Argument from Authority

In response to Rick's critique of the Krauss interview on his book, "A Universe From Nothing,” Rosemary Lyndall Wemm says:

The trouble with astrophysics summaries that has been dumbed down for non-expert consumption is that the average reader is too ignorant of the subject matter to understand the complexities. Whatever makes the author believe that musicians have what it takes?

The underlying problem is that the common meaning of "nothing" is not consistent with the scientific version of "nothing". This is further complicated by the fact that many scientists will assert that there is actually no such thing as "nothing". An infinitely small singularity could probably be defined as "infinitely small space/time/energy/potential particle". The average person is no closer to understanding this than they have of understanding the concept of double figure dimensions. 

Rosemary:

Thanks for the comment and for your courage to use your real name. It is the nature of an absurd theory that it doesn’t take any special training to see that the “emperor wears no clothes.” Such theories, the BBT and relativity, with their explosions out of nothing and 4 dimensions make no sense at all to the person in the street. Promoters of such silly theories ask us commoners to have “faith,” in the same way we were asked in parochial school. I asked Rick to address the Krauss book and interview. I think he did a pretty good job of it even though he is not an astrophysicist by training. Unlike Krauss, however, he is well trained in “The Ten Assumptions of Science.” He knows that the opposite of the indeterministic assumption of creation (an obvious darling of the BBT) is the Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can neither be created nor destroyed). You either believe in the First Law of Thermodynamics or you don’t, despite Hawking’s plea that even the laws of the universe were created when it exploded out of nothing, or a “singularity” as naïve mathematicians say. Rick prefers the Fifth Assumption of Science, as I do and is one of the best supporters of UD and Infinite Universe Theory.

As is evident in the Krauss interview, mainstream scientists, who tend to be aether deniers, are confused over the idea of nothing. They say they have discovered the origin of the universe from nothing, but they realize that their concept of nothing needs some adjustment. Being indeterminists crawling out from under the idealization of the nothing that cannot possibly exist in reality, they must see this nothing as something, either the result of “quantum fluctuations,” Higgs bosons, or “pure energy construed as matterless motion” (see the Fourth Assumption of Science). Rick and the rest of us in PSI are always amused when avowed atheists like Krauss become famous for attacking creation while holding to that assumption at the same time.

Rosemary, you say that “An infinitely small singularity could probably [my italics] be defined as "infinitely small space/time/energy/potential particle". The average person is no closer to understanding this than they have of understanding the concept of double figure dimensions. 

You are definitely right about that. An "infinitely small space/time/energy/potential particle" and “double figure dimensions” make no sense at all. Anyone who thinks they know either of those is definitely confused. Looks like indeterminism is being spoken here. Univironmental determinists consider space to be matter, time to be the motion of matter, energy to be a calculation, and potential particles to be nonsense. We common, nonauthoritarian folks have a zillion hours of experience with 3-dimensional objects. The high priests of regressive physics have zero hours of experience with their imagined extra-Euclidean “objects.” Rick and I know when we are being bamboozled. Even Steven Colbert, one of the smartest folks in television, has the guts to display a bit of skepticism over such chicanery.     

Rosemary, you certainly must have just a little bit of doubt about the “creation of the universe out of nothing.” We encourage you to read TSW and UCT to find out what the infinite universe is really about.

Indeterministic Hysteria and the End of the World

Oh, I almost forgot, the world is supposed to end tomorrow...

Anyway, I love making predictions, especially the ones having a 100% chance of success. Just as I will not grow feathers and fly out the window, Earth will continue on its merry way after the latest indeterministic hysteria slowly subsides on Friday. You would think folks eventually would become inured with such silly prognostications. I guess there is a lot of truth to the old adage that “There is a sucker born every minute.” We must learn determinism through experience. Thus the reservoir of indeterminism and its associated ignorance is endless. The answer, of course, is education. Mere repression of indeterminism is insufficient, as the Chinese are finding out:

Here is an “ark” built with the life savings of a Chinese fellow about as far from the ocean as you can get:

And here is a weather forecast also going around the Internet:

Here are some predictions on when the world will end:

Mayan Calendar Procrastination: Friday

Christians: Any day now

Scientists: About 4.5 billion years

Have a happy “Fry” day!

Systems Philosophy Strikes Again!

Remember that, as the universal mechanism of evolution, univironmental determinism (UD) assumes that whatever happens to an xyz portion of the universe is determined by the infinite matter in motion within and without. Thus, whenever we analyze anything, we are prone to two types of errors of overemphasis: microcosmic and macrocosmic. As the current scientific world view of the mainstream, systems philosophy consistently errors on the microcosmic side. The motto seems to be: consider the thing you are studying (the microcosm) and ignore or slight everything else (the macrocosm). Readers know that the archetype of systems philosophy is the Big Bang Theory (BBT). But there are many other disciplines in which systems philosophy does its damage.

One popular discussion among evolutionists involves a renewal of the bogus nature-nurture debate. By adding genetics to natural selection, neo-Darwinists rectified Darwin’s macrocosmic error. Evolution in biology is the result of interactions between the organism (with all its genes) and its environment. Now comes two folks (Shapiro and Newman) who think that evolution is driven mostly by genetic variations, with natural selection having little to do with it:

 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stuart-a-newman/complex-organisms_b_2240232.html?utm_hp_ref=science

Jerry Coyne has ripped their analysis pretty well, calling Shapiro and Newman out as antiselectionists: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/12/07/another-antiselectionist-stuart-newman-surfaces-at-puffho/

Unfortunately, Coyne has his own problems, which stem from the limitations of neo-Darwinism. For instance, he is a consistent opponent of “group selection”:  http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/?s=group+selection&searchsubmit=Find+%C2%BB

The jist of that argument is that, if you don’t physically reproduce yourself, you are nothing in the eyes of evolution. Aunts and uncles have nothing whatsoever to do with the success of the clan. Us aunts and uncles, however, know that to be pure BS. In UD, the microcosm of interest can be whatever we want it to be. The proper analysis is always the univironment: the interaction between the microcosm and the macrocosm.

As I argued in "The Scientific Worldview," neo-Darwinism is too limited for its claim to be the mechanism of evolution. At best, it is only a special case of UD, with its tendency toward myopia quite evident in the “group selection” debate. Then too, mainstream neo-Darwinists invariably are supporters of the BBT. They see creationist attacks on the BBT as being anti-evolution and anti-science, which I suppose they are. They can’t imagine that the BBT could itself be anti-science. To handle the contradiction posed by their brothers in cosmogony, neo-Darwinists continue to pose the debate as one between evolution and creation. It goes much farther than that. It is really between the deterministic assumption of conservation and the indeterministic assumption of creation. As accomodationists, the mainstream defends The Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed)—whenever it suits them. Neo-Darwinists typically miss the irony in both defending and attacking the assumption of creation at the same time.

  

Higgs Boson Nominated Time’s “Person of the Year” [Egads!]

Thanks to Jerry Coyne for the heads-up on this one. Being in lock step with regressive physics, the popular press gets more ridiculous by the minute:

  

Just in case you really want to vote against this bit of democratic BS, here is the link:

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2128881_2128882_2129214,00.html

Maybe the author, Jeffrey Kluger, should review my paper on “The Physical Meaning of E=mc²”. It’s not that complicated, and he might actually learn something. You will remember that energy is defined as a calculation. Energy neither exists, nor occurs. There is no such thing as “inchoate energy”—only inchoate ideas about what energy is. The first and second sentences of Jeffrey’s paragraph amount to a gross violation of the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion). Of course, he might be excused, what with all the talk by regressive physicists about “dark energy” and “dark matter” as though they were indeed separate “things.” The most that a logical person could do would be to entertain the idea that “dark energy” is a calculation involving the motion of “dark matter.”

Sometimes, the Higgs is said to be the “god particle” or the most fundamental particle. Even here we see the admission that the Higgs is no such thing, if it indeed decays into four muons. I guess it is really not “The Particle at the End of the Universe” as claimed by cosmogonist Sean Carroll. Even Steven Colbert seems dubious about Carroll’s mainstream claim that empty space is filled with “energy.” Oh well, I guess that the idea that the Higgs forms a kind of “molasses” in empty space to give particles mass is more than a non sequitur. It gives aether deniers a chance to save face. It also works with the silly idea that particles creating waves in the macrocosm provide support for wave-particle duality, as I showed here.

BTW: As with a lot of mainstream woo-woo press, this one claims once again that Einstein was right. Jeffrey says that the Higgs Boson “finally fully confirmed Einstein's general theory of relativity.” Egads again! The Higgs has nothing whatsoever to do with GRT. At best, it might support the indeterministic interpretation of SRT, with its imagined conversion of pure energy into matter. Also note that the redundant “finally” and “fully” are darlings of classical mechanics and its assumption of finity. Even the mainstream now realizes that theories are never confirmed. At best, they can only be supported [because of causality (All effects have an infinite number of material causes)]. 

Letter to an Aspiring Progressive Physicist

Glenn,

Just found your http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/assumptions.html

as you linked from worldnpa.org and am very interested in some of your assumptions.  I have a paper just put into Progress in Physics and some of my conclusions are the same as yours.  The url is http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2013/PP-32-04.PDF In a nutshell where I will be going from here is showing that while Guv can represent the wave, (Omega guv-Luv) is from the viewpoint of the medium (and should be more mathematically rigorous).  Any comments or advice are most welcome.

Regards,

Jeff Baugher

Jeff:

Glad to see that you are into progressive physics and that you found our site. We do seem to be using some of the same assumptions. I think that you will enjoy reading "The Scientific Worldview" (Chapter 3 is most of "The Ten Assumptions of Science") to see where things are going in the non-silly part of the world. Next, you will want to read "Universal Cycle Theory,” which covers much of the stuff you are concerned with in your paper. The free downloads on our website ( www.scientificphilosophy.com ) also should give a hint about where we are coming from. The E=mc² paper and the "Einstein's most important philosophical error" paper should be of special interest.

Sorry to bust your balloon, but in your paper, you mention three predictions that supposedly established the validity of Einstein’s Field Equation: 1) magnitudes of gravitational lensing, 2) gravitational redshift, and 3) account for Mercury’s precessing orbit.

Although generally ignored by the mainstream, these observations said to support Einstein have alternative explanations more in tune with "The Ten Assumptions of Science”:

Gravitational lensing was put to rest by Dowdye (2010, 2011), who showed that the Eddington observations that made Einstein famous were due to refraction produced by the Sun’s corona. Thus, at 2R from the center of the Sun, Einstein predicted that light bending would be 1/4 (i.e., 1/R²) as much as it was just above the surface of the Sun. Modern instruments show that there is none. Thus light is unaffected by gravitation and there is no curved empty space-time as was predicted by Einstein.

We explained the gravitational redshift in "Universal Cycle Theory" (Puetz and Borchardt, 2011; Borchardt and Puetz, 2012) as the result of increases in light velocity produced by increases in aether density as a function of distance from massive objects.

The explanation of “Mercury’s precessing orbit” was done nicely by Rydin (2011) without calling upon relativity.

I hope you get a chance to read the suggested works. With the correct beginning assumptions, we can put physics back on track. With your great mathematical ability, I am sure that you will continue to be on the cutting edge.

       

Refs:

Borchardt, Glenn, and Puetz, S.J., 2012, Neomechanical gravitation theory ( http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6529.pdf ), in Volk, Greg, Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 19th Conference of the NPA, 25-28 July: Albuquerque, NM, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, v. 9, p. 53-58.

Dowdye, E.H., Jr., 2010, Findings convincingly show no direct interaction between gravitation and electromagnetism in empty vacuum space ( http://www.extinctionshift.com/SignificantFindings.htm ), in Volk, G., Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 17th Conference of the NPA, 23-26 June, 2010: Long Beach, CA, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, v. 7, p. 131-136.

Dowdye, E.H., Jr., 2011, Gravitational Lensing in Empty Vacuum Space Does NOT Take Place ( http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5973.pdf ), in Volk, G., Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 18th Conference of the NPA, 6-9 July, 2011: College Park, MD, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, v. 8, p. 176-182.

Puetz, S.J., and Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Universal cycle theory: Neomechanics of the hierarchically infinite universe: Denver, Outskirts Press ( www.universalcycletheory.com ), 626 p.

Rydin, R.A., 2011, The Theory of Mercury's Anomalous Precession ( http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6066.pdf ), in Volk, G., Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 18th Conference of the NPA, 6-9 July, 2011: College Park, MD, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, v. 8, p. 501-506.

Wave-Particle Duality is Really Just Particles Making Waves in Aether

As aether deniers, quantum physicists have had to invent the wave-particle duality paradox to save their souls. In progressive physics, however, we view those particles as being microcosms immersed in a macrocosm that necessarily contains an infinite sea of still smaller particles (aether). My previous posts on the wave-particle duality nonsense were here and here. Now comes a fantastic video demonstrating exactly how silicon particles make waves (Thanks to Joel Morrison for the heads-up):

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=W9yWv5dqSKk

I guess we could say: Duh?! Our ship at sea analogy does the same thing. Particles are particles, no matter how small they are. Like all other things, quantum particles take up xyz space, influencing the macrocosm in which they exist. Morgan Freeman’s conclusion is messed up. He still thinks that there is wave-particle duality even though the particles before his eyes are distinctly separate from the waves they produce. This is completely different from Einstein's supposed "wave packets" he called photons. Those waves were within the photon, not outside of it. They traveled through completely empty space. This became particularly silly when the associated wave lengths of the electromagnetic radiation were in the meter to kilometer range. At least Morgan got one thing right: reality exists.

Why the US is Flunking in Science

The main claim of univironmental determinism (UD)* was grandly illustrated once again in a comprehensive study of science teaching in the US.

Sadly, my home state, Wisconsin, received an F; happily, my refuge state, California, received an A+:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/budding-scientist/2012/02/01/u-s-state-science-standards-are-mediocre-to-awful/

The report covers 4 main reasons for the US ranking only 23rd in 65 countries for science proficiency among 15-year olds:

1.     “The undermining of evolution through a variety of methods, both involving the legislature (as in Louisiana’s “academic freedom” act that allows the teaching of intelligent design creationism) and more subtle incursions, like Colorado and West Virginia’s mandate that the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution be discussed, while of course other “theories” don’t come in for such treatment.

2.     Vague standards that give teachers little guidance. The report mentions, as two examples, “A middle school teacher in New Hampshire, for example, will come face to face with the following: ‘Identify energy as a property of many substances.’ Pennsylvania offers the equally baffling ‘Explain the chemistry of metabolism.’ Such empty statements can do little to inform curriculum development or instruction, and give no guidance to assessment developers.”

3.     The promotion of “inquiry based learning” without any guidance to teachers how to implement it. The report notes, “Iowa schoolchildren are directed to: ‘Make appropriate personal/lifestyle/technology choices, evaluate, observe, discuss/debate, recognize interactions and interdependencies at all levels, explain, describe environmental effects of public policy, choose appropriate course(s) of action.‘ Such statements are devoid of any teachable content and leave teachers with no guidance as to how they can incorporate genuine scientific inquiry skills into their instruction.”  Further, many states say nothing about the history of science, which is essential for teaching students how science works and how to be critical.

4.     There’s not enough math.  As the report notes, things are far too qualitative, perhaps catering to students’ “mathophobia”:  ”Mathematics is integral to science. Yet few states make the link between math and science clear—and many seem to go to great lengths to avoid mathematical formulae and equations altogether. The result is usually a clumsy mishmash of poor writing that could much more easily and clearly be expressed in numbers.”

  

Of course, the success of the program is really measured by how well it produces students who “think like a scientist.” That kind of thinking, of course, is directly opposed to the woo-woo stuff that most kids are exposed to even before reaching the classroom. I sympathize completely with teachers who must explain to kids that Earth is really not 6,000 years old and that their origins have nothing to do with snakes, apples, and ribs. It is one big battle just to teach the limited form of evolution common only to biology (neo-Darwinism). Can you imagine what it would take to teach UD as the universal mechanism of evolution? Nonetheless, that is what science is all about. You can teach bits and pieces of it in the various specialties, but the overall guiding principle eventually will be UD.

But as UD predicts, the microcosm of science cannot advance significantly faster than the macrocosm of the society in which it exists. It is not for nothing that the US is home to the Big Bang Theory, and will continue to be so for the next 4 decades. The change will come as the accommodationists (even among evolutionists) gradually realize that the US cannot afford both science and religion.

*The scientific philosophy that whatever happens to an xyz portion of the universe is determined by the infinite matter in motion within and without.

Quanta Disentangled

Francisco writes:

After discovering your blog I've read everything you have posted and am quite in agreement with your 10 assumptions of science.

I would like to ask how you would explain the phenomenon of quantum entanglement through neomechanics. Do you have any hypothesis on it?

With regards,

Francisco Aguilar 

Thanks for the great question Francisco. I must admit that I have not studied quantum entanglement in much detail. It is quite complicated, but let me hit the highlights from the neomechanical viewpoint. If you are really in agreement with "The Ten Assumptions of Science," then you must understand that quantum mechanics (QM) remains mired in disagreements about causality and uncertainty.

Above all, the mainstream refuses to assume infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions) even though particle accelerators and telescopes continually provide support for that assumption. As you know, along with infinity, we assume causality (All effects have an infinite number of material causes) and uncertainty (It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is possible to know more about anything). This means that any two particles (microcosms), whether “entangled” or not, are bathed in a macrocosm containing an infinite sea of infinitely smaller and smaller particles. Many in the mainstream believe, like Einstein (mostly), that space, instead, is completely empty.

Wikipedia states that:

“Quantum entanglement occurs when particles such as photons, electrons, molecules as large as buckyballs,^[1][2] and even small diamonds^[3][4] interact physically and then become separated; the type of interaction is such that each resulting member of a pair is properly described by the same quantum mechanical description (state), which is indefinite in terms of important factors such as  position,^[5] momentum, spin, polarization, etc.

According to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, their shared state is indefinite until measured.^[6]Quantum entanglement is a form of quantum superposition. When a measurement is made and it causes one member of such a pair to take on a definite value (e.g., clockwise spin), the other member of this entangled pair will at any subsequent time^[7] be found to have taken the appropriately correlated value (e.g., counterclockwise spin). Thus, there is a correlation between the results of measurements performed on entangled pairs, and this correlation is observed even though the entangled pair may have been separated by arbitrarily large distances.^[8]”

Paradoxes such as wave-particle duality and the EPR Paradox (Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, 1935) are a result of aether denial. I like to explain wave-particle duality this way: A ship enshrouded in fog at sea makes waves, but cannot be seen. It would be silly to assume that the ship itself was a wave. Without the aether, the QM folks have no other choice.

Here is a good description of The EPR Paradox from Wikipedia (2012):

“The original paper purports to describe what must happen to "two systems I and II, which we permit to interact ...", and, after some time, "we suppose that there is no longer any interaction between the two parts." In the words of Kumar (2009), the EPR description involves "two particles, A and B, [which] interact briefly and then move off in opposite directions."^[9]According to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, it is impossible to measure both the momentum and the position of particle B exactly. However, according to Kumar, it is possible to measure the exact position of particle A. By calculation, therefore, with the exact position of particle A known, the exact position of particle B can be known. Also, the exact momentum of particle B can be measured, so the exact momentum of particle A can be worked out. Kumar writes: "EPR argued that they had proved that ... [particle] B can have simultaneously exact values of position and momentum. ... Particle B has a position that is real and a momentum that is real."

EPR appeared to have contrived a means to establish the exact values of either the momentum or the position of B due to measurements made on particle A, without the slightest possibility of particle B being physically disturbed.^[10]

EPR tried to set up a paradox to question the range of true application of Quantum Mechanics: Quantum theory predicts that both values cannot be known for a particle, and yet the EPR thought experiment purports to show that they must all have determinate values. The EPR paper says: "We are thus forced to conclude that the quantum-mechanical description of physical reality given by wave functions is not complete."^[11]

The EPR paper ends by saying:

While we have thus shown that the wave function does not provide a complete description of the physical reality, we left open the question of whether or not such a description exists. We believe, however, that such a theory is possible.”

Note that Einstein’s beef is that the wave function is not a “complete description.” Nevertheless, like the classical mechanists, he believed that one is possible, maybe by taking into account “intrinsic” properties of the particle. Remember that only believers in finity demand “complete” anything. Of course, the QM folks resorted to probability (a measure of what is known and what is not known) to avoid what was staring them in the face: that causality is infinite. The infinite universe provides plenty of supermicrocosms to provide at least a modest connection between any two particles per the Tenth Assumption of Science (interconnection [All things are interconnected, that is, between any two objects exist other objects that transmit matter and motion].

Refs

Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., and Rosen, N., 1935, Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? ( http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v47/i10/p777_1 ): Physical Review, v. 47, no. 10, p. 777-780.

Wikipedia (2012) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox

       

Meet Rick Dutkiewicz

Long-time reader Rick Dutkiewicz has agreed to head the Michigan Office. Besides being a local rock and roll star, Rick has read widely, approaching physics with an open mind not sullied by the Einsteinian regression. Rick is very quick on the uptake, being one of the best students of "The Scientific Worldview." It is with great pleasure that we welcome him to the PSI family.

Rick modestly says:

I have no scientific credentials, but I have read many books on science, especially on physics, mathematics, and scientific philosophy. I'm a layman dissident. I'm a skeptic, but that doesn't mean I have a desire to disbelieve every single thing I'm told is true. 

I strongly believe that we can get better and better at describing the infinite universe. But, I cannot swallow theories that contain conflicting assumptions or unexplained paradoxes, no matter how elegant the mathematics used to explain them. So, as much as a mere "amateur" science lover can, I am striving to find better theories. 

I'm the biggest fan of scientists who promote theories that align with reality, not just clever mathematical explanations of paradoxes stacked on top of paradoxes.

I have a desire to see improvements in humankind’s knowledge of what is true. I have a desire to improve the questions that we are asking about the real and infinite universe. 

I've always been keenly interested in scientists who synthesize crossover knowledge among disparate fields of study.

My outlook was changed forever in 2009 when I read Borchardt's Ten Assumptions of Science and The Scientific Worldview. I was honored to be one of the pre-reviewers of Puetz & Borchardt's Universal Cycle Theory. I want to do everything I can to popularize the neomechanical theories presented in these ingenious and innovative works.

Besides science, my main interest is music. I'm interested in music that is adventurous and off the beaten track. I care about music for it's emotional content. But I'm also attracted to music's scientific mysteries; the mathematics of sound vibration and resonance as they apply to music, the physics of sound waves, the psychological effects of song and dance. 

Peace,

Rick Dutkiewicz

Allegan, Mi

http://www.rickdoogie.com/

GPS Does Not Require Relativity

A nice summary of the non-dependence of GPS on relativity just came out by Springer with his paper "Does the GPS System Rely upon Einstein’s Relativity?". Also, like Springer, another expert on GPS, Ron Hatch, has been writing on the topic at least since 1995. He presented many of the complicated details and illogical claims of relativity in a video conference. Some of Hatch's beliefs are quite conventional (length contraction, absolute time, etc.), but, like Springer, he clearly has not swallowed the entire relativity package. Both are cognizant of the apparent relation between clock rates and gravitation. If any of this intrigues you, get our latest book on "Universal Cycle Theory" (Puetz and Borchardt, 2011) or, at minimum, read our paper on "Neomechanical Gravitation Theory" (NGT) (Borchardt and Puetz, 2012). I also have a short Blog on our hypothesis involving “aethereal redshift” as being the actual physical explanation for the gravitational redshift predicted by Einstein.

Here is a short summary of the situation:

Remarkably, Einstein’s prediction concerning the gravitational redshift was partially accurate, but for the wrong reasons. First, he assumed that space was perfectly empty and that light was a particle; we assume that light is wave motion in the aether. Secondly, he assumed that light had a constant velocity; we assume that it is not constant and that its velocity depends on the density of the aether medium. His theory meant that photons would be affected by gravitation. Photons moving toward a massive body would be blueshifted and photons moving away from a massive body would be redshifted. Indeed, the Pound-Rebka (1960) experiment proved that light moving toward Earth was blueshifted and that light moving away from Earth was redshifted. Other massive objects in the universe also emit redshifted light. Each time this observation is made, it is taken by regressive physicists as a confirmation of general relativity theory (GRT). Recent news is that galaxy clusters produce a gravitational redshift.

Alternatively, our “Aethereal Redshift Theory” (ART) states that the density of the aether medium and thus the velocity of light increases with distance from baryonic (ordinary) matter. For a particular light frequency, an increase in velocity produces an increase in wavelength, which appears as the misnamed “gravitational” redshift. This variation in aether density is coincidentally what causes gravitation in NGT. Aether pressure away from a massive body is greater than it is near the massive body (as Newton speculated). So, it comes down to this: Is light affected by gravitation or not? Dowdy (2010) recently showed that light is unaffected by gravity. The upshot is that the bending of light during the Eddington (1918) observations that made Einstein famous was simply due to refraction within the sun’s corona. The bending predicted by Einstein does not occur when light traverses the sun at a distance twice the radius of the sun. This means, of course, that light is a wave and not a particle or wave-particle having mass.

Refs:

Borchardt, Glenn, and Puetz, Stephen J., 2012, Neomechanical gravitation theory, in Volk, G., ed., Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 19th Conference of the NPA, 25-28 July: Albuquerque, NM, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, p. 53-58. [10.13140/RG.2.1.3991.0483]
 
Dowdye, E.H., Jr., 2010, Findings convincingly show no direct interaction between gravitation and electromagnetism in empty vacuum space ( http://www.extinctionshift.com/SignificantFindings.htm ), in Volk, G., Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 17th Conference of the NPA, 23-26 June, 2010: Long Beach, CA, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, v. 7, p. 131-136.

Eddington, S.A., 1918, Report on the relativity theory of gravitation: London, Fleetway Press, 91 p.

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

Puetz, S.J., and Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Universal cycle theory: Neomechanics of the hierarchically infinite universe: Denver, Outskirts Press ( www.universalcycletheory.com ), 626 p.

Univironmental Synchronicity

Here is an amazing demonstration of univironmental determinism (The scientific philosophy that whatever happens to an xyz portion of the universe is determined by the infinite matter in motion within and without) (courtesy: Ikeguchi Laboratories):

Microcosms not in tune with their macrocosms invariably are forced to comply. It reminds me of the development of the “consensus” within regressive physics in favor of relativity and the Big Bang. The semi-isolated, suspended table is like the indeterministic society in which we all live. The only way a well-established paradigm can be defeated is by some significant macrocosmic input. In this case, the power of the indeterministic assumptions of society must decline before indeterminism in physics can be defeated. We live at a time when absurd beliefs are commonplace and well accepted. Those who believe in virgin birth, walking on water, and living after dying are unlikely to object to claims that the universe exploded out of nothing.

Fortunately, we live in an ever-changing universe. It remains to be seen how long the traditional assumptions can survive. As I have mentioned before, I believe that these will continue to suffer increasing stress during the next four decades (see figure below). As rates of global population growth continue to decline, rates of global economic expansion will also continue to decline. Adaptation to a steady state, sustainable economy will not occur without considerable strife and overall questioning of authority. It is true that people’s minds change slowly in the face of slow change, but is also true that minds change rapidly in the face of rapid change.

Reference:

Borchardt, Glenn, 2007, The scientific worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, p. 290.

Neomechanical Gravitation Theory Video

Here is the video of the 30-minute talk I gave in Albuquerque on July 25 at the 19^th Conference of the Natural Philosophy Alliance on our paper:

Borchardt, Glenn, and Puetz, S.J., 2012, Neomechanical gravitation theory ( http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6529.pdf ), in Volk, Greg, Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 19th Conference of the NPA, 25-28 July: Albuquerque, NM, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, v. 9, p. 53-58.

[One correction: Although the speed of sound in air is about 700 mph, nitrogen and oxygen molecules in air travel randomly in all directions at about 1000 mph (not at 100 mph, as I misspoke in the talk).]

Click above or on this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxzLf8TdvWE

Glenn Borchardt Interview on The Scientific Worldview

Here at last is the video interview I did with Tom Palmer on his TV show "Sane Society" in Berkeley. It is a good summary of TSW. Tom had some good sideline questions as well.


https://vimeo.com/49848086

Online Courses and Subversive Education

Thanks again to Gary Wacker for the heads-up concerning online courses. There also are many free online courses (see http://www.openculture.com/freeonlinecourses ). Their exponential growth no doubt will continue as the cost of in-person education skyrockets (U.C. Berkeley, presumably the best public university in the U.S., has a total yearly cost of $32,000 for in-state and $55,000 for out-of-state students). Perhaps to offset that calamity, UCB also has become the top university offering free online courses (http://www.jimmyr.com/blog/1_Top_10_Universities_With_Free_Courses_Online.php ).

One good example of a free online course is “Introduction to Genetics and Evolution,” which will be given by Prof. Mohamed Noor of Duke University starting Oct. 10. It already has an enrollment of over 25,000 students (http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/07/25/a-free-online-course-in-genetics-and-evolution-by-mohamed-noor/ ). Personal attention obviously is impossible with so many students, but this seems little different from the 500-student lecture halls that many of us experienced at the big universities. We became logical thinkers anyway.

You can see the opportunities that await those of us who wish to rid physics of cosmogony and relativity. With the worldwide web, truly mass education has arrived. The high priests of regressive physics inevitably will lose their indeterministic grip as education becomes cheaper and more efficient.

Fan Letter From a Rock Star

Glenn,

I just went and read all of your blog for August. That prompted me to write a short fan letter.

I've been mighty busy playing lots of music (see my website) at outdoor parties, etc., while the Michigan summer weather holds.

Since I only have one party gig this Labor Day weekend, I don't have too much preparation to do. 

I finally found some leisure hours for reading. (I highly recommend keeping election coverage turned off - it's depressing in so many ways, and a huge waste of precious time.)

Just a quick note of appreciation and admiration for your writing and thinking skills. You're on the edge of a paradigm shift, you might say. So it's a bit sad that you won't receive the accolades that you deserve, until you and I are long gone.

I always get a touch of sadness when reading your work, because so many curious people are missing out. Most people do not have the ears to hear the message. What's sad is that so many like-minded science-lovers can't be reached, because of the barriers of "culture" or "status quo". There are so many who are borderline skeptics, but they are too timid to go all the way and ask those important questions.

Despite that occasional touch of melancholy, I'm thrilled to be alive at this exciting time, with the developments in scientific philosophy.

Thanks to you and the two Steves, and everyone else in the gang who are pioneers in this important project; turning the giant ship of scientific thinking. You turn the rudder suddenly, and don't notice much change in direction at first. It's a gradual turn.

“Patience and wisdom walk hand in hand, like two one-armed lovers.” 

Best regards,

Rick Dutkiewicz

http://www.rickdoogie.com/

Video of Light Motion

Just wanted to let everyone know about this amazing video:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jwherrman/now-you-can-actually-see-light-moving-in-slow-mo

The Science Guy Slams Creationism

Bill Nye, the Science Guy, with some straight talk on the biological side of evolution and why we need to import scientists in the USA:


http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/27/bill-nye-slams-creationism/?hpt=hp_c3

Meet Ed Mason

Dr. Mason began his association with PSI by reviewing "Universal Cycle Theory". He has a very keen mind, helping to straighten us out on some critical issues. His great interest is in the cycles reflected in geology.

He writes:

Worked in the oil and gas industry as a drilling engineer and then a geologist. Retired from that and became a golf pro. I'm interested in anything to do with science, especially things that make my head spin (but NOT roller coasters).

PhD Geology: University of South Carolina

MS Geology: Iowa State University

Ed will be in charge of the Houston office of PSI.

For the latest on no-nonsense physics and cosmology, see:

Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 327 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].

“Spiritual” Mathematics and Determinism

Readers may be interested in the following Facebook conversation I had with Joel Morrison, who is currently reading UCT and is quite the conceptual artist and Renaissance man. He has a Blog at SpinbitZ and a book at http://spinbitz.wordpress.com/. Joel has thought long and hard on many of the subjects that we have been discussing. In particular, he is a believer in infinity, which also puts him at odds with today’s regressive physics and possibly on track to become a univironmental determinist in due time. What stimulated the following exchange was Joel’s highlighting this new-agey book: 

The Spiritual Function of Mathematics, by Thomas J McFarlane

www.integralscience.org

My first comment was:

Egads!

Joel’s was:

Haha!

Joel Morrison

Don't worry, Glenn, I share your wariness over anything "spiritual". And I tend NOT to absolutize either subjective or objective pole. But then I find both poles interesting. To me "spirit" just refers to the deep infinity at the heart of awareness, and the focus on growth. This does look [like an] interesting juxtaposition, however.

Glenn Borchardt 

‎"Spirit" is the motion of matter.

Joel Morrison 

To me it's very simple. If you look at it from the outside, you experience or conceptualize it as matter-in-motion. And if you look at it from the inside, as the matter-in-motion in question, you *feel* the what-it-is-like-ness of *being* this infinite depth of activity, which we then call "spirit". The two are just the core modes of any perspective because all perspective is fundamentally nucleated, as in your univironmental determinism, they always have an inside and outside component.

Joel Morrison 

The key to reconciling this, as with so many other dichotomies, is the acceptance of deep infinity. An infinite aspect of animation or motion is inconceivable as anything but spirit, imho. It's just an outside view of it, i.e. objectivity and science, as opposed to the direct experience of *being* it.

Glenn Borchardt 

What is to reconcile? What is the dichotomy?

Joel Morrison 

The dichotomy is that both subjective and objective perspectives have value, and we tend to favor one over the other and absolutize them. Some people say it's ALL matter (...in motion, if they are sophisticated enough) and others say it's ALL mind. Dichotomy, or duality, comes from taking any concept to the absolute scope of the ONE-ALL. The reconciliation comes in the recognition that the absolute cannot be contained by any concept, mind or matter, etc., and critically here that subject and object are symbiogenetic. There are no outsides without insides and vice versa.

Joel Morrison 

Which is perhaps just a restatement of your principles of uncertainty and interconnection (iirc). It is deep infinity which opens the channels for communication between artificial categories of perspective and engenders the conceptual play in real difference and univocity.

Glenn Borchardt 

We handle this stuff with the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion). Only indeterminists think that there is a mind-brain dichotomy. They have written a gazillion worthless words about it. It is a big part of their side of the determinism-indeterminism philosophical struggle.

Joel Morrison 

Ahh, inseparability not interconnection. Thanks. But it's interesting that indeterminism, as used today in e.g. complexity science, is essentially infinite determinism. The problem is that, and which gets to my point, both concepts of determinism and indeterminism in common parlance are of the finite variety. When you take determinism to the infinite, as we see in Prigogine's "active matter" and Bohm's infinite causation, determinism and indeterminism (in the complexity science use) become indistinguishable. Infinite determinism is indeterminism, and vice versa. Only the finitists find a dichotomy here between them. ;) This is the kind of reconciliation that deep infinity brings about.

Joel Morrison 

The point being that the "indeterminists," as the "idealists" and "subjectivists" had valid points in their perspectives, because they were fighting against, ultimately, a foundationalist and finitist worldview which negated the reconciliation, and actually generated the dichotomies. Once that foundationalism is gone, the terms need updating to a radically new substrate. Typically those who prefer "indeterminism" don't understand that infinite determinism provides all the functionality they are seeking. And those who prefer "determinism" don't recognize that at the heart of finite determinism is the radical indeterminism which, ironically, the finite indeterminist is fighting against.

Glenn Borchardt 

You say “Infinite determinism is indeterminism…” Totally disagree. Classical determinism was finite; univironmental determinism (UD) is infinite. UD is consupponible with "The Ten Assumptions of Science" (TTAOS), while indeterminism is consupponible with their opposites, which include finity. Determinism (both the finite variety and infinite variety) states that there are material causes for all effects and that there is no free will. Classical determinism incorrectly claimed that there actually were finite causes for each effect. The Uncertainty Principle produced a dilemma for mathematical idealists and classical mechanists such as Einstein, because this meant their equations had to be imprecise. They had a choice: either uncertainty was subjective or causality was subjective. In maintaining that uncertainty was objective, they were able to claim that causality was subjective—a big favorite of indeterminists everywhere. By not following Bohm, they were able to keep finity, the foundation of Standard Particle Theory (SPT) and the BBT, the linchpins of regressive physics.

I suspect that our differences are based only on the meaning of the word “determinism.” The first is objective: “To deter” means to prevent the continued motion of a microcosm; the second is subjective: “To determine” means to obtain a finite bit of information from a microcosm. Not being solipsists, UD folks don’t see this as being paradoxical in an infinite universe and certainly don’t believe that it could produce free will. The Second, Third, and Eighth Assumptions tell it all in their consupponible elegance:

Causality (All effects have an infinite number of material causes)
Uncertainty (It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is possible to know more about anything)
Infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions)

You are right that indeterminists objected to the reductionism of classical mechanics. Nevertheless, in all those complaints you will not find any that suggest that the remedy is the expansionism of UD or neomechanics.

BTW: Any chance that I could use this conversation in my Blog? Ok to use your full name?

Joel Morrison 

You can use it once you understand my view, which is clear that you do not when you say "totally disagree" with me while I agree entirely with your disagreement. Because what I am not saying is "Infinite determinism is finite indeterminism," nor did I say that "finite determinism is finite indeterminism." What I did say is much more subtle and easily confused. It is essentially this. When you take determinism to infinity, what you end up with is indeterminism in the true form that the indeterminists are seeking in their rejection of FINITE determinism. So infinite determinism is indeterminism only because it is NOT finite determinism. It is finite determinism that the indeterminists reject, NOT infinite determinism, which they would embrace if they could understand it, which they could if they could get beyond their dogma.

Joel Morrison

 So, to put it simply, I mean simply this. Infinite determinism equates to indeterminism in the sense that it produces the uncertainty at the heart of indeterminism in practice. So it actually satisfies any real-world use of indeterminism as we find in, say, complexity science and quantum physics.

Joel Morrison

 So long as you represent my view as in agreement with univironmental (and infinite determinism), as it actually is (which is what the equals means), then feel free to use any of this and my full name.

Joel Morrison 

‎"You are right that indeterminists objected to the reductionism of classical mechanics. Nevertheless, in all those complaints you will not find any that suggest that the remedy is the expansionism of UD or neomechanics."

This is true, yes. They just recoil at the reduction, generally, and don't really understand how to remedy the situation. It's a rare individual, such as yourself, Bohm, or Prigogine, that understands the value of deep infinity to that end.

Joel Morrison 

In SpinbitZ I have a principle called the Principle of Absolute Reversal which shows that when you take a concept to the "absolute scope" you inevitably end up invoking its opposite. This is a case in point. The same thing happens with other key fundamentals, like objectivity and subjectivity. When you do it consciously, you simply find the reconciliation in a nondual integration. And this is key to moving the argument forward, instead of this constant back and forth. I have discussed infinite determinism with indeterminists and indeed shown them that their view is fully supported by infinite determinism. And I am at once both, so it's readily apparent to me. Indeterminism, in the finite sense of determinism, does not solve the issues of free-will etc, which they suppose it will. But infinite determinism does.

Glenn Borchardt 

Thanks. Will do. You are more optimistic than I am. Indeterminists, by definition, believe in free will, which assumes that some effects do not have material causes. Some folks even claim to accept 95% of the TTAOS. This is, of course, a contradiction. One either accepts infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions), or one does not. Even accepting micro or macro and not the other is a contradiction.

Joel Morrison

 You could comment that my view is expressed more fully in my book SpinbitZ, which is found at my site: http://spinbitz.wordpress.com/SpinbitZ

spinbitz.wordpress.com

‎"The inborn capacity to understand through the eyes has been put to sleep and must be reawakened" -- Rudolph Arnheim

Joel Morrison 

Yes, I also think that infinity solves the free-will issue, as in my above comment. The resolution is contained in the principle of infinite determinism, and in the Univocity Framework. It is basically this. A will that is not immanently caused is a will that doesn't exist. The problem is that we assume that will must be absolute when in reality EVERYTHING, including will, and freedom, is a relation. An absolute will is a categorical or "scope" confusion. A violation of univocity. Freedom comes in owning ones immanent causes, not in simply not being caused. If I am a being with an infinity of causation, and I own that infinity, then I am my own cause. As such a being, I am fundamentally unpredictable even to myself, and I cannot determine my own causes, or the true depth that I am as an infinite being (in the immanent sense in UD). That's another view into the sense in which infinite determinism equals indeterminism. There is no finite list of causes to be found for any entity, or its will. And it is free to the extent that it owns its causes, which is always relative, and never absolute.

Joel Morrison 

‎"Indeterminists, by definition, believe in free will, which assumes that some effects do not have material causes."

They assume this simply because the implicit understanding of "materiality" is foundational or immanently finite, not to mention the solid bias of the kinetic-atomic and ultimate particle view. They again reject finite determinism, not conceiving of the radical implications of determinism or materialism taken to its ultimate ends into the absolute.

Joel Morrison 

‎Glenn, here's a simple way to understand what I mean. "Infinite determinism equals indeterminism," not in the sense that things are not caused, but in the sense that there are too many causes to be determined by representation (which gives rise to Uncertainty), and in the sense that there is no final or foundational cause. This is the trans-foundational sense in which many "indeterminists," such as complexity scientists use the term 'indeterminism,' and the only real sense to be made of it. Acausality simply solves nothing in science, or any other field, other than to vaguely point from transitive causation into radical and infinite immanence.

Joel Morrison

 BTW, I am still pushing through, and really enjoying your Universal Cycle Theory book.

Joel Morrison

Indeed, deep infinity is the emptiness in fullness.

The reason it makes sense to think of mathematics in spiritual terms, to me, is because mathematics gets to what I call the "x-interface," or the "crossroads of the ontic-epistemic and subject-object polarities" (they are actually orthogonal). Mathematics gets to the proto-conceptual and proto-ontological roots of thought, the roots and interface of evolved self-similar representational resonance with reality, which explains its "unreasonable" efficacy.Bottom of Form