Paul Schroeder writes:
“But cosmology must address the everyday curvature of relationships. For example your colliding of micro/macrocosms is a linear interaction. What about discussing penetration by gravity? What happens to your ether inside a mass? What about transference of rotation from mass to pushing gravity? How did we arrive at orbital motions?”
[Paul, those are extremely perceptive questions, which were addressed in our new book (Puetz and Borchardt, 2011), “Universal Cycle Theory,” due out before the end of the month.]
“Finally, going beyond your univironment, we need the origin of motion and the original existence of microcosms. Your conservatism does say matter and motion of matter can neither be created nor destroyed. True only if you allow for motion without mass and you include radiation in your definition of matter. Again my system covers these issues.”
[As mentioned above, there can be no motion without matter. I don’t blame you for being confused about radiation. Einstein muddled this one real good by proposing the photon as a massless particle of motion. To this day, really smart folks believe that photons actually “exist” and that energy actually exists or occurs. It is part and parcel of what Einstein was all about. It was his most important philosophical error (Borchardt, 2011). Also see my blog on “What is Energy” http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2011/02/what-is-energy.html.]
“We also differ on matter creation. I see electrons as crossings of radiation beams as opposed to things being bombarded and pushed together.”
[What you propose is the creation of matter out of matterless motion. In UD each type of matter is formed out of other types of matter. The equation, E=mc2, describes it well, as long as one avoids the conventional interpretation (Borchardt, 2009).]
“You wrote: “I don’t quite understand ‘light is motion’ and ‘time is motion’. Motion is a singular concept which you equate with light and time, two dissimilar concepts.”
[Paul, references above provide the details. In brief, we must remember that the universe only presents us with two basic phenomena, matter and the motion of matter. There are an infinite number of concepts that fit either of these two categories. Thus sound is motion, running is motion, earthquakes are motions, etc. Light is the wave motion of the aether, just like sound is the wave motion of the air. Light is not a thing, but the motion of things. Time is the motion of everything. Universal time is the motion of each thing with respect to everything else. Specific time is the motion of a specific microcosm with respect to another specific microcosm (i.e., a clock). Time does not exist; it occurs. There is no “going backward in time,” because there is no such place, as implied also by the Seventh Assumption of Science, irreversibility (All processes are irreversible).Time is not a dimension. Time is not a measurement (dinosaurs experienced time, but they did not measure it). Time is motion.]
“I also don’t follow the etherosphere concept.”
[There are two schools of thought about the aether.
In the first, which was tested by Michelson-Morley (1897) [MMX] in a campus basement in Ohio, was that aether is everywhere the same, penetrating everything, and is unaffected by gravity. Earth would travel through such an aether, being unaffected by it. Nevertheless, there would be a relative difference between Earth’s motion and the motion of the aether, whether the aether was fixed or in motion. Earth goes around the Sun at a velocity of 30 km/s, so that is the expected relative difference after averaging what would be a headwind and what would be a tailwind. Note that in a recent paper, Steven Bryant (2008) used a wave-length approach to recalculate the MMX data, getting 30 km/s for what has always been considered a null result. If Bryant’s work is confirmed, it would be a falsification of SRT, as well as the second school of thought:
In the second, implied by Figure 8-2 in TSW (p. 202) (see also: http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2008/06/is-ether-negatively-charged.html), aether is “entrained around Earth.” Although aether exists throughout the universe, some of it travels with Earth, just like our atmosphere. This means that, like our atmosphere, there would be no relative difference between the motion of the “aetherosphere” and Earth. Data supporting this view began to accumulate after investigators did MMX-type experiments at high altitudes. With entrainment, we expect measurements of the relative difference in velocity to be a function of altitude. A velocity of 30 km/s would be obtained only when the effects of the entrainment are no longer significant. With entrainment, attempting to measure the relative difference in velocity at sea level would be like trying to measure the velocity of the jet stream in your basement. Figure 8-2 suggests that the 30 km/s value really could not be obtained at altitudes lower than the stratosphere. The figure also suggests that changes in the density of the aetherosphere are not only a simple function of gravitation, as they are with the atmosphere. The aetherosphere curve has a lower slope than the atmosphere curve, even though they both meet at the same point (a function of the square root of altitude vs. a direct function of altitude). Does this mean that the aether is charged in addition to having mass?]
“I do hope your book becomes the standard of future thought and possibly creates interest in my model. Philosophy sometimes seems so circular that can inhibit progress. Is that sort of an application of your predestination idea?”
[Paul, remember that progress in philosophy, like progress in everything else, actually is spiralic, not circular. The determinism-indeterminism philosophic struggle proceeds in fits and starts: three steps forward and two steps back. If there is any “predestination,” it involves the fact that humanity cannot avoid including more and more of the macrocosm in its considerations of the universe. Living in the two-sphere universe or Einstein’s solitary Milky Way universe or the Big Bang universe is quite different from what is destined to be considered an infinite universe.]
References
Borchardt, G. (2009). "The physical meaning of E=mc2 (http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/The%20Physical%20Meaning%20of%20E%20=%20mc2.pdf)" Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance 6(1).
Borchardt, G. (2011). Einstein's most important philosophical error. Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 18th Conference of the NPA, 6-9 July, 2011 (http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5991.pdf). G. Volk. College Park, MD, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD. 8: 64-68.
Bryant, S. (2008). "Revisiting the Michelson and Morley experiment to reveal an Earth orbital velocity of 30 kilometers per second Galilean Electrodynamics 19(3): 51-56 (http://www.relativitychallenge.com/papers/Bryant.CICS.MMX.Analysis.06302006.pdf ).
Michelson, A. A. and E. W. Morley (1887). "On the relative motion of the earth and the luminiferous ether." American Journal of Science 39: 333-345.
Puetz, S. J. and G. Borchardt (2011). Universal cycle theory: Neomechanics of the hierarchically infinite universe (in press). Denver, OutskirtsPress.com.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment