Both the 3-hr podcast and the chat script is available now:
http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Events&tab1=Display&id=346
This is essentially a quick review with a prediction that the Big Bang Theory will be replaced by the Infinite Universe Theory by the year 2050. There were 52 attendees to this video conference. The chat includes comments and questions that were typed in by some of them during the presentation.
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.
20100727
Ten Assumptions See Daylight
I will be presenting a summary of “The Ten Assumptions of Science” on Sat. 7/31 at 7am Pacific Time:
http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Events&tab1=Display&id=346
Then, at 11am Pacific Time I will be interviewed for the Progressive Technology Hour:
http://www.vortexnetworknews.com/
I would appreciate having some really tough questions with regard to the assumptions.
http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Events&tab1=Display&id=346
Then, at 11am Pacific Time I will be interviewed for the Progressive Technology Hour:
http://www.vortexnetworknews.com/
I would appreciate having some really tough questions with regard to the assumptions.
20100721
Nature of Infinity
A question from Steve Puetz:
I'm trying to decide if infinity can exist in more than one way. I've narrowed the possibilities to the following:
1) Infinity as defined in The Scientific Worldview -- there is no smallest particle or no largest particle. The universe is infinite in both directions. As a consequence of this assumption, there must be an infinite number of particles in the universe. This assumes infinity in smallest size, largest size, and in space.
2) A smallest particle exists; however, an infinite number of these smallest particles could fill an infinite universe. This assumes infinity in largest size and in space, but not in smallest size. Some proponents of standard particle theory believe this.
3) A smallest particle exists, and a largest collection of mass exists; however, the particles fill an infinite volume of space. This assumes infinity in space, but not in size.
Obviously, you agree with 1. My question is this.... Do you see logical flaws (contradictions) in the other two definitions of infinity?
Regards,
Steve
Answer:
Numbers 2 and 3 have several logical flaws:
1. No smallest particle could exist. Such a “particle” would no longer be a “part” icle. It would not be a “part” of the universe. It could only be imagined. INFINITY assumes that every xyz portion of the universe can be infinitely subdivided, much in the way it is modeled in calculus. There can be no partless parts. A smallest particle would have to contain either empty space or solid matter, neither of which has ever been found. The existence of a smallest particle would remove the most essential part of the INFINITY assumption: the question begging. This is the most important element in the univironmental “definition” of matter: Matter is that which contains still other matter. Furthermore, without microcosmic infinity no evolution could occur. The fundamental “particles” or atoms of the atomists were filled with solid matter. Each was identical to all the others. Any variation would have meant that one atom had a “part” or portion that was different from the others. Thus it could not be considered fundamental (this is what happened when real atoms were found to have varying numbers of neutrons, protons, and electrons). A universe containing identical fundamental particles doesn’t evolve because the collisions of the particles only take on the ideal form envisioned in Newton’s laws of motion. There can be no internal absorption of matter or motion (see neomechanics in TSW) and the fundamental particles therefore remain the same forever. With infinite subdividability, however, each particle is unique, forming combinations with other unique particles upon convergence and the resulting exchange of matter and motion. There is no other way of constructing a universe.
2. Consupponible with microcosmic infinity is macrocosmic infinity, the combination of the two being the UD assumption of INFINITY. This likewise means that there can be no largest agglomeration of matter. Indeed, galaxies, galactic clusters, and superclusters are a necessarily partial confirmation of this assumption. Such a “hierarchal” universe is a logical consequence of INFINITY and our definition of matter. None of this is especially surprising when viewed in a practical sense from our position in the “middle” of it all: everything we know consists of other things and is part of still other things.
All of this is why I am so impressed with your “Unified Cycle Theory.” It clearly shows that the universe is interconnected at all scales, from what we can assume to be the infinitely small to the infinitely large.
I'm trying to decide if infinity can exist in more than one way. I've narrowed the possibilities to the following:
1) Infinity as defined in The Scientific Worldview -- there is no smallest particle or no largest particle. The universe is infinite in both directions. As a consequence of this assumption, there must be an infinite number of particles in the universe. This assumes infinity in smallest size, largest size, and in space.
2) A smallest particle exists; however, an infinite number of these smallest particles could fill an infinite universe. This assumes infinity in largest size and in space, but not in smallest size. Some proponents of standard particle theory believe this.
3) A smallest particle exists, and a largest collection of mass exists; however, the particles fill an infinite volume of space. This assumes infinity in space, but not in size.
Obviously, you agree with 1. My question is this.... Do you see logical flaws (contradictions) in the other two definitions of infinity?
Regards,
Steve
Answer:
Numbers 2 and 3 have several logical flaws:
1. No smallest particle could exist. Such a “particle” would no longer be a “part” icle. It would not be a “part” of the universe. It could only be imagined. INFINITY assumes that every xyz portion of the universe can be infinitely subdivided, much in the way it is modeled in calculus. There can be no partless parts. A smallest particle would have to contain either empty space or solid matter, neither of which has ever been found. The existence of a smallest particle would remove the most essential part of the INFINITY assumption: the question begging. This is the most important element in the univironmental “definition” of matter: Matter is that which contains still other matter. Furthermore, without microcosmic infinity no evolution could occur. The fundamental “particles” or atoms of the atomists were filled with solid matter. Each was identical to all the others. Any variation would have meant that one atom had a “part” or portion that was different from the others. Thus it could not be considered fundamental (this is what happened when real atoms were found to have varying numbers of neutrons, protons, and electrons). A universe containing identical fundamental particles doesn’t evolve because the collisions of the particles only take on the ideal form envisioned in Newton’s laws of motion. There can be no internal absorption of matter or motion (see neomechanics in TSW) and the fundamental particles therefore remain the same forever. With infinite subdividability, however, each particle is unique, forming combinations with other unique particles upon convergence and the resulting exchange of matter and motion. There is no other way of constructing a universe.
2. Consupponible with microcosmic infinity is macrocosmic infinity, the combination of the two being the UD assumption of INFINITY. This likewise means that there can be no largest agglomeration of matter. Indeed, galaxies, galactic clusters, and superclusters are a necessarily partial confirmation of this assumption. Such a “hierarchal” universe is a logical consequence of INFINITY and our definition of matter. None of this is especially surprising when viewed in a practical sense from our position in the “middle” of it all: everything we know consists of other things and is part of still other things.
All of this is why I am so impressed with your “Unified Cycle Theory.” It clearly shows that the universe is interconnected at all scales, from what we can assume to be the infinitely small to the infinitely large.
20100714
Why Infinite Universe Theory Requires Ether
Why must an ether exist, in order to justify IUT? Cannot there simply be enough random matter in the universe to eventually filter out all light from the outer limits? Or, does the definition of ether include random matter?
An excellent question! There are two possibilities:
1) Light is matter in motion
It is true that the presence of “random matter” throughout the universe would lead to the absorption and therefore the reddening of light over distance. According to neomechanics (TSW, p. 127), each microcosm (portion of the universe) contains still other microcosms (submicrocosms). Thus, when two microcosms collide, some of the motion of the collider (high-velocity microcosm) is absorbed internally by the submicrocosms of the collidee (low-velocity microcosm). This does not happen in Newton’s mechanics, in which objects are considered either point sources of zero dimension or filled with inert solid matter or “filled” with completely empty space. Thus in Newton’s Second Law, all of the motion of the collider is transmitted to the collidee as a whole. Similarly, the corpuscular theory of light proposed by Einstein follows Newton’s lead. Massless particles of light (photons) are said to travel throughout the universe without losing any of their motion during collisions. With the caveat that if they do, this light would be re-emitted in exactly the same form after the collisions. From the standpoint of univironmental determinism, the Newtonian and Einsteinian idealizations cannot be correct. Nothing travels through the infinite universe without something happening to it.
2) Light is the motion of matter.
For light to be considered the motion of matter, it must have a medium for transmission, defined by 19th century physicists as the ether, with specific properties generally not considered to be “random matter.” As with the wave motion in other media (air, water, etc.), ether is responsible for the Doppler Effect and for absorption of motion over distance (red shift). Einstein’s early model assumed that the ether did not exist, with intergalactic space being completely empty. This was falsified by the discovery of the intergalactic microwave background radiation having a temperature of 2.7K. Completely empty space would have a temperature of 0 K. From the standpoint of univironmental determinism, light must be the wave motion within the dynamic medium traditionally referred to as the ether.
How this all fits together
INFINITY, as defined in TTAOS, is both microcosmic as well as macrocosmic. This means that every portion of the infinite universe contains submicrocosmic particles within microcosmic particles, ad infinitum. Similarly, it must contain supermacrocosms within macrocosms, ad infinitum. The upshot is that there is no completely empty space; nonexistence is impossible. The universe is infinitely subdividable and infinitely integrable (as in the calculus).
An excellent question! There are two possibilities:
1) Light is matter in motion
It is true that the presence of “random matter” throughout the universe would lead to the absorption and therefore the reddening of light over distance. According to neomechanics (TSW, p. 127), each microcosm (portion of the universe) contains still other microcosms (submicrocosms). Thus, when two microcosms collide, some of the motion of the collider (high-velocity microcosm) is absorbed internally by the submicrocosms of the collidee (low-velocity microcosm). This does not happen in Newton’s mechanics, in which objects are considered either point sources of zero dimension or filled with inert solid matter or “filled” with completely empty space. Thus in Newton’s Second Law, all of the motion of the collider is transmitted to the collidee as a whole. Similarly, the corpuscular theory of light proposed by Einstein follows Newton’s lead. Massless particles of light (photons) are said to travel throughout the universe without losing any of their motion during collisions. With the caveat that if they do, this light would be re-emitted in exactly the same form after the collisions. From the standpoint of univironmental determinism, the Newtonian and Einsteinian idealizations cannot be correct. Nothing travels through the infinite universe without something happening to it.
2) Light is the motion of matter.
For light to be considered the motion of matter, it must have a medium for transmission, defined by 19th century physicists as the ether, with specific properties generally not considered to be “random matter.” As with the wave motion in other media (air, water, etc.), ether is responsible for the Doppler Effect and for absorption of motion over distance (red shift). Einstein’s early model assumed that the ether did not exist, with intergalactic space being completely empty. This was falsified by the discovery of the intergalactic microwave background radiation having a temperature of 2.7K. Completely empty space would have a temperature of 0 K. From the standpoint of univironmental determinism, light must be the wave motion within the dynamic medium traditionally referred to as the ether.
How this all fits together
INFINITY, as defined in TTAOS, is both microcosmic as well as macrocosmic. This means that every portion of the infinite universe contains submicrocosmic particles within microcosmic particles, ad infinitum. Similarly, it must contain supermacrocosms within macrocosms, ad infinitum. The upshot is that there is no completely empty space; nonexistence is impossible. The universe is infinitely subdividable and infinitely integrable (as in the calculus).