Great Letter from a Student Disgusted with Modern Physics

This is a letter from a former physics student who switched to philosophy. He is responding to an email that Steve sent announcing our new book:

Mr. Puetz,

Thank you so much! This couldn't have come at a better moment, I literally just finished watching a fractal zoom on the order of e.214 [ http://vimeo.com/1908224?hd=1 ]. From the author's description, "a magnification of e.12 would increase the size of a particle to the same as the earths orbit! e.21 would make a particle look the same size as the milky way and e.42 would be equal to the universe." I was struck by the immensity of what e.214 could represent, and then your message arrived, and I saw it: the local mega-vortex!

Of course, this moment is not the ideal for that reason alone. I'm a student of physics and mathematics that recently changed major studies to philosophy. Forgive the boring details, but I'm compelled to express my disappointment and regret towards the scientific culture. I'm amazed at the level of dogma in physics today, which is in no doubt due to the complete blackout of education in philosophy for physicists (and I suspect, science in general). It's an intellectual death sentence to march forward without at least an awareness of the premises under which one works. Your mentioning of Kuhn's work, which I am familiar with, is a breath of fresh air. Truly, paradigm shifts are defined in large part by the premises (or scientific assumptions, ch.3) that get overturned, be they epistemological, metaphysical, etc. I had many conversations with professors and grad students; my anecdotal impression is that science is not simply ignorant of these things, science looks upon them with contempt.

In the past I was a computer science (engineering) student at a top 5 university. I went on to do software at a major laboratory, where I was exposed to all kinds of research, a lot of cool machines and a lot of very smart people from all around the world. I thought it was 'engineering culture' that bothered me, the focus on tangible results, ends over means, and so on. I quit my job after 3 years and returned to school, thinking physics (pure science) is what I was looking for. Unfortunately, upon my return, it was never clearer to me that our universities are recruiting grounds for these large entities like the national labs and military contractors. I don't mean to stir up political topics - but, seriously, how are we to pursue truth if our universities are infected by these kinds of interests?

Side note- even mathematics is affected by this! Not the political dimension, but the philosophical. Surprisingly, many mathematicians I met didn't understand or care about Godel's incompleteness theorems!! In addition, I recently read 'God Created the Integers' by Hawking, and it was fascinating to see the early geometers idea of what a number *is*. Numbers were symbolic representations of lengths. Negative numbers in themselves meant nothing; they only made sense in the context of subtraction (one length taken away from another). I like the modern example of so-called 'imaginary numbers' - as if we are forced to accept them for utilitarian purposes, but secretly we think "don't worry, they don't really exist, they're imaginary!", just as once we may have regarded negative numbers from such a perspective.

What struck me most profoundly out of the excerpt you sent is the idea that there are no extra-Euclidean dimensions. Even time is not considered a dimension. I'm so curious to read more about this and the consequences of such an idea!

Also interesting to me is the mention of the role of mathematics. Of course, mathematical feasibility is not enough to suggest that a particular mathematical model is the right one, but isn't it interesting how powerfully predictive mathematics can be (assuming the model is correct)? e.g. predictions made by the equations of special relativity that even Einstein thought were ridiculous (black holes, etc.). I often wonder about the extent to which mathematical truth can be used to infer truths about physical reality.

Sorry for the long email; I'll wrap up and say, I can't wait to pick up a copy of this book!

Thank you!

Infinity and Definition of a Point

From Nathan Carlson, a reader of my first paper on IUT (http://scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/IUT.pdf):

Mr. Borchardt,

I was reading your paper on the Infinite Universe Theory, and it reminded me of something I had been pondering for quite some time now, a logical accounting for gravity.  I had a rather interesting idea that if something exists as an atom (by the Greek meaning, an indivisible subject) then inevitably, it exists as a point.  I then set about defining a point, starting with the idea of a small sphere, and found that unsatisfactory.  I then had it as the meeting between two lines, but that does not properly define it either, as it accounts for two dimensions.  So I came to my third definition which becomes useful hereafter.

A point can be defined as the intersection between an infinite number of infinite planes.  This becomes more interesting when you bring a second point into that interaction.  the intersections between these infinite planes become potential points as well.  The closer the two points are, the greater the density of these potential points.  I will call these I-points.

Now give the point mass (not realistically of course, because it would of course be made of an infinite number of smaller particles.)  If these two points have mass, and an inclination to move, then this point field, (to me at least) is the plot of likely paths that the particles can take, and may even be an exact representation of possible paths the particles can take, though still an infinite set of paths, they are denser with two particles than one, with three than two, and in expansion to a possible infinite number of particles.

However, I'm not interested in calculating an infinite number of particles possible point paths.  What interests me here is the logical explanation of gravity.        I will redefine force here, not as push or pull but as an inclination of matter to move, (which could be proved by proving that it is impossible for matter to be without motion, also a talk for a later time I hope.)

Mass (m1m2) I will define as a collection of M-points (M-points being defined as a collection of I-points that have/constitute mass). 

As these M-points get closer the I-points they are made of generate increasing point sources to exist in.  In other words, Mass approaching Mass creates more possible spaces in the "etherosphere" for the Mass to exist in.  Given an inclination to move, mathematically a point will over time take (and remain in) the path with the most options.  Hence increasingly massive objects have an increasingly denser set of possible points for matter to exist in. 

Massive objects instead of being attracted to each other are instead falling into a denser etherosphere.  Hence your "Push", but not exactly.  Instead it is the motion of mass (still relying on proof of impossibility of mass to remain stationary).  The points generate their own increasing number of options for movement. 

[[don't take this as a relation to the theory above, rather take it as an interesting spin tweaking one dimension]
Take the I-points and instead of having the infinite planes have only two dimensions, have them three dimensional with the X and Y infinite and the Z approaching zero (or infinite smallness)  and then you have room for an interesting type of mass that is literally being squeezed through potential point paths generated by the density of the etherosphere. 
]]

Take those two :) and you can see that the system cannot collapse in on itself into an entropic state of stillness because the closer any mass (made of M-points) gets to another the more potential places it will have to move into, increasing the potential for motion.  The only way to approach that is to increase the density of the points, the farther a single point gets from a dense core (-singularity or not singularity but close in definition) the less options it has. 

I hope that is a sufficiently interesting conversation starter, your paper was thought-provoking and I believe closer to the Truth than science has come in years.  There are other things I'd like to discuss, like the law of Conservation of Mass, and the religious possibilities of an etherosphere; I don't believe that mass or even mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed, I believe that they cannot be created or destroyed by physical means or means known through things that exist with mass and physical existence.  And I believe in the soul, if the etherosphere exists, then I believe that a soul could be a complex mapping of potential point spaces constituting an intelligence, or more grossly a computer.

My Sincere hopes that you find this useful, and an interesting hello,

Sincerely,

Nathan Carlson

Post Script:  Please don't feel insulted by this, but I would hope that this leads to an interesting conversation and not a footnote in a paper.  I would not imply, having not met or become familiar with you beyond your 2007 paper that you would plagiarize, or steal an idea.  It is my intention rather to believe that you are an interesting and intelligent individual that, should this be of use to science, would detach any significance of personal recognition from you or I and leave the significance to the fascinating theory which shakes science and reshapes our understanding of our reality. I personally believe that science is hindered by the desire for personal recognition, and that better science develops from open source with excellent documentation.

Nathan:

Hello and thanks for your comments on infinity. You have quite the imagination! Since writing the IUT paper, Steve Puetz and I have just completed our definitive work on the subject (Puetz and Borchardt, 2011). As you may recall from the IUT paper (Borchardt, 2007), we consider microcosms (x,y,z portions of the universe) to be infinitely subdividable as well as infinitely integrable. None of these could be considered true points, because a true point in mathematics is the imaginary intersection of imaginary lines from all three directions. Neither the lines nor the point could exist, for existence is defined as that which contains matter, has the 3 dimensions (x,y,z), and has location with respect to other things. You are correct, therefore, that a true point cannot be a sphere. What you have realized, in essence, is that math is no match for the infinite universe.

BTW: In all our work at PSI, we consider force to be neither matter nor the motion of matter. Instead, force, like momentum and energy, is a calculation or matter-motion term in which we multiply a term for matter times a term for motion. Despite the claims of regressive physicists, force neither exists nor occurs. What we describe as force is our observation and description of matter in motion. Your definition of force as “an inclination of matter to move” is slightly better than the usual, but will not get you the correct theory of gravity. This Steve and I got by giving up matter-motion terms entirely. We don’t consider gravity to be a “force,” but the result of a Gravitational Pressure Gradient due to aether density and activity being greatest where complexed aether (baryonic or ordinary matter) is least. If you are serious about this, you can practice by substituting “matter-motion” for “force” whenever you come across it. Then the definition of “force as an inclination of matter to move,” becomes “matter-motion as an inclination of matter to move,” which clearly makes no sense. It’s best simply to stick with matter and the motion of matter, or in shorthand, “matter and motion.”

BTW2: Sorry that I can’t help you calculate souls from the aetherosphere. The Progressive Science Institute is an “organization that sponsors education and research on scientific philosophy free of political and religious influence.” 

References

Borchardt, G. (2007). "Infinite universe theory." Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance (http://scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/IUT.pdf) 4(1): 20-23.

Puetz, S. J. and G. Borchardt (2011). Universal cycle theory: Neomechanics of the hierarchically infinite universe. Denver, Outskirts Press (www.universalcycletheory.com).

God Particle in the News Again—Tentatively

When we perform experiments, we always find something out, even if it is that we are pretty ignorant. One way to handle ignorance is to be wishy-washy. That is just what the folks at CERN did yesterday. They announced that they still don’t know if the Higgs boson exists—maybe by next summer. The Higgs has been given the “god” appellation because it is supposed to give all other particles mass. Trouble is, it is supposed to be “about 126 times heavier than a proton and 250,000 times heavier than an electron” (Overbye, 2011). Doesn’t look like we will see any of these fat guys in our electrons soon. Egads! Does this even make sense? Sounds a lot like math girls gone wild to me.

More from Overbye (2011): “The Higgs boson is the cornerstone and the last missing part of the so-called Standard Model, a suite of equations that has held sway as the law of the cosmos for the last 35 years and describes all of particle physics. Physicists have been eager to finish the edifice, rule the Higgs either in or out and then use that information to form deeper theories that could explain, for example, why the universe is made of matter and not antimatter, or what constitutes the dark matter and dark energy that rule the larger universe.

The particle is named for the University of Edinburgh physicist Peter Higgs…who suggested that a sort of cosmic molasses pervading space is what gives particles their heft. Particles trying to wade through it gather mass the way a bill moving through Congress gains riders and amendments, becoming more and more ponderous. It was Dr. Higgs who pointed out that this cosmic molasses, normally invisible and, of course, odorless, would have its own quantum particle, and so the branding rights went to him.”

As I pointed out way back in October (http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2011/10/why-god-particle-does-not-exist.html), what gives particles mass is the fact that each particle contains other particles ad infinitum. This is in tune with the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). In contrast, the whole of modern physics is founded on finity, the indeterministic opposite, which assumes that the universe is finite, both in the microcosmic (e.g., Higgs boson) and the macrocosmic (BBT) directions. The days for the reign of finity are numbered.

It is nice that they have finally given up that old indeterministic idea that space is perfectly empty. Maybe they will rediscover aether particles, the constituents of electrons. At least those particles would be lighter than electrons, not heavier. Beats swimming through some Higgs goo just to get some rubbed off mass on your little particle body.

Note that Overbye has gotten the mainstream down, drawing the implications out to “dark matter” and “dark energy.” As we showed in UCT (Puetz and Borchardt, 2011), the missing dark matter is nothing special, just trillions of undetected planets running around without stars whose wobbles could give them away. You have to be pretty naïve to believe that all matter in the universe should be luminous anyway, or even that “dark energy” could exist. Energy is E=mc², a calculation, for crying out loud. Energy neither exists nor occurs, it is a matter-motion term we require to describe the motion of matter. The placement of those two dark terms in mainstream speak shows that they think of “dark energy” as some type of entity separate from matter, a violation of the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion). You wouldn’t be a modern physicist if you didn’t believe that matter could be turned into pure, naked energy, whether white or dark (Borchardt, 2009).

The Times reporter did get this gem from Steven Weinberg: “It’s always a little weird when something that comes out of the mathematics in theoretical work turns out to exist in the real world. You asked me earlier if it’s exciting. Sure is.”

Sure is.

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).

Overbye, D. (2011). Data Hints at Elusive Particle, but the Wait Continues (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/science/tantalizing-hints-but-no-direct-proof-in-search-for-higgs-boson.html?scp=3&sq=god%20particle&st=cse). New York Times. New York.

Puetz, S. J. and G. Borchardt (2011). Universal cycle theory: Neomechanics of the hierarchically infinite universe. Denver, Outskirts Press (www.universalcycletheory.com).

Neomechanical Theory of Gravitation

Duncan Shaw says:

I received your book yesterday and have already read much of it.  Congratulations to you and Stephen.  It is quite a masterpiece.

There are a number of similarities with my latest paper on gravity -- copy attached -- and a number of dissimilarities (Shaw, 2012).  We both have incoming and outgoing "aether" and we both use the vacuum cleaner analogy.  One of the main dissimilarities is that you use vortices and I do not.  Also, I use heat that is generated by the impacts of incoming aether as the driving force of outgoing aether or its constituent parts, whereas you use rotation of cosmic bodies to launch the outgoing aether.  While these are distinct differences, I think that we are close on our overall approaches.

I am particularly interested in your distinction between solid-mass and gaseous-mass and how that can account for the pressure difference that causes inflow.  You are, I think, in good company.  Isaac Newton, in his book Opticks, made a similar point in his Queries on the subject of gravity:  see Queries 18 to 22, particularly No. 21.

Duncan:

Thanks for your comments. You touch upon some of the critical issues involving theories about the physical cause of gravitation. These are, of course, nonexistent for mainstream (MS) theories, which do not hypothesize a physical cause, such as the “attraction” attributed to Newton and the “curved empty space” attributed to Einstein. As Steve Puetz and I explain it in "Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe," gravitation is the property of all microcosms, from the smallest to the largest. Through 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), we assume that no two microcosms, in this case aether particles, are identical. Although, the rest of this explanation jumps into the middle of the infinite hierarchy, it applies to subsubaether particles as well as galaxy clusters. In intergalactic space, each aether particle has a unique momentum (i.e., P=mv, where m=mass and v=velocity). The more massive, slower aether particles are pushed together by the less massive, faster aether particles. The closer these massive particles become, the more they shield each other from the impacts of the less massive particles. That is the key to neomechanical gravitation. The mutual shielding thus produces a complex, which, by definition is slower and clumsier than free aether particles. Vortices get involved (see Fred’s video on the Vortex Water Experiment at http://scientificphilosophy.com) because aether complexes, being slow and heavy, tend to be pushed toward the center of any rotating cloud of such complexes. Because of this handy juxtaposition, the complexes become even larger, forming what we know as baryonic or ordinary matter. As their concentration at the center of the vortex increases, they tend to displace free aether particles, pushing the aether particles to the periphery of the vortex. The result is a layering effect, with heavy complexes in the center (solids) and less heavy complexes (gases) on the periphery. This battle between large and small is nearly interminable, with aether particles converging and aether particles diverging as per complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things). As Steve explained so well in his analysis of celestial microcosms, any increase in the rotation of a vortex produces an accretion of matter, while any decrease produces an excretion of matter. As always, celestial microcosms come into being via convergence and out of being via divergence.

The upshot of the above is that the density of free aether is dependent on the absence of complexed aether--ordinary matter. Thus, the concentration of ordinary matter in any one place produces a Gravitational Pressure Gradient with its aethereal macrocosm. This gradient is analogous to the atmospheric pressure gradient that surrounds Earth—but in reverse. A helium balloon will rise in our atmosphere because the impacts of air molecules are greater from the high-pressure regions below than from low-pressure regions above. A massive object will do just the opposite. It will be pushed toward the center of the vortex (Earth) because the aethereal impacts are greater from above than below. Although the layering produced by vortex rotation tends to dissipate when the rotation stops, there always will be some layering, and therefore a Gravitational Pressure Gradient around every object. Again, this is because the presence of matter automatically requires the displacement of aether, and the tendency to produce an “aethereal vacuum.” Of course, the total absence of aether is never achieved because aether permeates ordinary matter as well. It flows through and around every larger microcosm, with the contact that produces gravitation often involving only the densest parts of the microcosm. In the helium example, nitrogen and oxygen molecules, being of greater mass, tend to succumb to aethereal impacts more easily than does helium. Helium, in turn, tends to succumb more to impacts from nitrogen and oxygen than from impacts due to aether.

Notice that the above explanation views gravitation as a universal, but local phenomenon. We know that there are no true pulls in nature, as recognized in Newton’s laws of motion. We gave up on other pushing theories for various reasons. The Le Sage Theory, for instance, hypothesizes an elementary particle that travels great distances between objects to produce the push via mutual shielding (Borchardt, 2007). Such a particle would have to travel from the Sun to Earth to do its pushing job. A change in the position of the Sun would not be felt on Earth until that trip was completed, which would be over 8 minutes at light speed, c. The effects of gravity, however, appear to be felt immediately. For that to be the case, the graviton or the motion of the waves within the gravitational medium would have to travel at a velocity over 2 X 10¹⁰ c (Van Flandern, 1998). This is 20 billion times the speed of light! While c is no longer considered nature’s speed limit, like Einstein assumed (The OPERA Collaboration, 2011), speeds that great seem unlikely. Neomechanical gravitation solves that problem. The physical cause of gravity is due to the hypothesized aethereal pressure differences, which are local and ever proportional to mass, just as Newton said it was.

Thanks Duncan for the wonderful reference to Newton. The MS view is that Newton denied knowing the physical cause of gravity (i.e., hypotheses non fingo), considering it to be “attraction.” That was in 1713. This propaganda is clearly debunked with the hypothesis he put forth on page 325 in Query 21 of the second edition of Opticks (Newton, 1718), a part of which I put below. He had the Gravitational Pressure Gradient idea all along! We are certainly reassured to have come up with the same conclusion independently, even if three centuries late. Looks like those of us in progressive physics need to search the original sources just like you did. We must be continually aware, that as in all battles, the results of philosophical and scientific struggles are always written by the victors.

References

Borchardt, G. (2007). The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein. Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, p. 189.

Newton, I. (1718). Opticks or, a treatise of the reflections, refractions, inflections and colours of light. The second edition, with additions. By Sir Isaac Newton. London, Printed for W. and J. Innys, printers to the Royal Society.

http://books.google.com/books?continue=http%3A%2F%2Fbooks.google.com%2Fbooks%2Fdownload%2FOpticks_or_A_treatise_of_the_reflections.pdf%3Fid%3DTwhbAAAAQAAJ%26output%3Dpdf%26hl%3Den&id=TwhbAAAAQAAJ&q=queries#v=snippet&q=query%2021&f=false .

Puetz, S. J. and G. Borchardt (2011). Universal cycle theory: Neomechanics of the hierarchically infinite universe. Denver, Outskirts Press. (www.universalcycletheory.com)

Shaw, D. W. (2012). "The cause of gravity: A concept (in press)." Physics Essays.

The OPERA Collaboration (2011). "Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam." arXiv:1109.4897v1 [hep-ex] http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897 .

Van Flandern, T. (1998). "The speed of gravity - What the experiments say." Physics Letters A 250(1-3): 11.

From p. 325 in Newton (1718):