Unmitigated Determinism

William Westmiller writes:

I don't recall where our last discussion of free will ended, but I vaguely recall describing my view as "mitigated determinism". The mitigating factor is sapient conceptual abstraction, whose content is not subject to the Laws of Nature, nor dictated by the mechanical characteristics of neurons.

But as I have always assumed, we don’t need no indeterminism no how. It is interesting that you must resort to a typical indeterministic refrain imagining stuff that “is not subject to the Laws of Nature.” Close readers of TSW will realize that we hypothesize no such thing or motion. All portions of the universe are subject to univironmental determinism (The scientific assumption that whatever happens to a portion of the universe is determined by the infinite matter in motion within and without). Whatever form abstractions take within the brain does not allow them to be “not subject to the Laws of Nature.” Sorry Bill, but “mitigated determinism” is an unmitigated disaster. 

Why do satellites stay in orbit?

Henk writes:

Glenn, thanks for the reply. What about satellites circling around the earth? They don't fall to the earth. Why is aether pushing to the earth? I don't understand that. 

Remember that the Neomechanical Theory of Gravitation states that aether pressure varies according to the Gravitational Pressure Gradient (GPG). The activity of aether is greatest where matter density is the lowest. It is the inverse of atmospheric pressure, which is greatest where matter density is the highest—near the surface of Earth. This occurs because matter is complexed aether. The aether particles within complexes have less activity, that is less motion than free aether particles. Heavy objects are pushed to Earth because the aether particles on the side away from Earth are more active than the ones closer to Earth. In other words, the pressure and density of aether is inversely related to distance from Earth.

Satellites stay in orbit because they are part of a hugh aether vortex. The sluggish particles of complexed aether are pushed toward the center of the vortex. See www.scientificphilosophy.com for the water vortex illustration of how this happens. As in the water vortex, free aether particles rotate with the vortex. Particles of medium density and diameter rotate at some distance from the axis where there are as many water molecules or aether particles moving away from the axis as toward it. Another way of visualizing this is to imagine that all the giga-trillions of aether particles also are frozen in space, rotating with Earth as if the satellite was part of a rotating metal disc. Still another way of visualizing it is to imagine the classic “round-up” that is necessary to stop a herd of cattle for the night. Cowboys on one side of the herd speed the animals on that side until the herd moves in a circle. An animal caught in the middle of the herd has no choice but to also move in a circle. The pressures on both sides are equal, being part of a larger motion.

Is the Speed of Light Constant?

William writes:

There seems to be a great deal of consternation in the physics community about the possibility that CERN detected neutrinos moving (a tiny bit) faster than the speed of light. Now, the results are in dispute.

Does your theory allow FTL? Do you think the Sagnac Effect indicates that light travels at a speed *relative to the source*, rather than at a universally  constant velocity?

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect)

You talk frequently about the Aether. Do you think light is purely a wave, traveling as kinetic energy in a medium, or does it have some particle characteristics?

Thanks William for the questions.

I am not sure what to think about the CERN results. I have many doubts about whether neutrinos even exist. There is an investment of something like $10 billion dollars, with over 10,000 scientists involved in the CERN operation. With that amount of money and that amount of effort involved from folks committed to relativity, I cannot imagine that the greater than c result will be resolved in anything but Einstein’s favor.

Of course, in our book ("Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe"), Steve and I show that there are no true constants in nature, just as there are no true identities a la 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). This is a consequence of the infinite nature of the universe. Einstein and the folks at CERN, of course, use finity, the opposing assumption, which is consupponible with the indeterministic assumption of absolutism.

As you surmised, I believe light to be a wave within particles, just like sound is a wave in the particles that make up the atmosphere. The velocity of light, like the velocity of sound, is dependent on the characteristics of the medium that transmits it. That is why light slows tremendously when it travels through water. Aether density in water is much less than it is in intergalactic space. It should be even less in the underground experiment that was done at CERN, so I doubt that the >c measurement will be upheld. By the way, in our UCT book, Steve and I hypothesize that the high density of intergalactic aether allows for >c transmission, producing much of the galactic redshift. The redshift formerly attributed to the Doppler Effect and “expanding space” is really a function of the total distance that light has traveled through intergalactic space. See our interpretation of the “gravitational redshift” determined by Pound and Rebka (1960).

You asked: “Do you think the Sagnac Effect indicates that light travels at a speed *relative to the source*, rather than at a universally constant velocity?” Let me give a demonstration on how the medium works with respect to the velocity of the source. If I dropped a rock into a lake while sitting in a boat at rest, the waves generated would travel at a velocity v toward the shore. If I dropped the rock into the lake when the boat was moving at 100 mph, the waves generated would travel at velocity v toward the shore. The motion of the boat (source) would have nothing whatever to do with the ability of the medium (water) to transmit the waves produced by the rock. On the other hand, if someone in another boat moves toward my boat he will encounter the waves I generated much more quickly. The waves I generated might be 2 meters apart, and take 1 second to form each peak, but because he is coming toward me, he will encounter waves, not at 2 m/s, but at a rate that is somewhat less. If he was going away from me, he would encounter them at >2 m/s.

References

Pound, R. V., and Rebka, G. A., 1960, Apparent Weight of Photons: Physical Review Letters, v. 4, no. 7, p. 337-341.

Sagnac, G., 1913a, The demonstration of the luminiferous aether by an interferometer in uniform rotation: Comptes Rendus, v. 157, p. 708–710.

-, 1913b, On the proof of the reality of the luminiferous aether by the experiment with a rotating interferometer: Comptes Rendus, v. 157, p. 1410–1413.