Global Warming Three Millimeters at a Time

Here are the latest data I could find on sea level rise. Note the gradual 2 mm/yr rise in sea level for the last century. There is no evidence that the rise in carbon dioxide produced by fossil fuels (which rose from 0.03% to 0.04%) had any effect on sea level. Update: That was for the US only. The global sea level rise has been 3 mm/yr from 1992 to 2024. See new figure at the bottom.

Nice figure from: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/16/latest-noaa-mean-sea-level-trend-data-through-2013-confirms-lack-of-sea-level-rise-acceleration-2/

Click the chart above for a larger view

20170427 Update. The rate has now fallen to 1.94 mm/yr. Note that the rate has changed little since 1850, despite the carbon dioxide increases caused by the Industrial Revolution.


There is nothing like good old-fashioned data for cooling some of the current hysteria associated with global warming. The chart above shows the variations in annual mean sea level obtained from the tidal gauge at San Francisco, the oldest record in the Western Hemisphere. In earth science we associate rises in sea level with increases in global temperature and the melting of glaciers. For example, at the height of the last glaciation 22,000 years ago, the ocean was 120 meters (390 feet) lower than at present. It has been mostly rising ever since. After the end of the “Little Ice Age,” which occured 600 years ago, sea level rise at SF (and NY) continued at the measured pace of 2 mm/yr—about 8 inches per century, certainly not the tens of feet predicted by alarmists. The human-caused release of greenhouse gases, however, has been exponential over that period. One wonders why the rise in sea level isn’t better correlated with the rise in CO₂. The chart represents real data, not a model predicting certain doom and gloom. The leaders of our Industrial Revolution have made a mess of the environment while lining their own pockets. There are an infinite number of reasons to have them clean it up, but the increase in CO₂ doesn’t appear to be one of them.

Reference:

NOAA, 2004, Recording the tides in San Francisco Bay, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [This is a great little download explaining how these data were gathered. Note that the really big spikes in the data are from El Nino events when warm (expanded) ocean water arrives at SF from the tropics.] (http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/topics/navops/ports/san_francisco_tide_gauge.pdf), 50 p.

Update 20121212:

Ref:
From Figure 2 of Bromirski, P.D., Miller, A.J., and Flick, R.E., 2012, Understanding North Pacific sea level trends: EOS, v. 93, no. 27, p. 249-250.

Update 20130805:

Just found this figure at:

http://www.southwestclimatechange.org/climate/global/past-present

It nicely shows the dependence of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration on temperature at the south pole. This is mostly an effect based on the fact that warm ocean water emits carbon dioxide, while cold water absorbs it. Of course, the cause (temperature increase) precedes the effect (carbon dioxide increase), sometimes by over a thousand years. Note the huge increase in carbon dioxide due to the Industrial Revolution unaccompanied by a correspondingly huge increase in temperature.

Update 20140527:

An excellent 1.5 hour talk by Dr. Easterbrook showing the data pertinent to climate change:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOI

Nice figure from: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/16/latest-noaa-mean-sea-level-trend-data-through-2013-confirms-lack-of-sea-level-rise-acceleration-2/

Nice update 20180808 by Charles Tips:

https://go.glennborchardt.com/climatetips

And another one on 20230705 from Tomas Pueyo, which removes some of the hysteria and explains how CO2 was much higher when Earth was hotter millions of years ago. He also mentions plant growth eventually will be up to 40% faster in the future. One quibble: He says SL was -120 m at 10ka. His own graph shows it to have been -42 m then. 

20241015 LATEST UPDATE FROM NOAA

https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/socd/lsa/SeaLevelRise/LSA_SLR_timeseries.php

The latest on 20250221:

Glaciers have been melting since the Last Glacial Maximum 22,000 years ago. At that time, sea level was about 126 m lower than today. By 10,000 years ago it hat risen 116 m to begin filling SF Bay. That would have been 9.67 mm/yr.

Glacial melt only raises sea level 2 cm since 2000:

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?shva=1#inbox/FMfcgzQZTMQRmcVqqsgVLrSsDVSLMwxL

That is 0.83 mm/yr during the last 24 years. A 100% melt would raise sea level 40 cm and take 500 years!

Optimism, Pessimism, and Infinite Universe Theory

Dr. Borchardt:

One important aspect of the Infinite Universe Theory which may be overlooked, is its ability to stress a positive outlook in our daily lives. You hinted at this in TSW, but it occurred to me that people often tend to view the world by way of Murphy's "Law," which loosely states that "if anything can go wrong, it will go wrong, and at the worst possible moment." Firstly, this "law" could never actually be possible in a finite universe. It is so often quoted, that people don't realize that they are confirming an infinite universe at the same time. Only infinity could produce the circumstances that would bring together the events that would produce such calamity in such a way. But, secondly, nobody ever seems to consider that there is a complement to this "law." It could be stated, "if anything can go correctly, it will go correctly, and at the best possible moment." If this were not true, no progress or success would ever occur. And this, too, could not be possible except within an infinite universe. (We could call it "Borchardt's law".) It is the IUT that posits a positive and optimistic outlook. There is always an opportunity awaiting us, no matter how bleak our situation may seem.

It was in the original Star Trek series when I first heard the phrase, "Infinite diversity in infinite combinations." The IUT and TSW confirm this to me every single day.

Frederic Frees

Frederic:

As usual, an interesting observation. I am flattered to have a law named after me. You are correct that there is just as much chance for things to go right as to go wrong. “Right” and “wrong,” of course, are subjective terms—what is right for the rabbit is wrong for the fox who was unable to catch his lunch. That Murphy gets so much play and that no one seems to have invented its opposite until now (maybe it should be “Frees’s Law”), reflects the pessimistic state of the culture at present. It goes with the dark colors, sloppy clothes, and “woe is me” attitude of grunge, county western, blues, and rap. Apparently, the “American Dream” is just that, a dream that is seldom realized by most folks.

I am not sure whether the infinite universe has much to do with how we feel about it. Once the rabbit is caught he becomes pessimistic and the fox becomes optimistic. Actually, IUT and TSW, like all of science, should be neither optimistic nor pessimistic. Like the universe, it just is. The glass really is half full. On the other hand, because I have been so lucky and have had such an easy life, I always have been an eternal optimist. I tend to force myself to be happy at all times. Probably that is why TSW and IUT seem optimistic to you. Another reason would be the pessimism engendered by a theory that fails to work for you (BBT). For many of us anything would be an improvement over that one. Readers like you, who really “get” what TSW is all about, may feel elated because TSW answers so many of the questions that we are taught to accept as unanswerable.

You are right that yet another opportunity always awaits us in an infinite universe. As the global slow-down in the rate of economic growth dominates the headlines during the next four decades we will be hearing a lot about “budget limitations” and “finite resources.” It will be about how we must make do with less and how some must suffer because there isn’t enough to go around on this finite planet. Don’t believe any of it. There is always enough, it is just a matter of distribution. The ones that scream the loudest about finity already have theirs. As an extremely clever species we will decide what kind of world we want to live in. Will it include a lot of $100-million bonuses? No, but it might include a healthy lunch for everyone.

The Coming Revolution in Cosmology

We supposedly live in a universe that exploded out of nothing. As an earth scientist, I have had real problems with that. Thirty years ago I actually believed in the Big Bang Theory too. Not anymore. You see, as an independent consultant I have had too much time on my hands. So much time that I was able to check those claims out from the perspective of an onlooker not exactly afraid to get his hands dirty. I love math, but I love rocks and soils more, stuff that is real rather than ideal.

My look into the Big Bang Theory (BBT) began with an examination of its underlying assumptions a la Collingwood and Kuhn. It turns out that the most important assumption currently held by establishment cosmologists and physicists is finity. Its opposite is INFINITY (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). Of course, it is impossible to prove without a doubt which of these assumptions is correct. One can only assume them. Choosing between them is a big scientific and philosophical deal: with finity the universe explodes out of nothing (or a “singularity, which amounts to the same thing) and with INFINITY the universe is eternal and everywhere.

But as a species, we have pretty much grown up with finity. Our finite world starts out with a blanket over our heads. The earth becomes flat. Then it becomes a planet with its sun revolving around it. Then it becomes just another small planet revolving around a minor star. Then it becomes a hundred billion galaxies each with a hundred billion stars supposedly expanding into 4-dimensional “spacetime.” Even with these obviously hugh numbers we have managed to keep things within reach—mathematically, if not realistically.

But now for the revolution…

It is my belief that the revolution started by Copernicus is not yet complete. It won’t be until we adopt the only logical alternative: Infinite Universe Theory (IUT). Why will this occur and when will it be? In spite of its impeccable logic and the numerous scientific and philosophical problems that it solves, the IUT will not be accepted any time soon. Hardly a day goes by that the New York Times, Science, Nature, or some such establishment media outlet doesn’t report yet another “proof” of the efficacy of the BBT. All is seen through the eyes of finity and the BBT even though hundreds of scientists have gathered much data that discredits it. As the reigning paradigm, the BBT holds immense power and popular support. Budding cosmologists and physicists who have doubts about the reality of four dimensions, curved space, or the explosion of the universe out of nothing are weeded out. In cosmology and physics government grants are seldom, if ever, awarded to scientists who do not believe in the BBT. That is the nature of a scientific paradigm. It cannot be changed from within, because those who would question it are without. There are thousands of them. They are colleagues, mostly gray of hair, who are retired physicists now free to speak out. They are engineers accustomed to working with the real, 3-D world, not the imagined, 4-D world of the “modern physicist.” They are natural scientists untouched by the financial restrictions of the paradigm. They are folks just like you, who are curious about their surroundings.

Because of its philosophical flaws, the BBT is certain to be replaced by the IUT. What is not certain is the timing of this revolution. The assumptions underlying the IUT are the opposite of those underlying religion, which is the philosophy of probably 80% of the world’s population. Nevertheless, religious authority is under heavy attack as globalization speeds up. The current religious-economic wars are symptomatic of the inevitable destruction of long-held conservative worldviews. Having developed in semi-isolation, these philosophies cannot survive a world dominated by the logic of the internet and a wide-open mixing of cultures spawned by those wars. Philosophically, we cannot escape INFINITY. Even if you believed in a god that created the universe from nothing, you must wonder who created that god and what took it so long? Even Hawking has asked the next question: what existed before the BBT? There is no realistic answer, just more of the same: crunches, “multiverses,” “parallel universes,” etc. The mathematical dreams of 4 and 13 dimensions will not contain a universe that has existed everywhere and for all time.

A true revolution involves turning things upside down. As I said, the switch from finity to INFINITY is a really big deal. It won’t happen soon. Major philosophical changes cannot occur without major economic changes. The rate of global population increase began to slow in 1989. By 2050, population growth and economic growth will slow to a trickle. The current depression is sure to put tremendous stresses on conservative social and economic systems. Our adaption to the many changes required will include questioning of all those in authority, the BBT included.

Download The Physical Meaning of E=mc2

Finally, the E=mc² paper is available for download. It will be published in the 2009 Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance. Of special importance is the section on "The 'Conversion' of Matter into Motion," the main point being that what appears to be the case at one level is not at all the case at a deeper level.

Here is the final abstract:

Many popular accounts maintain that E=mc² describes the conversion of matter into “pure energy,” often construed as a kind of matterless motion. Today, “dark energy” and “dark matter” are spoken of as if they were two different “things.” Some even hypothesize that the universe was filled with pure energy before it became filled with matter. This estrangement between matter and motion (separability) is common in popular culture and underlies the 20^th century regression from realism to idealism in modern physics. There will be no fundamental change in modern physics until we adhere to the opposing assumption, INSEPARABILITY (Just as there can be no motion without matter, so there can be no matter without motion). Without it, it is impossible to explain the physical meaning of the equation. Like all equations involving aspects of reality, E=mc² simply refers to the transformation of one kind of matter in motion into another kind of matter in motion and/or the transformation of one kind of the motion of matter into another kind of the motion of matter. The experimental success of the equation led to the increasing objectification of energy. However, being a matter-motion term like momentum and force, energy neither exists, nor does it move. It is simply an idea, a concept, a mathematical description of the motion of matter. Matter does not “contain” energy, for matter only can “contain” other things in motion. Energy is simply a mathematical term necessary for describing and relating the various forms of the motion of matter. A speculative illustration involving electron-positron annihilation demonstrates how matter (electrons and positrons) appears to be converted into motion (EM radiation) without violating INSEPARABILITY. In essence, E=mc² describes the conversion of internal matter in motion to external matter in motion, and vice versa.

Click on the title above or use this URL: http://scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/The%20Physical%20Meaning%20of%20E%20=%20mc2.pdf

Short Course on The Ten Assumptions of Science: Part 1

The Ten Assumptions of Science: First Steps in the Overthrow of the Big Bang Theory (Part 1)

Description:

In this video conference (audio + slides) I present many of the details contained in my book, “The Ten Assumptions of Science,” (TTAOS) which is the philosophical foundation of “The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein” (TSW). In the next few decades we are about to experience the scientific revolution that Kuhn warned us about. By adopting its replacement, Infinite Universe Theory, we will be completing the program that Copernicus only began. A paradigm shift of this magnitude requires an examination of the fundamental assumptions that led to the absurdities of the Big Bang Theory (BBT) and the paradoxes of relativity. Many of you have contributed to the cause by pointing out the mathematical errors, incorrect assumptions, and data that clearly falsifies the BBT and its dependent theories of Special and General Relativity—to no avail. In this course I will show how the persistence of those theories is dependent on fundamental assumptions held by most folks, including many dissident physicists. Collingwood taught us that, if we are dissatisfied with any particular theory, we need to examine the presuppositions on which it is based. Once recognized, presuppositions become assumptions. Fundamental assumptions have two characteristics:

1. They are never completely provable

2. They always have opposites.

Nevertheless, they can be assumed, as if they were true. Which of two fundamental assumptions should be assumed is a matter of much debate, the very essence of the perpetual philosophical struggle. Of course, I have chosen the scientific side, which I portray as determinism (There are material causes for all effects) instead of indeterminism (some effects may not have material causes [e.g., “free will,” etc.]). To get the most out of this course you may want to read TTAOS, which also is Chapter 3 in TSW. A shortened form appears as “Ten Assumptions of Science and the Demise of ‘Cosmogony’” at http://scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/TSWATDOC.pdf.


This a 2.5-Hour Videocast on the first four assumptions: MATERIALISM, CAUSALITY, UNCERTAINTY, and INSEPARABILITY. Please click on the underlined title above or enter:
http://rec1.dimdim.com/view/dimdim/85d40d36-e70d-102c-8e71-003048642bd7

Spacetime and Making Black Holes in your Kitchen Sink

Dr. Borchardt:

TSW dismisses the notion of "curved" spacetime.
I was relieved, since prior to reading that, I felt pretty stupid not understanding it.
But, now there is a report from the Discovery Channel that proclaims scientists have
fabricated an electromagnetic black hole in the laboratory.
It goes on to say that this model "mimics the curvature of space-time, creating a fabricated event horizon that swallows electromagnetic radiation at microwave wavelengths."

Needless to say, if I was confused before, I'm twice as confused now.

What is really going on here?

Thanks.

Frederic


Frederic:

Numerous outrageous claims are made every week in support of the Big Bang Theory. That is one of the reasons it is so hard to dislodge. All “ordinary science” is interpreted from the theoretical point of view of the dominant paradigm. Whether it is “multiverses,” “parallel universes,” 4 or 13-dimensions, it is all part of the same foolish speculation based on idealism rather than realism. The media, especially the Discovery Channel, seem to eat this kind of stuff for lunch.

First of all, “spacetime” does not exist. “Space” exists and “time” occurs. Spacetime is a matter-motion term, which, like momentum, force, and energy, combines terms for matter and terms for motion in mathematical idealization. Spacetime, then, is an idea, conception, or calculation and therefore is not part of the real world. The idea that pure empty space actually could be “curved” is one of Einstein’s most deadly sins. The 4th dimension used in the spacetime concept is a necessary part of the BBT. Otherwise, our location at the center of the expansion hypothesized by the BBT would have proven to be impossibly fortuitous to many.

What is termed a “black hole” appears to be typical of the nuclei of galaxies. That one could achieve the necessary temperatures and pressures in the laboratory to produce a micro-black hole appears highly suspect to me. The absorption of radiation is nothing new—that is what every plant does in sustaining its life. The idea that a black hole only absorbs and never emits the motion called radiation has been recanted by Hawking himself.

You might want to review the blog I wrote on 9/4/09 concerning the discovery of a 12.8 billion-year old galactic black hole that clearly contradicts the BBT. Our own galaxy is at least 10 billion years old, and yet, this one supposedly formed 0.9 billion years after the Big Bang supposedly occurred 13.7 billion years ago. The reporter never questioned this (what? a reporter with a Ph.D.?). The media are largely uncritical of the interpretations of “learned men of science” as long as they follow the conventional view. The interpretations can be outright ridiculous, but they won’t be questioned if they have the appropriate buzz words and adhere to the principles of the paradigm. Get ready for a lot more fun and games before we finally put the BBT to bed.

Relationship Between Causality and Uncertainty

Dr. Borchardt:

I clearly understand that the relationship between causation and uncertainty cannot be overstated. What I am having difficulty with is the notion that causation is objective and uncertainty is subjective. It may just be a problem of their terminology. It makes sense to me when I read it, but I can't seem to repeat it with any kind of clarity. Could you elaborate on this important connection, beyond that which you describe in TSW?

Thanks,

Frederic Frees


Frederic

Thanks for your perceptive question. This may help to clarify the situation:

CAUSALITY (All effects have an infinite number of material causes.)
UNCERTAINTY (It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is possible to know more about anything.)

Additionally, we have the following opposing assumptions to consider:

INFINITY (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions.)
Finity (The universe is finite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions.)

Classical mechanics, classical mechanism, and classical determinism assumed finity, that there were a finite number of causes for any effect. Their mathematical equations, though often complex, necessarily were of finite length. With a finite number of causes, Laplace’s Demon could postdict the past and predict the future with perfect accuracy and precision. The variations found in all real observations and experiments could, in principle, be reduced to zero by including a few more variables. Causality could be considered to be “objective” and uncertainty, in theory, did not exist. Nevertheless, in the real world, being infinite, there always were variables that could not be discovered. With the development of statistics and probability theory, these could be treated as a “singular cause,” supporting the practical need for finite equations. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle stated that one could not know both the position and the velocity of a particle at the same time. This is because, to know one of these, an experimenter would have to interact with the particle, inevitably changing its position and/or velocity. In the attempt to gain perfect prediction, Laplace’s Demon would have to do likewise, continually messing with the particle, but never getting enough information to predict the particle’s next velocity and/or position. That was the death of Laplace’s Demon—the probability theory developed by quantum mechanics wasn’t good enough to predict the future with perfect accuracy and precision.

The easiest way to handle all this was to assume INFINITY, but physicists (other than David Bohm), being especially conservative, continued to assume finity. Great debates occurred about whether or not the Uncertainty Principle meant that there was an objective uncertainty about the world. Some even claimed that it was causality that was subjective and uncertainty that was objective. The Copenhagen Interpretation claims that uncertainty is objective, a sort of singular cause in tune with the one mentioned above. Bohm’s “infinite universal causality,” as I have termed it, assumed that no effect ever had a finite number of causes. In an infinitely subdividable universe, this is the way it has to be. Causality, though infinite, has to be objective, because the causes have been operating for an eternity before us “subjects” appeared on the scene. The subjectivity becomes obvious when we are forced to chop the ends off of these infinitely long causal equations. It is what we mean when we say that “science is limited.” It is incorporated in the humility expressed by the assumption of UNCERTAINTY. The opposing assumption, certainty, falsely claims that the “singular cause” of probability has no more causes within it. This inevitably fails when yet another material cause is discovered, decreasing the plus or minus of the measurement, but never decreasing it to zero. From time to time yet another theory, such as Chaos Theory, discovers causes within phenomena normally considered completely random.

When we say that uncertainty is subjective, we do not mean that the calculation of uncertainty or probability is not objective. We simply mean that those numbers express what we do not know. We can remove some of this ignorance, but we never can remove all of it, and that is what makes uncertainty “subjective.” True indeterminists generally assume finity and have a tendency to assume that certainty is possible as well. For them, certainty is objective, not subjective. They would be the first to deny that assumptions are necessary. Their world is finite, with everything fitting into neat little finite boxes. They seem to feel great comfort in the certainty of whatever dogma they have been taught.

References:

Bohm, David, 1957, Causality and chance in modern physics: New York, Harper and Brothers, 170 p.

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

Is space matter?

PSI Blog 20090930 Is space matter?

Glenn --I recently looked again at your text in Vagabond and I remarked that I missed your important statement: "Space always contains “matter” and matter always contains “space.” Therefore we agree that space is matter."

When space is matter then any motion of matter would be within itself. Still the motion of matter requires dimension outside of matter. Doesn't it contradict the notion that space is matter and matter is space?

Sincerely, William


William:

Good question about an extremely difficult subject to grasp. I think the key to this is the fact that matter is an abstraction, just like “fruit” is an abstraction. In reality, there is no such thing as a “fruit,” there only are individual examples of fruit, such as apples and oranges. So the view that “space is matter” simply means that each xyz portion of space contains within it specific examples of matter, whether it be the nitrogen molecules of air, the ether particles of the intergalactic regions, or the stars of the Milky Way. Each of these “microcosms” must be in motion with respect to all other portions of the universe. There really is no “dimension outside matter”—just more matter. You might find it helpful to think of “empty space” as a scaled-down Milky Way. No matter how small the scale, there is always some matter (like the stars) separated by “empty space” (like the interstellar regions). This is the essence of the consupponible assumptions of INFINITY (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions) and INTERCONNECTION (All things are interconnected, that is, between any two objects exist other objects that transmit matter and motion). Thus we should never think of the universe as really containing solid matter or completely empty space. Those concepts are ideas; the reality always is something in between.

The shorthand notion of “space as matter” is based on the observation that no xyz portion of the universe is completely void of matter. We can’t produce a perfect vacuum and the 2.7^oK cosmic background radiation (CBR) tells us that even intergalactic space contains microcosms in motion (completely empty space would have a temperature of 0^oK). At the other end of the continuum, black holes, if they exist, could not contain “solid matter” without “empty space.”

The Impossibility of Time Travel

A discussion from a popular forum, “The Edge of Nowhere” (http://www.edgeofnowhere.cc/ ):

Nowherelander wrote:

Any scientist who believes that time travel to the past is feasible is a delusional Sci-fi fan that can't let go.

Anon wrote:

Time travel to the past (to a certain extent) is feasible. All it would require is an anchor to the point in the past where you want to go--meaning you have to have the technology to travel to the past before you can, erhm, travel to the past. And even then, you're limited to the point(s) where you've anchored. There was a Science Channel show about this a while ago.

My reply:

The scientific assumption of IRREVERSIBILITY (Borchardt, 2004) explains why time travel is impossible. One way to view it is this:

1. It is a fact that all the planets, stars, galaxies, etc. are in motion with respect to each other.
2. That makes the night sky unique. It is never the same even two seconds in a row.
3. "Going back in time" would entail moving all those heavenly bodies back to the positions they had on the night targeted for this fanciful adventure. Good luck with that.

Reference:

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

Anon wrote:

All the laws of science run forwards just as well as they do backwards. One might say the only reason we don't see things happening backwards in time is because our memories are being concomitantly erased.

My reply:

Reversibility is the indeterministic (non-scientific) opposite of the scientific assumption of IRREVERSIBILITY. Reversibility only looks at things in isolation. When the rest of the universe in taken into account, no reaction is actually reversible, for it occurs in a context that always is changing. This is one of the reasons that we never get the exact same experimental result twice in a row. When we look at all things as being interconnected, "reversibility" is then seen as an idealization that cannot happen in reality. For many reactions we may assume reversibility because the environmental influence is insignificant, but this definitely is not possible for so-called "time travel."

INFINITY

Dr. Borchardt:

As difficult as it is, I can try to imagine microcosmic infinity by visualizing sub-atomic particles being composed by as yet smaller particles ad infinitum (i.e., the incredible shrinking man would shrink forever).

What I am having difficulty with is the reverse. As objects get larger into the macrocosmic universe, it seems that there is a threshold or limit.

Protons are not the size of planets. And the largest single object appears to be on the order of a red giant.

Why is there no limit to how small objects can be, but seemingly limited to how large objects can be?

Does this have something to do with equilibrium?
It seems beyond coincidence that the threshold of size in our infinite universe makes it conducive for life.

Frederic Frees


Thanks for another great question—I don’t think that the macrocosmic has a threshold or limit anymore than the microcosmic. After all, there are identifiable galactic clusters as well, which one might “define” as yet another “microcosm.” The scale of each type of microcosm has limits. Atoms, like all microcosms, have diameters that vary from one to the other, but they are neither infinitely small or infinitely large. Below is a scanning tunneling microscopy photo of the tip of a tungsten needle that tapers down to the thickness of a single atom (Moh'd, R., Jason, P., and Robert, W., 2006). Note that no two atoms are identical and that some are blurry because they have moved during the 1-sec exposure time. As always, the “limits” akin to each microcosm are determined univironmentally--by the matter in motion within and without. So you are right that each microcosm reaches an “equilibrium” with its macrocosm. A tree, for instance, may reach a height as great as 379.1’, but it will never reach a height of one mile. Each univironmental relationship varies greatly, but does not vary outside the confines of what is physically possible for that particular univironment. Outside those confines, the matter that makes up a particular microcosm may coalesce or subdivide as it is transformed to yet another thing defined, once again, by the univironment in which it exists.

Life, like the tungsten atom, appears to form within a narrowly restricted niche involving an infinite number of parameters, each with enough variation to allow a wide enough range for its transient existence. Indeterminists often consider life to be “highly improbable,” or, if they are religious, a “miracle.” But remember, the infinite universe always has an infinite number of possibilities at the same time that it can have no impossibilities. What we think of as “coincidence” occurs when two or more microcosms come together, which is inevitable in an infinite universe. The infinite universe has no accidents. On the other hand, the infinite universe requires no superior intellect or guiding hand for any of this to happen. An infinite concatenation of cause and effect is all that is necessary.

Reference:

Moh'd, R., Jason, P., and Robert, W., 2006, Tungsten nanotip fabrication by spatially controlled field-assisted reaction with nitrogen: The Journal of Chemical Physics, v. 124, no. 20, p. 204716.

Does Energy Have Mass?

PSI Blog 20090909 Does Energy Have Mass?

Bill:

Glad you are enjoying www.scientificphilosophy.com and TTAOS (Borchardt, 2004). I hope you were able to see the media file (Borchardt, 2009a).

Your question was:

Re: E=MC², if I do the algebra and if c is constant, then c=(sqrt) E/M. Since M can't be 0 (as far as our physical universe is defined), then doesn't E have to have some mass, even if vanishingly small? If the above is true, then could the (even vanishingly small) amount of mass in all the electromagnetic radiation in all of the universe contribute a significant portion of the 'missing mass' problem in cosmology? This question also gets into the current 'solution' to the missing-mass problem that proposes the existence of dark matter. Seems to me that it's fundamentally based on a refusal to question the assumption whether Newton's Law is universal. It seems so much simpler to both me and Occam's razor to admit we may be ignorant about the cosmos and then look at Modified Newtonian Dynamics instead of hypothesizing a theoretical substance that we can't detect but that simply MUST exist so that Newton Law can remain valid. Anyway, just some thoughts for your consideration (or amusement :)


Another interesting question. It’s a logical solution for c that I don’t remember seeing before. You might want to review the chapter in TTAOS on INSEPARABILITY along with my abstract on “The Physical Meaning of E=mc²” (Borchardt, 2009b). I am writing the paper now, so your question is specially apropos. I included that section in the video conference, so maybe that will help. In brief, E has no mass, because it is a matter-motion term for an idea. Likewise, radiation has no mass, if one assumes, as I do, that radiation is the motion of matter. Thus, ether is the medium for the motion called light, just as air is the medium for the motion called sound. Few would think of sound as having mass, but, as you have picked up on, well studied modern physicists would be remiss if they did not consider light to be material (although a contradictory matterless particle, at that). Like most of us, you are playing with the cards that we have been dealt, so it is not surprising that we might think of “dark energy” as a “thing” having mass. The ether, like the air, indeed has mass (Borchardt, 2007, p. 203), and is an absolute necessity for Infinite Universe Theory. The Cosmic Background Radiation is evidence for the presence of the ether, which, like all matter, vibrates to produce temperature.

Remember that many of the paradoxes and many of the questions still being asked by Big Bangers and relativists are based on indeterministic assumptions. Once the correct assumptions are used, those disappear. I haven’t studied the “dark matter” problem well enough to make up my mind whether or not it is an artifact of the BBT. It could be that the mass of the forbidden ether is enough to satisfy some of the math once we assume that the universe is infinite and not expanding.

As Einstein admitted, Newton’s great work will remain so for all time. Newton’s error, similar to Einstein, was to assume finity. Your somewhat prescient call for a Modified Newtonian Dynamics was answered in the “Neomechanics” chapter of TSW (Borchardt, 2007, pp. 127-151). Instead of getting rid of the ether, however, it absolutely required it. So no luck with that for saving the BBT.

References:

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

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

Borchardt, Glenn, 2009a, The Ten Assumptions of Science: First Steps in the Overthrow of the Big Bang Theory (Part 1), Natural Philosophy Alliance Video Conference, Natural Philosophy Alliance ( http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Events&tab1=Display&id=243 ).

Borchardt, Glenn, 2009b, The physical meaning of E=mc² [abs.], in 16th Natural Philosophy Alliance Conference, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, Natural Philosophy Alliance (http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Abstracts&tab1=Display&id=3002&tab=2 ).

Elderly Galaxy Disproves Big Bang Theory

PSI Blog 20090904 Elderly Galaxy Disproves Big Bang Theory

Contradictions of the Big Bang Theory gather steam with each new discovery. Recent work shows the existence of a 12.8-billion year old galaxy containing a “black hole”: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/090904-most-distant-blackhole.html “Black holes” are the super-dense nuclei of galaxies, which, if they are like our Milky Way Galaxy, must be about 10 billion years old. Even the solar system took 4.6 billion years to form, but here we have an entire galaxy that supposedly formed in only 0.9 billion years after the universe supposedly exploded out of nothing (13.7 billion year-“age” of the universe-12.8 billion years). This data, instead, supports Infinite Universe Theory ( http://scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/IUT.pdf ), which claims that galaxies of all ages will be found at all distances from Earth. Now, I suppose the Big Bangers will have to cook up some cock-and-bull story about superfast evolution in the “first billion years” so they can keep their fairy tale alive. Thanks to Mike de Hilster who instantly recognized this for what it really was and kindly gave me a timely heads-up on it.

Letter in Support of an NPA Member

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.

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.

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.

Why Univironmental Determinism is "One-sided"

Your philosophy seems too one-sided to me. Why don't you have a more balanced viewpoint?


To obtain public funds, philosophy departments must spend valuable time presenting all sides of each issue. As a private entity, the Progressive Science Institute is not required to do that (yet). In my opinion, strictly scientific philosophy must espouse determinism (the assumption that all effects have material causes) and avoid indeterminism (the assumption that some effects may not have material causes). If you find that I have overtly included elements of indeterminism or have "balanced my scale with the religious," then I will have failed in presenting scientific philosophy. As mentioned many times before, there is a constant struggle between science and religion. Because religion is still overwhelmingly powerful, most philosophy attempts some kind of compromise or "peace process" that mixes elements to satisfy the prejudices of both. However, as a scientist, my goal is truth, not eternal life. From the scientific perspective the only thing that can be eternal is the infinite universe itself even though each of its separate parts has a beginning and an end. And, as I showed in TSW, there are ways to have a truly balanced viewpoint within the confines of determinism.

Needs and the Principle of Least Effort

Dr. Borchardt:

If I understand correctly, in TSW you describe a need (in the univironmental context) as something that is achieved with the least amount of motion (equilibrium). The satisfied need (a change in the univironment) results in a change in behavior. However, I am confused by those who exhibit the "need" to achieve certain goals that would seem to exceed "the least amount of motion." For instance, people who push themselves to extremes: skydivers, thrill seekers, or even monks who test the limits of their endurance. Have I misunderstood the concept of need and behavior?

Frederic Frees

Frederic:

Thanks for the question. You are not the only one. This is from one of the reviewers of TSW: “Some of Borchardt’s particulars are not as universal as he implies—for instance, “all our planning is motivated by the desire to minimize human effort”…” http://scientificphilosophy.com/reviews.htm This is what I wrote in response:

“[Note that the reviewer missed a major point of the book in the first part of the last sentence. Univironmental determinism concludes that “all our planning is motivated by the desire to minimize human effort" by including both the microcosm (the individual) and the macrocosm (the environment) in the analysis. The well-known Principle of Least Effort, like Newton's First Law of Motion, assumes that microcosms, like Newton's inertial objects, cannot, by themselves, increase their motion beyond that which they already possess. That also would be a violation of Conservation, the First Law of Thermodynamics, which states that matter and the motion of matter neither can be created nor destroyed. Thus, whenever human effort does not appear to be minimized, one can be sure that important factors have been ignored. I may not take the shortest path to the store because my brain contains the idea (matter in motion) that some extra exercise is good for me.]”

When I am flying down a double black diamond slope at Squaw Valley every molecule in my body is moving at the velocity allowed by the univironment. The fact that my brain thinks this is a good thing to do must be included in any scientific analysis of why I do it. The enjoyment of the exhilaration and the beauty of the mountain is a need for me in almost the same way that I need food. Those little synapses just keep firing away across those old familiar pathways until I spend the cash and go up that mountain. The “feeling of freedom” derived from such activities must not be missed. What I can’t do is to follow a “principle of greatest effort”—an imagined instance in which I could expend more calories than I have in my body or that are available to me in my immediate surroundings. In other words, we never can do activities that are physically or mentally impossible no matter how much “free will” we think we have.

The deterministic Principle of Least Effort was first described in detail by Zipf (1949), who appropriately modeled it after the Principle of Least Action in physics. It became popular in library science (Mann, 1987), where its use in information seeking is rather obvious: find the answer in the nearest book and go home. In sociology, the struggle between determinism and indeterminism is not always lost by the determinists (e.g., Harris, 1979), but the popularity of the “free will” doctrine does its damage there as it does throughout society. Whenever we believe that there are no mechanical causes for action, we cease to look for them.

One neat thing about the Principle of Least Action is that the harder it is to apply, the more useful it becomes. Whenever people go out of their way to expend great effort to achieve some goal, we may inquire as to their “motivation.” “Motive,” like “motility,” implies something in motion. If we can find out what that is, we can either sponsor it or discourage it. Great achievers must have a stronger motivation or “drive” than any of their achievements. To claim, instead, that motivation is a manifestation of an acausal free will is a total copout leaving us without answers to the biggest questions.

It is sometimes good to check one’s own motivation, as I started to do in my blog of 8/21/07:

Why me?
From a reader and his brother:

"Your book is epic. We're still wondering how YOU came up with it or did some advanced alien actually write it!"

Thanks for the kind words. Actually, no aliens were harmed during the making of The Scientific Worldview (TSW). Some were contemplated, but readily dismissed for lack of physical evidence. Being on the same page, however, you and your brother probably have come across many of the same inputs that I experienced. The trick was to keeping moving, not getting bogged down in an all-consuming career that would allow little time for drawing stuff together. Another factor was my lack of indoctrination in conventional philosophy, combined with my disappointment with the inability of the Missouri Synod to handle the contradictions posed by science. Fundamentalism tends to force one to make either/or choices--a thread that clearly is evident in The Ten Assumptions of Science (TTAOS) and TSW. I suppose that I could be accused of being a "scientific fundamentalist" by those who would rather mix and match so as not to be upset by the contradictions posed by present views. I would rather be known as the most radical scientific philosopher instead.
References:

Harris, M., 1979, Cultural materialism: The struggle for a science of culture: New York, Random House, 381 p.

Mann, T., 1987, A Guide to Library Research Methods: New York, Oxford University Press, 224 p.

Zipf, G.K., 1949, Human behavior and the principle of least effort: An introduction to human ecology: Cambridge, MA, Addison-Wesley, 573 p.

Does Philosophy Make You a Better Scientist?

This question was asked recently by Sean on the Discover Magazine website. The 85 comments that ensued may be taken as a small, but relevant sample of the understanding that interested folks have of the contribution of philosophy to science. My summary comment was short and subtle:

“This is all well and good, but we must remember that it is impossible to teach someone anything that his job requires him not to know. If physicists and cosmologists really understood the philosophy behind quantum mechanics, relativity, and the Big Bang Theory, they would have to look elsewhere for employment.”

My analysis was based on the fact that the strange goings on in modern physics are solidly based on the philosophy of idealism, which is inherent in the works of all the philosophers cited in the discussion. There was hardly a hint that there might be a problem with that approach. In particular, there was no discussion of how and when to drop the ideality and replace it with materialism. Previously, I have been reluctant to criticize idealism because it definitely has its place in science. I use mathematical idealism and ideal models in my professional work all the time. These idealizations, however, should be slaves to science, not the other way around as in modern physics. For instance, we can invent more than three dimensions, but that does not give existence to more than x, y, z dimensions. We need to be able to distinguish clearly between the real and the ideal.

The discussion so far has lacked a recognition of the importance of the philosophical struggle that has taken place in science in relation to the one in the greater society. In “The Ten Assumptions of Science” and “The Scientific Worldview” I framed that struggle, not as a battle between materialism and idealism, but as the opposition between determinism and indeterminism. I did this to establish a modern determinism (univironmental determinism) as the philosophical goal for scientists as well as for those interested in the scientific worldview. We can discard indeterminism altogether, but we can never discard idealism. We just need to put it in its proper place.

Why do you use the term "scientific philosophy" instead of "philosophy of science"?

Traditionally, the philosophy of science is studied and taught by philosophers, not working scientists. I know hundreds of scientists, but few admit to having studied the philosophy of science. Although mistaken, some of them claim to have no philosophy at all. All of them recognize that science can advance only by interacting with the external world through observation and experiment. They seem to view philosophy as too mixed up with religion and thus irrelevant for their work.

However, in view of the numerous silly so-called "scientific" hypotheses we suffer today (time as a dimension, banging universes, etc.), it is obvious that working scientists need to improve their theoretical foundations. Today's philosophy of science is a mishmash of conflicting presuppositions that have been of little help in cleaning up the theoretical mess left over from the 20th century. Perhaps by using the less popular term "scientific philosophy" we can at least put science first literally if not actually.

What is the meaning of curiosity in scientific attitude?

PSI Blog 20090702 What is the meaning of curiosity in scientific attitude?

Results from the James Webb Space Telescope are products of humanity’s infinite curiosity, which, I predict, will lead to our ultimate realization the universe is infinite. That telescope threatens to increase the current 2-trillion galaxy estimate by a factor of 10. With an estimated 400 billion stars in our own galaxy, that is a lot of evidence in support of Infinite Universe Theory. How much more evidence do we need?

 

Yet, cosmogonists (those who assume the universe had a beginning) still believe all that stuff exploded out of nothing (or a “singularity,” as the venerable Professor Hawking mathematized). But, as soon as the first fuzz ball in the night sky was proven to be a galaxy containing a trillion stars, similar to our own Sun, we had a choice:

 

1.    The universe exploded out of nothing, or

2.    The universe is infinite.

 

Neither of those can be completely proven, in the same way our scientific faith that there are “causes for all effects” cannot be completely proven. Infinity requires us to make assumptions. While each thing in the universe had a beginning, the material for constructing each of those things had to come from somewhere else. That is what the 2^nd choice provides us. The 1^st choice is traditional and amounts to the last gasp of creationism, a myopic construct centered on our pre-Copernican selves.

 

Curiosity involves an inquiry outside oneself. The scientific “attitude” is based on the assumption that the truth may be known through observation and experiment. Dr. Chris Drew considers it the primary human instinct:

The seeking instinct is the instinct within all humans that make us want to explore. It’s built into us because it has evolutionary benefits: by seeking, we find food, shelter, and water. It helps us sustain ourselves. However, we can temporarily pause this instinct during times of fear and depression.

The nonscientific attitude is the belief that truth already is known or that it may be known in ways that do not involve interacting with the external world. The scientific attitude is inherently progressive-and dangerous. The statement “Curiosity killed the cat” is not without wisdom. On the other hand, without interacting with the outside world, nothing gets done. Each step, each bite of food, is an “ex”-periment. The upshot: We are all scientists. 

 

One way to avoid the problems caused by curiosity is to look the other way, like the cosmogonists do. Any examination of the external world will challenge your religious faith while augmenting your scientific faith. Better you should look the other way. Pope Francis sums up the religious viewpoint:

 

Photo Credit: Nacho Arteaga in Unsplash.

 

Excerpts from the Pope’s radio address in 2013 as reported by Laura Ieraci:

 

“…we find ourselves before another spirit, contrary to the wisdom of God: the spirit of curiosity. …The spirit of curiosity distances us from the Spirit of wisdom. …And the spirit of curiosity is not a good spirit. It is the spirit of dispersion, of distancing oneself from God, the spirit of talking too much. …this spirit of curiosity, which is worldly, leads us to confusion. …do not seek strange things, do not seek novelties with this worldly curiosity.”

 

The “confusion” alluded to here is an enduring problem for immaterialists who nonetheless must live in the material world. Would be solipsists expect contact with the world to produce contradictions and paradoxes. Like those who still believe the universe exploded out of nothing, they have learned to live with the cognitive dissonance triggered by curiosity. The alternative is to stifle the engine of science at an early age. ”Dr.” Joyce Meyer leads the battle:

Photo credit: Joyce Meyer.

 

The “battle” here amounts to the one between education and miseducation. It shows up whenever reality is dismissed in favor of dreams and imaginings. It shows up every time there is a fascist demand to ban books that might upset the political/religious applecart. It shows up when students are cloistered to prevent their interactions with the external world. It shows up when xenophobia attempts to prevent contact with people who are different. It shows up when a scientific paradigm allows no criticism from outsiders or upstarts from within the ranks.

 

But, in the end, it is a losing battle. No portions of the universe are completely isolated from the environment — including the people within any particular portion. As the human population grows, interactions with the external world become ever more intense, and therefore increasingly scientific. Humanity’s curiosity and penchant for observation and experiment is progressive. In the long run, the regression demanded by the Pope and by Meyer is not possible. What we have seen cannot be unseen.

 

The myopism of the current cosmology is only a phase. Today, each examination of the universe adds trillions more cosmological objects, with no end in sight. Humanity’s curiosity, like the universe, knows no bounds.

Accommodationism and Why Evolution is True

This was a comment for Jerry Coyne, who just published the book, Why Evolution is True. His post was on accommodationism, which, like Christian apologetics, claims that there are no logical contradictions between science and religion. BTW: The “Templeton Prize” is one million pounds sterling ($1.6 million dollars) that “honors a living person who has made an exceptional contribution to affirming life's spiritual dimension, whether through insight, discovery, or practical works.” The upshot is that the prize goes to anyone who can produce the best mix and match between religion and science. The last one was given to “Bernard d’Espagnat, a French physicist and philosopher of science whose explorations of the philosophical implications of quantum physics have opened new vistas on the definition of reality and the potential limits of knowable science” (http://www.templetonprize.org/currentwinner.html). That alone, should warn us of the veracity of quantum physics.


Jerry:

Great post! You are 100% correct. The Templeton stunt should never be pulled by those who call themselves scientists. That's why it was particularly galling several years ago when the leadership of the American Association for the Advancement of Science resorted to that tactic at Wichita during the heat of the battle for teaching evolution (see http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/letters.html). Science and theism use opposing assumptions. One either assumes CONSERVATION (Matter and the motion of matter neither can be created nor destroyed) or its opposite, creation. Religious folks love creation partly because of its glorious promises for an imagined afterlife. Scientists, having to deal with the real world, need CONSERVATION and the theory of evolution in order to understand it, to predict it, and to manipulate it.

The evolutionary purpose of religion is to instill and enforce loyalty, making belief in creation the modern test of allegiance. That purpose is directly threatened by education of any sort, as you and many others have pointed out. The struggle continues indefinitely because neither science nor religion can prove its assumptions beyond all doubt. As scientists and determinists, we assume that there are causes for all effects. Because we can never discover the causes for every effect, we never can have complete proof of that assumption, just as we can never prove evolutionary theory beyond all doubt. But what your approach does so well is to buttress this belief by tying evolution to atheism. It makes all evolutionists stronger, giving us the strength to carry on in the face of loyalty tests we surely must fail. You may not convince more than a few religionists to give up the faith, but you have convinced the rest of us that the cause of truth is worth the sacrifice. Thanks so much for all your work in writing the book.

The Big Bang Never Happened

Randall Meyer's excellent documentary "Universe: The Cosmology Quest" is now available on YouTube:

https://go.glennborchardt.com/Quest-part-1

https://go.glennborchardt.com/Quest-Part-2

It presents many arguments against the BBT by cosmologists who refuse to believe such nonsence. Among those featured are:

Sir Fred Hoyle - Cosmologist
Dr. Halton C. Arp – Cosmologist
Dr. Geoffrey Burbidge – Cosmologist
Dr. Margaret Burbidge – Astronomer
Kary Mullis – Nobel laureate
Dr. Jayant Narlikar – Cosmologist
Martin Lopez-Corredoira – Astronomer
John Dobson – Telescope designer / philosopher
Jack Sulentic – Astronomer

Among the most telling and revealing is the fact that the BBT predicted that the Microwave Background Radiation would be 50 degrees K, while many non-believers much earlier had predicted that it would be 2-5 degrees K. The actual measurements showed it to be 2.7 degrees K.

My comments: Einstein's "empty space," would have been 0 degrees K. Temperature is a measurement of the motion of matter, so any temperature at all is an indication that matter exists in intergalactic space. This is essentially proof that the ether exists. The BBT folks, however, used it for their own ends, proclaiming that it was a confirmation of the BBT in spite of their getting the temperature wrong by a factor of 19.

In the video, Halton Arp relates how his finding of evidence for non-Doppler produced red shifts opposing the BBT resulted in his loss of viewing time at Palomar and his position at Carnegie. As documented throughout the presentation, this type of persecution is commonplace when a particular paradigm achieves great power. This video will be paramount in documenting the rise and fall of the BBT.

Solipsism and Energy

The solipsism surrounding the energy concept was there at the beginning, before Einstein, of course. To escape the solipsism underlying relativity we must remember that energy does not exist, nor does it occur. Only matter exists and only the motion of matter occurs. Energy is a description, not a thing or a motion. One particularly evident problem is the lack of rigor in its usage. Because it is a matter-motion term, it sometimes is used as matter and sometimes as motion. Potential energy is one of the better examples of the confusion. Here we speak of the potential for motion, not motion itself. PE relates to the relationship between things and then gets the matter connotation. I am definitely not against the energy concept, just the way it is used. We need to guard against the trap that Einstein and his followers fell into: the solipsistic belief that the math is more real than the matter in motion it attempts to describe. I try to use matter and motion instead of energy when those words will do instead (see my assumption of CONSERVATION). It can’t hurt (except maybe for getting published) and it will help us get out of the muck that is Relativity. Even Feynman realized that the Conservation of Energy was really just the conservation of a principal, not of anything or of any motion:

"There is a fact, or if you wish, a law, governing natural phenomena that are known to date. There is no known exception to this law; it is exact, so far we know. The law is called conservation of energy; it states that there is a certain quantity, which we call energy, that does not change in manifold changes which nature undergoes. That is a most abstract idea, because it is a mathematical principle; it says that there is a numerical quantity, which does not change when something happens. It is not a description of a mechanism, or anything concrete; it is just a strange fact that we can calculate some number, and when we finish watching nature go through her tricks and calculate the number again, it is the same."

—The Feynman Lectures on Physics (Feynman, Richard (1964). The Feynman Lectures on Physics; Volume 1. U.S.A: Addison Wesley. ISBN 0-201-02115-3. )

Theory Formulation

PSI Blog 20090521 Theory Formulation

The question has been asked: In what way is theory formulated?

1. Theory formulation begins with fundamental presuppositions (unconscious) or assumptions (conscious). According to Collingwood (1940), fundamental assumptions are not completely provable and always have opposites. The fundamental scientific assumptions and their opposites were described by Borchardt (2004, 2007). Fundamental assumptions normally are taken for granted unless the theories they support run into serious difficulty.

2. All theories are derived from our experience with the external world. Because the external world is so vast, secondary theories tend to cover only small portions of it. Nevertheless, like the fundamental assumptions, theories ultimately are derived through observation.

3. Theory and observation is iterative. That is, they depend on each other. Animals formulate theories all the time. Herbivores observe predators eating lunch, eventually getting the idea or “theory” that the approach of a predator requires some evasive maneuver to avoid the same fate. Simple theories depend on simple observations; complex theories depend on complex observations. Complex theories are modifications of previous theories. That is why scientists must publish to advance their specialties.

4. A new theory or idea is the combination of at least two other ideas or observations. Thus, a theory, like an idea, cannot pop up out of nowhere. It always derives from other things. The incorporation of experimentation accelerated the evolution of theory formulation. With experiments, scientists were able to manipulate portions of the external world, making observations that previously were impossible.

5. Theory is instrumentally driven. The development of each new instrument multiplies the potential for observation and, correspondingly, for theory. In other words, if you want a sure topic for a thesis, get the latest instrument.

6. Theory is experientially driven. This is why students need teachers and why teachers are more likely than students to come up with the next theory. It is why half of all Nobelists studied under a Nobelist. It is why the Ph.D. program is so intensive. One needs to know what previous workers have done in the field before one can produce some new combination worthy of announcing to the world.

7. Theory partly determines what can be observed. Because the universe contains infinite detail, we must pick and choose between what is important and what is not. Thus, if we are looking south, we can know much about the south, but little, if anything, about the north. Every theory is therefore subject to errors of commission and errors of omission. The way we check for those errors is through further observation and experiment. One caution: this caveat does not mean that an unobserved portion of the universe does not exist!

8. Theories that fail a test seldom are discarded entirely. This follows from the above. The long evolution of a formerly successful theory assures that it has roots embedded in the literature and in the minds of its followers. Theories “fail” tests all the time, often simply because the observations and experiments were faulty. A theory can yield satisfactory explanations and predictions even though it may be incorrect. For example, we can use pre-Copernican theory to predict that the sun will rise in the morning. The sun will rise whether we think the sun goes around the earth or whether we think the earth is rotating as it goes around the sun. That particular test, by itself, cannot disprove the pre-Copernican theory.

9. As we expand our observations, theories tend to break down. Space travel would have been impossible without discarding the pre-Copernican theory. This is why science is progressive instead of cyclic (Kuhn (1970) and the post-modernists not withstanding). Because the universe is infinite, both microscopically and macroscopically (my assumption), no theory can be complete. No theory is perfect and no theory can explain and predict anything in infinite detail and with perfect precision. On the other hand, few theories are not of some use to somebody.

10. Finally, theory formulation is relatively simple. To come up with a new idea, combine two or more old ideas. As Prof. M.L. Jackson once told me: “I simply read the literature and let my brain do the connections when I am sleeping.” Among scientists, much theorizing can be considered “seat of the pants” or “restaurant napkin activity.” Mostly, we collect a large group of disparate observations that we think may be at least vaguely related and try to make some kind of sense of them. We do it because we are curious about what the next observation will be. If the prediction is at all successful, we may have the beginnings of a successful theory. Happy theorizing!

Borchardt, G., 2004, The ten assumptions of science: Toward a new scientific worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p.
Borchardt, G., 2007, The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 411 p.
Collingwood, R.G., 1940, An essay on metaphysics: Oxford, Clarendon Press, 354 p.
Kuhn, T.S., 1970, The structure of scientific revolutions (2 ed.): Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 210 p.

For more no-nonsense physics and cosmology, see:

Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 327 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].

INFINITIES

Further comment on INFINITY from Frederic Frees:

Dear Dr. Borchardt:

Faced with our apparent limitations, I continue to read (in dismay) the arguments by indeterminists of how finite we humans are. This is somehow intended to demonstrate that only God is infinite and that the universe must also be finite as well. But, thanks to TSW and IUT, more examples of infinity become equally apparent. The main argument against an infinite universe always comes back to the illogic of "infinite regress." A secondary argument is our inability to fathom infinity or its implications. But, these same people can sleep and dream as the rest of us do, in and so doing, have the potential to dream anything. As infinite causation influences our dreams, so our capacity to dream (consciously and unconsciously) is also infinite. There are no limitations. The very idea of infinity cannot be such a foreign concept as these indeterminists try to convince us it is. I found this to be true in the opening lines of a poem by William Blake:

To see a world in a grain of sand
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour.

Frederic Frees


Excellent comment on the subject. One thing that struck me about infinity is the assumption that there are an infinite number of infinities. One might think that there could be only one infinity, but this is akin to its opposite: finity. One only needs to realize that if there are an infinite number of even numbers, then there are an infinite number of odd numbers as well. As I show in TSW, infinity is necessary for existence. Whether we look to the sky or through a microscope, there is no end to the infinite variety we can see there.

The Physical Meaning of E=mc2

Here is the abstract that I just wrote for the 2009, 16th Natural Philosophy Alliance Conference, Storrs, CT, United States

Although Einstein’s popularization of E=mc² made it the most famous equation in history, few people understand what it actually means in physical terms. Many popular accounts maintain that it describes the conversion of matter into “pure energy,” often construed as a kind of matterless motion. Today, “dark energy” and “dark matter” are spoken of as if they were two different “things.” Some even hypothesize that the universe was filled with pure energy before it became filled with matter. This estrangement between matter and motion (separability) is common in popular culture and underlies the regression in modern physics led by Einstein. There will be no fundamental change in modern physics until we adhere to the opposing assumption, INSEPARABILITY (Just as there can be no motion without matter, so there can be no matter without motion). Without it, it is impossible to explain the physical meaning of the equation. Like all equations involving aspects of reality, E=mc² simply refers to the transformation of one kind of matter in motion into another kind of matter in motion and/or the transformation of one kind of the motion of matter into another kind of the motion of matter. The experimental success of the equivalence principal led to the further objectification of energy and that other infamous matter-motion term, spacetime. It was precisely at this point that Einstein left the realm of reality. Energy actually does not exist and does not move. It is simply a mathematical description of the motion of matter. Matter does not “contain” energy, for matter only can “contain” other things in motion. Energy is simply a mathematical term necessary for describing and relating the various forms of the motion of matter. Similarly, Einstein’s objectification of spacetime led to the strange belief that the universe actually had four dimensions instead of three. Spacetime may be useful in some descriptions, but it is no more “real” than energy. It is time to return to the two fundamental phenomena presented by the universe: matter and the motion of matter.