Paul Schroeder, author of "The Universe is Otherwise" (Schroeder, 2006) writes in an email:
“…the infinite blob of aether cannot be assigned any functions.”
[Paul, I would never call the aether “an infinite blob.” The aether must consist of trillions of tiny particles in constant motion. It cannot be a single motionless entity normally connoted by the term “blob.” It cannot be fixed or a “cell-like” structure as some have proposed. Aether, like all microcosms, must contain submicrocosms as per infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions) and relativism (All things have characteristics that make them similar to all other things as well as characteristics that make them dissimilar to all other things).]
“The concept of ‘least action’, which I did not previously know about, and the second law of thermodynamics, which I ignored as nonsensical for open space, are both directional – toward slowing and cooling. As such they conflict with the eternal and thus with the infinite.”
[Paul, these two laws are merely recapitulations of the law of the universe: Newton’s First Law of Motion: An object in motion tends to stay in motion unless it collides with something. As I explained in my "Resolution of SLT-order paradox" paper (Borchardt, 2009) and in the discussion of complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things) in TTAOS and TSW, your statement that “they conflict with the eternal and thus with the infinite” is not true. Only systems theorists, who typically under-emphasize the macrocosm, could make that interpretation. As univironmental determinists, we believe that the microcosm and macrocosm are equally important. This is tied to your next question:]
“Where do motion and heat come from originally? My system is the answer. Paep gravity beams (Schroeder, 2006) have always existed, providing the original motion and subsequently the heat upon interacting. My paeps continually recycle providing eternity and allowing infinity to resolve into everyday specifics."
[Paul, remember that the two basic phenomena presented by the universe involve the existence of matter and the occurrence of its motion. As explained repeatedly in my previous blog, no particular microcosm or motion can be regarded as more fundamental or more elementary than any other. There are no “god particles,” “concrete objects,” paeps, or aether particles that “have always existed.” Every microcosm has a beginning and an end. Every microcosm forms from submicrocosms, which form from subsubmicrocosms ad infinitum. To suggest otherwise is to proclaim a fixity never observed and assumed not to exist when we use inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion). Because matter must always be in motion, it continually interacts with the macrocosm and is thereby changed. In an infinite universe it is pointless to ask where motion came from originally. The inertial motion of Newton’s object came from the motion of some other object, ad infinitum. Only those who don’t really believe in infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions) would eternally ask the eternal questions: Where did matter come from? Where did motion come from? In an infinite universe the answer is always the same: From somewhere else. Infinity is the "grandest passing of the buck." It is time that we got used to it.]
References
Borchardt, G. (2008). "Resolution of SLT-order paradox" from http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_3.pdf.
Schroeder, P. (2006). The universe is otherwise (http://www.booksurge.com/The-Universe-Is-Otherwise-External-Gravitation/A/1419632310.htm), BookSurge Publishing, 198 pp.
Posts
4 comments:
Your aether consists of trillions of tiny particles in constant motion. That is exactly my Paep concept. And since they are particles they can push upon masses, be diminished within masses and cause gravity.
Regarding least action, the second law of thermodynamics, if you do believe them absolutely, then one is overlooking divergence. Therefore neither you nor I can support them as absolutes. In the same regard you extend their theory to extensions of Newton’s first law. That also cannot remain a useful law since the aether/(paep) particles are constantly colliding with everything in motion.
I did not mean for my mention of ‘originally’ to imply there was some beginning, there isn’t. However the motions we observe throughout the heavens create questions about their source, their apparent permanence, and about the concept of gravity. Clearly masses must always be in motion. Otherwise gravity will overcome them, which is one perspective on the need for permanent motion. I have no objection to your addressing the infinite in the full range of sizes when you note there are submicrocosims ad infinitum. However I think it is more useful for understanding spatial matter, motion and events that we relate larger masses to your aether - my paeps. In that examination it is important to ask why the particular motions exist and remain. Can we look at the system to determine what causes the motion of Newtonian objects to follow patterns? If not, we reject all assumption of intelligent inquiry and problem solving.
My reference to ‘originally’ was to initiate a flow of understanding the universe in which ‘seemingly empty’ space could have existed, gradually warping its motions into matter, morphing into today’s condition in which large scale masses exist. Most people chose to build their view of reality by relating masses to each other, often expanding logic by beginning with a single mass particle.
Paul Schroeder
Paul:
“Regarding least action, the second law of thermodynamics, if you do believe them absolutely, then one is overlooking divergence. Therefore neither you nor I can support them as absolutes. In the same regard you extend their theory to extensions of Newton’s first law. That also cannot remain a useful law since the aether/(paep) particles are constantly colliding with everything in motion.”
[Least action, the SLT, and the First Law are all observations about divergence. Perhaps you meant “convergence,” which is my answer stated in the need for the assumption of complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things). In the infinite universe, colliders become collidees and vice versa.]
“I did not mean for my mention of ‘originally’ to imply there was some beginning, there isn’t. However the motions we observe throughout the heavens create questions about their source, their apparent permanence, and about the concept of gravity. Clearly masses must always be in motion. Otherwise gravity will overcome them, which is one perspective on the need for permanent motion.”
[Agree, except for the part about “gravity will overcome them,” which sounds a lot like the old “attraction” hypothesis run amok. Gravitation involves colliders and collidees, just like everything else.]
“I have no objection to your addressing the infinite in the full range of sizes when you note there are submicrocosims ad infinitum. However I think it is more useful for understanding spatial matter, motion and events that we relate larger masses to your aether - my paeps. In that examination it is important to ask why the particular motions exist and remain.”
[I agree that we need to relate larger to smaller microcosms and that we need to study their motions. BTW: Motion does not “exist,” it occurs. Newton’s second law teaches that motion is transferred from one thing to another. This is implied in our assumption of conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed).]
“Can we look at the system to determine what causes the motion of Newtonian objects to follow patterns?”
[Agree. That is what science is all about.]
“My reference to ‘originally’ was to initiate a flow of understanding the universe in which ‘seemingly empty’ space could have existed, gradually warping its motions into matter, morphing into today’s condition in which large scale masses exist. Most people chose to build their view of reality by relating masses to each other, often expanding logic by beginning with a single mass particle.”
[Sorry, but we assume that there has never been any empty space. Matter is defined as that which contains other matter. All microcosms contain submicrocosms, which contain subsubmicrocosms, ad infinitum. The ideal empty space you have imagined would not have motions that could be “warped into matter.” The Tenth Assumption of Science, interconnection (All things are interconnected, that is, between any two objects exist other objects that transmit matter and motion) prevents this kind of thinking.]
The paradigm shift in physics under which whole philosophy of physics was changed by Einstein in the year 1905 as the result of his articles 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies' & 'Does the Inertia of a Body Depend on its Energy Content'. Both of these articles have been shown to be fundamentally incorrect mathematically, theoretically & experimentally and in fact these articles have been shown to be based on trickery. I am at loss to understand as to how for a whole one century physicists failed to see the very simple, elementary & fundamental trickery of Einstein and as intellectuals I would like you to circulate the open challenge among your members & the physicists of the world and publish their response as to how this escaped the scientific scrutiny. Secondly I have put forward the attached open challenge which is available on http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Abstracts&tab1=Display&id=6476&tab=2 and also on http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/4018 and I would like to keep you informed that the open challenge has been sent to almost all professors of physics & universities of the world and so far two retired professors of physics namely Jeremy Dunning-Davies of Hull University & Brian Cole of Columbia University accepted the challenge but both of them finally failed to point out a single mistake in my articles. Evidently accepting the alternative theory would reduce the degrees of main-stream physicists to trash.Through the published articles it has been established that the adopted paradigm of physics is fundamentally incorrect and on the basis of the fundamentally incorrect paradigm of physics Particle Physics, Big Bang Theory, Quantum Mechanics and almost all physics have been fabricated. Now when the fallacies of the adopted paradigm of physics are mathematically, experimentally and theoretically exposed; it is very strange that main-stream physicists turn a blind eye to this exposure which reveals open conspiracy. One the other hand physicists like Stephen Hawking, Neil Tyson, Lawrence Krauss, Michio Kaku & many more are virtually selling fundamentally incorrect physics to promote atheism. Are there no truth loving physicists on this planet and has the conscience of physicists died en-masse?
The main-stream physicists have taken over all educational institutions, research institutions, scientific journals of the world and humanity is being deceived by adopting physics which is fundamentally incorrect.
Following published articles would be also of help to you.
1. Experimental & Theoretical Evidences of Fallacy of Space-time Concept and Actual State of Existence of the Physical Universe (www.indjst.org; March2012)
2. Foundation of Theory of Everything: Non-living Things & Living Things (www.indjst.org; Sep 2010)
3.Michelson-Morley Experiment: A Misconceived & Misinterpreted Experiment (www.indjst.org; April 2011)
4. Energy Theory of Matter & Cosmology (www.indjst.org; August 2010)
5. 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies' by Albert Einstein is Based on Trickeries (www.elixirjournal.org Feb.2012)
6.Ultimate Proof of Energy Theory of Matter & Cosmology (www.indjst.org; August 2010)
7. Theory of Origin & Phenomenon of Life (www.indjst.org; August 2010)
These publications are also available on www.gsjournal.net, www.wrldsci.org, viXra, Intellectual Archives & ResearchGate in my profile.
Mohammad:
Thanks for your comments and list of reviewed publications. Glad to see that you are able to use the A---- word (aether) in your work. On the other hand, you are entirely correct that we have some philosophical differences. At PSI, we have begun all our work in scientific philosophy by first establishing our foundational assumptions. You can discover what they are by reading "The Ten Assumptions of Science" or Chapter 3 in "The Scientific Worldview." We encourage all investigators to prepare a list of their own fundamental assumptions, which by definition, always have opposites (e.g., infinity vs. finity), are not completely provable, and must be consupponible. I notice that you mentioned a lot about previous workers who assumed finity and thus were especially enamored with the idea of absolutes as well. Those who presuppose finity generally do not agree that fundamental assumptions are necessary. I hope that is not true in your case. We would have to agree on the fundamentals before we could have a meaningful discussion of the details.
Post a Comment