington Post: Washington, DC.
Other claims of truth or falsehood are logical deductions from acknowledged assumptions or hidden presuppositions. Nonetheless, until they are tested, such claims are no more likely to be true than the assumptions on which they are based. As part of the philosophical struggle, indeterminists often deny that one can distinguish between correct and incorrect ideas. Therefore, they claim that the Ideality of religion is not to be tested against the Reality of the external world. Thirty-five years ago such objections squelched an attempt to perform a scientific test on prayer (Brush, 1974). Recently, however, the test was performed and published in a peer-reviewed journal, albeit with an obfuscatory title (Benson and others, 2006) that was interpreted by an enterprising journalist (Stein, 2006). Nowadays, only the most backward folks rely exclusively on prayer in lieu of medical intervention. When children are involved that approach even appears to be illegal (Baenen, 2009).
References:
Baenen, J., 2009, Father in dispute over son getting chemotherapy pleads with wife to bring him home, Associated Press, May 21.
Benson, H., Dusek, J.A., Sherwood, J.B., Lam, P., Bethea, C.F., Carpenter, W., Levitsky, S., Hill, P.C., Jr., D.W.C., Jain, M.K., Drumel, D., Kopecky, S.L., Mueller, P.S., Marekk, D., Rollins, S., and Hibberd, P.L., 2006, Study of the therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: A multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer: American Heart Journal, v. 151, no. 4, p. 934-942.
Brush, S.G., 1974, The prayer test: American Scientist, v. 62, p. 561-563.
Stein, R., 2006, Prayer doesn't aid recovery, study finds: Effect on healing of strangers at distance after heart-bypass surgery examined, Washington Post: Washington, DC.