Critique of "The Scientific Worldview": Part 6d The Ten Assumptions of Science: Inseparability

Energy as a calculation, not as matterless motion. Relativity borne of a fixed aether test and Einstein's objectification of motion.

I am ever so grateful to Bill Westmiller, whose comments are in bold. The quotes marked TSW are from "The Scientific Worldview":

TSW: "At such a juncture one can assume ... that the carrier exists, or one can assume ... that until one is found, a carrier does not exist."

BW: ALL evidence establishes the fact that energy is matter in motion, even if the matter cannot be conveniently measured. There is no evidence of anything called "energy" that has no "carrier". Therefore, the former proposition must be an "unmitigated truth" and the latter an "unmitigated fallacy" of supernatural powers.

[GB: Sorry Bill, but energy is not “matter in motion.” Energy is a calculation. We use it to describe the motion of matter. For instance, we use it to describe the conversion of the motion of falling water to the motion of the turbine and thence to the motion of electricity. In each case, the motion of one kind of matter is transferred to another kind of matter. I am glad that you do agree that there is always a carrier and that there are no supernatural powers involved.] 

TSW: "... when this same motion appears as infrared radiation, it is considered neither as matter, nor as the motion of matter, but as matter-motion, a mysterious, massless wave-particle capable of traveling through 'empty space'."

BW: Light of every frequency is, of course, matter in motion. It must be so, since it is demonstrably energetic. The actual dispute is whether light is particles (photons) in motion or a transfer of kinetic wave energy between (aether) particles. In UT [1], it is neither; it is a "linear stack" of fundamental particles in both rotary and translational motion, which gives it two energy components (necessarily related to frequency).

[GB: Bill, you need to rethink this. Like you say, light is either a particle or the motion of particles. By using the agnostic’s approach you say “it is neither,” but then go on to say it is a stack of particles. I am confused. Is this the fixed aether disproven by MM87 [2]? Do these particles move from source to observer as in Einstein’s particle theory? Or do they provide the medium for wave motion in which they remain relatively fixed, simply allowing the waves to pass through as sound waves do through air (and aether)?]

TSW: "In contrast, these same physicists hold a clear view of other types of motion. Sound, for instance, is not considered matter or matter-motion."

BW: ... but it is a transfer of kinetic energy between particles in a wave ... which is no longer "mysterious". I think the most critical mistake in modern physics is considering light to be equivalent to sound or water waves, even if that happens to be convenient to mathematical modeling. There is no "aether" in UT.

[GB: That didn’t help. I am still confused. It is not the transfer of energy, it is the transfer of motion, which I agree is not mysterious. Sorry, but regressive physics does not consider light to be motion. They still think it is a particle (or do you think that they have recently given up on Einstein’s photon?). Hope you don’t waste too much time on perfectly empty space in developing your Unimid Theory.]

TSW: "it is nonsense to consider, as the Big Bang cosmogonists do, that the universe was once devoid of matter, consisting only of radiation."

BW: I don't think that's the currently popular theory. It's either the quantum "something from nothing" theory, or a "collision" of immaterial energy "membranes" theory. Toss in the collapse of probabilistic "wavefunctions" in the "many-worlds" theory to round out the mystical set of immaterial propositions.

[GB: Comme ci comme ça. As you say: “Pass the Bong.”]

TSW: "Thus we may see matter, but we can only infer motion. Motion cannot be sensed, for it is not a thing. Only things can be sensed."

BW: Ooops. I think you just violated your own axiom. We never "see matter", we only sense the radiation it emits or reflects. We don't really "feel matter" either: we perceive a neuron stimulation. In other words, we can only sense *matter in motion*, not matter itself, nor motion itself. That's *inseparability*. You do get it right when you talk about "Thing-Events", though I would call it a literal collision, rather than mere "convergence", and "divergence" only occurs as a consequence of a collision.

[GB: Ooops, Ooops. Disagree. Your definition of radiation amounts to matterless motion, which cannot occur. Granted, it is consistent with regressive physics, which denies the existence of the aether particles that are the carriers necessary for the transmission of the motion of matter called radiation. What you propose is tantamount to ESP. On the contrary, all our senses rely on the collisions produced by matter in motion. For instance, thin hairs in our ears must receive collisions from the nitrogen and oxygen molecules in air. Our eyes receive aethereal impacts whose frequencies we associate with colors of the spectrum. Sorry, but “divergence” is nothing less than the inertial motion of Newton’s First Law and its derivative, the Second Law of Thermodynamics. You are right, of course, that all inertial motion is the consequence of previous collisions. In an infinite universe, there are always plenty of these to go around.]

TSW: "But, as noted before, the idea of existence applies only to matter. Only things exist; events do not."

BW: Ooops. Contradicting yourself. Earlier, you said matter *requires* motion and motion *requires* matter. If motion doesn't exist, by your assertion, then matter can't exist. I disagree with your earlier proposition, but here you're talking ontology.

[GB: Disagree of course. You need to know the difference between “existence” and “occurrence.” Existence refers only to microcosms, portions of the universe with xyz dimensions and location with respect to other microcosms. Occurrence refers only to what those microcosms do. What they do is not “part” of the universe, it is what those parts do. This is why time, being motion, does not exist, only the things that produce that motion can exist. For instance, legs exist, but running does not. I can put legs in my back pocket, but I cannot put running in my back pocket. These ideas are very simple, but appear to be incomprehensible to those well indoctrinated by regressive physics. Reread EMIPE [3]. It takes a while. Eventually you will get it.]

BW: Existence is not limited to material objects. Their relative or absolute motion also exists, though it cannot exist in the absence of matter. An "event" cannot happen in the absence of both matter and motion, which results in a collision, whether perceived or not. So, the signing of the Declaration of Independence was an event that existed as a "thing" when matter (ink) moved (from a quill) to paper.

[GB: Sorry. Same problem. Signing is not a thing, it is an action. As I had to explain in TPMOE [4], all languages contain nouns (the matter part) and verbs (the motion part). The problem arises when we are forced to use nouns when naming motion, as in an “event.” Nevertheless, naming a motion does not turn it into matter. At least, you are not as radical as the physicist who proclaimed in a public meeting that the event of my birth existed, but that I did not!]

TSW: "That the word 'structure' can be found so remote from the word 'function' betrays a rejection of inseparability and an indication that the language of indeterminism is being spoken."

BW: Well said. I agree.

(Note: I AGREE with everything I do NOT quote, which is ~90% of what you write.)

TSW: "An 'object' surrounded by 'empty space' would have no mass just as it would have no velocity. Mass, like velocity, is dependent on the existence and motion of other things."

BW: Disagree. Mass is not *dependent* on motion, even if motion is *inseparable* from mass ... as explained above.

[GB: Disagree, as mentioned previously. One only has to examine the First Law of motion, P=mv, which describes the inertial motion of a body as it travels through space. If the velocity, v, were 0, then the momentum, P, would be 0, which could only be imagined by an idealist such as yourself and Newton, on one of his worst days. He did not need to include the idealization of a “body at rest” in formulating the law. Of course, this is a bit harsh on Newton, since it has taken a multitude of experiments and observations to convince determinists, at least, that there is not a single “body at rest” anywhere. I will have to say this much, you certainly are consistent in your idealism.]

TSW: "Under materialism, we assumed that the universe consists of matter. As mentioned, matter is defined as an abstraction for 'all things.'

BW: I'd prefer "all objects", taking into account my view of motion as a "thing" with characteristics distinct (though inseparable) from matter. The abstraction for "all things" is "universe". Etymologically, the unity of everything we can converse about (whether observed or not) ... or: all things that exist.

[GB: Bill, I can’t imagine how something which is not a thing could be separable and inseparable at the same time. Note that if I want to talk about the universe, then I will use the word “universe.” You are right that the universe consists of “all things,” which I prefer to use as an abstraction for matter. It seems that your resistance is based on your imagined finite particle, which is filled with a sort of crème pie filling called “solid matter.” Because I disagree with that idea, which is based on microcosmic finity, I continually emphasize that matter is an abstraction in the same way that fruit is an abstraction. One can never eat a fruit; one can only eat a specific kind of fruit, an apple or orange, perhaps.]

Next: Inseparability Part 4 of 5

cotsw 010

[1] UT is "Unimid Theory," version of Finite Particle Theory currently being formulated by Bill Westmiller.

[2] Michelson, A.A., and Morley, E.W., 1887, On the relative motion of the earth and the luminiferous ether: American Journal of Science, v. 39, p. 333-345.

[3] EMIPE is Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Einstein's most important philosophical error, in Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 18th Conference of the NPA, 6-9 July, 2011 ( http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5991.pdf ), College Park, MD, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, p. 64-68.

[4] TPMOE is Borchardt, Glenn, 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, v. 6, no. 1, p. 27-31.


Glenn Borchardt said...

Comment from Bill Westmiller:

Glenn: "... energy is not 'matter in motion.' Energy is a calculation."

BW: I wasn't disagreeing with your characterization of energy, I was disagreeing with the statement that, given an energetic event, it's valid to assume that "a carrier [mass] does not exist". I agree with your response: "there is always a carrier."

Glenn: "I am confused. Is this the fixed aether disproven by MM87?"

BW: The standard characterization of a "particle" is a spherical object. That creates a quandry in the double-slit experiment, because that object can't go through both holes.

My theory says light isn't that kind of particle, nor a wave, but rather a "linear stack" of fundamental objects, which I call Unimids, emitted from the light source. That type of rotating object is consistent with Ritzian Theory and doesn't require "perfectly empty space" nor mystical forces.

I'm working on my presentation of the Unimid Theory [UT], which resolves the two-slit problem and doesn't entail any wave transmission through an aether. Writing is slow (lots of technical details), but you'll get the first drafts.

[GB: Remember that the double slit experiment proves that light is a wave in a sea of particles (the aether).]

Glenn: "I don't think that's the currently popular theory."

BW: I was agreeing with your disdain for current theory, but pass the bong anyway. ;o)

Glenn: "Your definition of radiation amounts to matterless motion, which cannot occur."

BW: I was agreeing with this statement, but quibbling about the assertion in your book that "we may see matter, but we can only infer motion." What we see are photons emitted or reflected by matter; we don't actually see (or detect) the object itself. Matter exists independent of our observations, as does it's motion, but both are inferences from sensations.

[GB: Motion does not exist, it occurs. Sensations are the results of microcosmic collisions by matter in motion. We cannot see photons/aether particles (too tiny). If we could, we would be living in an all-encompassing fog.]

Glenn Borchardt said...


Glenn: "What they do is not 'part' of the universe, it is what those parts do."

BW: We may disagree semantically, since I consider motion just as much a "thing" (a characteristic) as the mass that's moving. In other words, an "event" occurs and that event is 'part' of the universe. Of course, I agree that motion can't exist without matter moving and collisions can't occur without matter colliding.

[GB: Egads! We disagree fundamentally. Motion is not a “thing.” Events are not “parts” of the universe. They do not take up xyz dimensions and have location with respect to other things.]

Glenn: "P=mv, which describes the inertial motion of a body as it travels through space. If the velocity, v, were 0, then the momentum, P, would be 0, which could only be imagined by an idealist ..."

BW: What I think you're missing is that velocity is always relative, so it can be zero in one reference frame and SOL in another. Newton's formula is correct, assuming the observer's reference frame.

[GB: True. We agree that velocity is always relative. That was the point. A single body surrounded by nothing (the finite universe of the BBT?) makes no sense. Similarly, Newton’s First Law would make no sense without a referent. That’s why he invented “absolute space” to provide that referent.]

BW: For example, if you and I are passengers in a train, you have zero velocity relative to me, so you have no momentum. That doesn't mean that you cease to exist. Nor does it mean that you have no momentum relative to the ground.

The "idealist" view is that there is one, fixed, universal frame of reference for all motion. I don't think that's true and disagree with those who propose a "fixed" aether reference frame.

[GB: All things in the universe move with respect to all other things. Since that is the case, anyone of those microcosms could be chosen as a universal frame of reference. It doesn’t matter which one is picked, as they are all in motion. Calling what you pick as being “fixed” does not make it so. With aether particles flying in random directions at velocities greater c, this would be the last reference frame I would pick. It is better to do what we do in practice—pick something relatively stable (center of Earth, Greenwich, England?) from which we can calculate the motions of other things.]