The Aging “Crisis” in Physics

The silliness of relativity and the Big Bang Theory (BBT) has been plaguing thinkers for over a century. Some consider this a “crisis” in physics. If so, this crisis is certainly quite elderly. I imagine the flat-earth and the geocentric theories also overstayed their heyday as well. Once established, traditional mythology tends to stick around—with the various religions being among the better examples. In science, however, bad theories are supposed to get the boot even before they can be published. So we ask the question: How can regressive physics survive, producing much of the remarkable results of the 20^th and 21^st centuries without its flawed foundations being discarded as ineffective?

This is one of the tougher questions. A proper answer would involve a lot of detailed work that surely would be worth a Ph.D. or two. I guess the short answer would be the usual one: Any theory will do. As I explained in one of my most popular blogs, “Theory Formulation,” even a grossly incorrect theory can get us out of the office, interacting with the external world. Recent exponential growth in these interactions has led to corresponding growth in data accumulation. Most of our observations and experiments have nothing whatsoever to do with relativity or the BBT. The ones that do, invariably are interpreted from the indeterministic viewpoint. All the same, the ever-widening, progressive exploration of the universe nonetheless impinges upon both theories. The one characteristic of the theories—aether denial—is being inundated by rapidly accumulating data to the contrary. Regressive physicists not looking for aether have found it anyway. This cannot be openly admitted, of course, because use of the word is grounds for academic dismissal. Physicists necessarily working under the old paradigm have learned to handle these findings adroitly, as Kemp (2012) says so well:

“Various models of the aether are being published in current scientific journals under different names: Quintessence, Higgs Field, Vacuum Expectation Value Energy, Zero Point Energy, Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs), and Ground State Energy. All are Aether Theories at their core, each with their own twist, but Aether theories never-the-less!”

All these are signs of the aging crisis in physics, which might have been averted altogether if Einstein’s (1920) public relations slip-up had not been swept under the rug: “There is a weighty reason in favour of ether. To deny ether is to ultimately assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever." It is not quite that simple, of course. Einstein’s corpuscular theory of light actually requires the absence of aether. Once aether is reinstated as the medium for the wave motion of light, both relativity and the BBT will be but museum curiosities. In the meantime, physics will remain retarded, spending vast sums on all sorts of dead ends that nonetheless wrest huge amounts of data from the universe. The main difference between an incorrect theory and a correct one is the efficiency with which that is accomplished.

Indeterminists, of course, would not agree that there is a “crisis in physics.” It is what was desired all along. The foundational assumptions of regressive physics and of the greater society are similar. For instance, Big Bang theorists and most folks on the planet believe in creation, in opposition to the Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed). Many have tried to ameliorate this by proposing mathematical singularities, parallel universes, multiverses, or other embellishments. These only serve to highlight their desperation. As scientists, they know they should believe in conservation, but they just cannot. It is an assumption after all. There can be no proof that conservation holds at all times and in all places. Besides, they have been told to avoid assumptions. Better to stick with what you believe to be empiricism. At least you won’t get fired for sticking your nose into philosophy, which mostly is defunct anyway.  

Reference

Einstein, A., 1920, Sidelights on relativity: 1. Ether and relativity. 2. Geometry and experience: London, Methuen, 56 p.

Kemp, R.L., 2012: http://superprincipia.wordpress.com/about-the-author/, February 17,  2013.

Homeopathy: How Indeterminism can Cause Fatalities

Lacking suitable philosophical guidance, indeterminists often tend to be on the wrong side of scientific arguments. The debate over homeopathy is an example. Unfortunately, as mentioned recently in Jerry Coyne’s blog below, being on the wrong side can lead to fatalities. Homeopathy (the use of drug treatments so dilute that they are ineffective) has been shown conclusively to be no better than placebos. As I mentioned with regard to our dismissal of ESP (extrasensory perception), causes in the real world involve the collision of at least one microcosm with another. Drugs must contain enough of the colliding microcosm to have a chance of interacting with the part of the body being treated. A couple atoms in a bottle of water simply will not do it, in the same way that a drop of alcohol in a quart of water does not make an effective disinfectant.

Like all ineffective treatments, homeopathy can lead to delays that can allow unnecessary complications or to premature death. Like Jerry says, anyone who suggests its use should be guilty of murder:

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/woomeisters-successfully-lobby-national-health-service-to-omit-critiques-of-homeopathy/

Mass: Inertial and Gravitational

Bob de Hilster asks:

So, what is the difference between inertial mass and gravitational mass?

Newton's first principle is the definition of inertia.

An object in uniform motion will remain in uniform motion until acted upon by an external force.

But most scientists relate the inertial mass with, F= ma; and gravitational mass, with F=GMm/R².

So how can inertial mass be related to Newton's second principle? It is a statement of an object in acceleration. Inertia is about objects at rest or at constant velocity.

By the way I do not agree with you that inertial motion continues until....

Because gravity is always acting on you and me. We don't have to wait.

Thanks for the interesting question Bob.

First, some review from Nagel (1961, p. 252-4):

Newton’s First Law of Motion

Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line,

unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon.

Newton’s Second Law of Motion

The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force impressed; and

is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impressed.

I like your substitution of the “until” for “unless.” Unlike, Newton, that means you are assuming that the universe is infinite. Also, as you know, there really are no forces, only other microcosms in motion. Thus, I would rewrite the First and Second Laws as:

Neomechanical Version of Newton’s First Law of Motion

Every microcosm perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line, until it is compelled to change that state by collisions with other microcosms.

Neomechanical Version of Newton’s Second Law of Motion

The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the mass and velocity of the microcosm impressed; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that microcosm is impressed.

Now to relate the two laws. Actually, I believe that most of us would consider the First Law to be a description of momentum, P = mv, not force, F = ma. Once in motion, Newton’s body just keeps travelling through perfectly empty space. The First Law is not a causal law. It is only an observation (albeit the most important one ever made).

The Second Law describes what a cause is. For there to be a cause, at least two microcosms must collide. This is the guts of classical mechanics and, now, neomechanics. It is this belief, for instance, that makes us reject all claims of ESP (extrasensory perception). It is also why Steve and I rejected Einstein’s immaterial force fields in "Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe." Fields devoid of matter can do nothing (i.e., if m = 0, then F = 0), although that is what you get when you deny aether.

The mass in the P = mv equation, of course, is defined as inertial mass. Unfortunately, we cannot know what it is without interacting with it.

We usually do this by measuring gravitational mass via the equation you mentioned:

F=GMm/R²

Mass is defined here as the resistance of a microcosm to acceleration (i.e., a change in its inertial velocity). In other words, for gravitation to occur, a microcosm must be impacted by other microcosms (i.e., F = ma). This is why we say that the cause of gravitation must be a push, not a pull. There are no pulls in Newton’s laws.

Let me clarify Newton’s First Law so we won’t have to disagree, as you indicated in your last sentence:

By the way I do not agree with you that inertial motion continues until....

Because gravity is always acting on you and me. We don't have to wait.

Remember that the First Law is an idealization about a body travelling through perfectly empty space. There can be no gravitation in perfectly empty space. Gravitation only occurs when there is a “gravitational pressure gradient” (Borchardt and Puetz, 2012). According to our Neomechanical Gravitation Theory (NGT), aether_-1 particles form baryonic (ordinary) matter via complexification. Aether_-1 particles in and about these complexes are less active than free aether_-1 particles. This means that there will be a gravitational pressure gradient surrounding every bit of baryonic matter in the universe. The farther one is from a massive microcosm, the more active and more “free” that the aether_-1 will be. This produces a pressure gradient near every microcosm akin to the pressure gradient seen in Earth’s atmosphere—only in reverse. Thus, any baryonic microcosm that gets close enough to Earth to be within its “gravitational field” will be impacted by more active aether_-1 particles on the side away from Earth than on the side facing Earth.

Bob, you are correct in surmising that there are no true inertial motions. One would have to be an aether denier to believe that. The perfectly empty space required by Newton’s First Law is impossible. It is only an idealization, even though it is the best one ever devised. Even the aether_-1 particles moving under their own inertia must be impacted by other aether_-1 particles as well as by the aether_-2 particles of which they must be comprised. All this differs so much from mainstream theory because we use the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). Not only are aether particles infinitely subdividable, but inertial motions are dependent on infinity as well. Each inertial microcosm must have gotten its motion from some other microcosm ad infinitum. This is yet another of the infinite number of reasons that the universe is infinite and could have no beginning.

References

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.

Nagel, Ernest, 1961, The structure of science: New York, Harcourt Brace and World, 618 p.

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

Sidetracking the Big Bang Theory

In reference to the extreme durability of regressive paradigms, such as the Big Bang Theory (BBT), Samuel Hunt brought this quote to the attention of our discussion group:

"Owing to the waywardness of human nature, it is difficult to find out why people join a given group, but observation of how people speak and write clearly suggests that, when the brain is slowing down, a desire to achieve often gives rise to a need to bamboozle. (Andreski, 1972, p. 68)."

Andreski wrote this mess in support of his pessimistic view of the social sciences. Most all agreed that group membership had nothing to do with how fast or slow our brains work. The idea that achievement gives rise to bamboozlement (to take in by elaborate methods of deceit; hoodwink) as we age is especially silly. Similarly, human nature is certainly not wayward, for it is resistance to change that keeps a paradigm on track.

In fact, the neurological pathways in our brains form a sort of railroad track that becomes evermore embedded the more we use that track. This is why it is increasingly  difficult to get "sidetracked" or "think outside the box" as we age. It is why it is so difficult to give up old habits and to establish new ones. It is why companies trying to be innovative hire young workers. It is why those who have believed for many decades that the universe exploded out of nothing are likely to continue along that track. It is why those who have repeated conventional mantras such as “there is no aether,” “there is no aether,” “there is no aether” for 10,000 times are not likely to utter or believe that its opposite could be true.

It is also why those who never believed in the BBT in the first place are unlikely to start believing in it no matter how long they live. The critical juncture for these two tracks occurs at an early age, when one is considered to have an "open mind." The selection will be determined univironmentally, that is, by the microcosm of the individuals and the macrocosm in which they exist. Because no truly "open minds" can exist, each of us is predisposed toward certain decisions based on the presuppositions we learned still earlier in life. The macrocosm contains peer pressure and financial pressure that helps to guide us along one track or another.

To make a decision, we need to have closure. Thus, once we have chosen an auto or a spouse, we must “close our minds” to other possibilities. Closure reduces cognitive dissonance and makes our lives simpler. For most of us, life would be impossibly inefficient if we had to choose an auto or a spouse each morning. Like Newton’s object once in motion, we favor least motion, which allows us to go humming down life’s track with least effort. We will still have millions of decisions to make, but the ones that have already experienced closure will not need to be among them.

Although it may seem that way, belief in the BBT, like the belief in the 72 virgins, has little to do with bamboozlement. It has everything to do with the reiteration of fundamental presuppositions of which the tracked individual is unaware. That is why "The Ten Assumptions of Science" are so revealing. Even though there are numerous paradoxes and contradictions along the track, the belief in the BBT is purely logical. In addition to subconsciously favoring the indeterministic opposites of "The Ten Assumptions of Science," these derivative assumptions must be ingrained within believers:

1.     Aether does not exist. Aether does not exist. Aether does not exist.

2.     Space is perfectly empty. Space is perfectly empty.

3.     There is a finite particle. There is a finite particle.

4.     The universe is finite. The universe is finite. The universe is finite.

5.     The universe had a beginning. The universe had a beginning.

6.     Time is a dimension. Time is a dimension. Time is a dimension.

7.     There are four dimensions. There are four dimensions.

8.     Space-time exists. Space-time exists. Space-time exists.

9.     Curved space exists. Curved space exists. Curved space exists.

10.            Gravity is a pull. Gravity is a pull. Gravity is a pull.

11.            Fields do not contain matter. Fields do not contain matter.

12.            Light is a particle. Light is a particle. Light is a particle.

13.            Photons contain waves. Photons contain waves. Photons contain waves.

14.            The universe is expanding. The universe is expanding.

15.            Forces exist. Forces exist. Forces exist.

16.            Energy exists. Energy exists.

17.            And many, many more…

Voicing any statement that contradicts any one of these assumptions is sufficient to get one banned from the track to regressive physics and Big Bang nirvana. Within regressive physics, sidetracks cannot use more than tiny modifications of these derivative assumptions. As I have maintained throughout our books and throughout this Blog, each of these derivative assumptions is false. The BBT is the product of a long-standing logical evolution among honest folks who grew up believing that contradictions are a necessary ingredient in philosophy. To true believers, the BBT paradigm is not absurd and certainly not some kind of conspiracy or bamboozlement. It is an outgrowth of what they already know to be true. Replacing the BBT with the IUT (Infinite Universe Theory) will not be easy. We can do the math, but we will not get on the right track without first starting with the correct assumptions.

References

Andreski, Stanislav (1972). The social sciences as sorcery. Penguin Books. As quoted in: E. J. Pedhazur and L. P. Schmelkin (1991) Measurement, Design, and Analysis: An Integrated Approach.

Borchardt, Glenn (2004). The ten assumptions of science: Toward a new scientific worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p.