The case for miracles: Matter without motion, finity, perfectly empty space, and mass increase with velocity.
I am ever so grateful to Bill Westmiller, whose comments are in bold. The
quotes marked TSW are from "The Scientific Worldview"[1]:
TSW: "Illegitimacy
arises only when we incorrectly assume that the success of the approximation
indicates the actual existence of the ideal."
BW: I think your labels are upside down. It is the "idealism" that matter requires motion that is in error, not the evident fact that heat falls with diminishing electron interaction. I do think it's a mistake to equate "zero heat emissions" with zero election collisions, even if there is zero atomic entropy. In UT[2], it is practically impossible to stop all motion, simply because the precision of aiming fundamental particles to cause that result bumps up against UP[3].
BW: I think your labels are upside down. It is the "idealism" that matter requires motion that is in error, not the evident fact that heat falls with diminishing electron interaction. I do think it's a mistake to equate "zero heat emissions" with zero election collisions, even if there is zero atomic entropy. In UT[2], it is practically impossible to stop all motion, simply because the precision of aiming fundamental particles to cause that result bumps up against UP[3].
[GB: Huh? Are you still suggesting that matter could exist without
motion? Want to give up plate tectonics too? No one has ever found a single bit
of matter that is not in motion. Why, everything in the universe is constantly
moving. Neutrons wobble, electrons and planets revolve, and the solar system,
the Milky Way, and galactic clusters are constantly spinning. As we explained
in UCT[4] and
NGT[5],
vortex motion is the essence of the entire material hierarchy. In an infinite
universe, of course, we can never prove that all matter is in motion and
therefore requires motion, but it is an obviously successful assumption. Your
statement that “It is the "idealism" that matter requires motion
that is in error” clearly puts you in the indeterministic camp. You will
have many friends there. On Sundays, you can denigrate evolution, which is
simply the motion of matter that you think unnecessary. Let me give you both
barrels on why matter must always be in motion:
Why Finite Particles Cannot Exist
Because everything in the visible world clearly is in motion, the idea
that matter could exist without motion depends on the unseen world of the
imagined finite particle. There are several critical problems with this:
1.
All things in
the universe are subject to the Second Law of Thermodynamics (SLT), which
states that the entropy or disorder of an isolated system can only increase. In
neomechanics, of course, we see the SLT as a restatement of Newton’s First Law
of Motion, and interpret this to mean that the various parts (submicrocosms)
within a microcosm have a tendency to diverge from that microcosm. Finite
particles, however, do not have any parts, so they present an unprecedented
violation of the SLT, which has never been falsified.
2.
Despite the
failures of the atomists and of accelerators to discover the ultimate finite
particle, the idea remains popular. That is because the current scientific
world view of the mainstream is systems philosophy, with its tendency to
overemphasize systems and underemphasize environments. That view is
consupponible with the idea of gravitational attraction, wherein massive,
seemingly solipsistic, ego-centered bodies gather in smaller bodies as if with
outreached arms. The physical mechanism for attraction remains a mystery. One
wonders what holds the imagined solid matter of the finite particle together.
These finite microcosms certainly do not need any help from the macrocosm—their
conjurers generally believe in perfectly empty space, which is the idealistic
counterpart to the imagined solid matter.
3.
The finite
particle idea is a gross violation of univironmental determinism (UD), the
philosophy and universal mechanism of evolution stating that what happens to a
portion of the universe is equally dependent on the infinite matter in motion
within and without. Thus, a microcosm is not “held together” by anything inside
it, but by interactions with its macrocosm. A microcosm requires its macrocosm
for its integrity. Perfectly empty space will not do. All microcosms are like
beating hearts, expanding and contracting in response to changes in the
macrocosm. This observation is seen throughout nature, but here are simple
examples: Salt crystals in a saturated solution shrink and swell in response to
dilution and concentration. If we add water, the crystals will dissolve; if we remove
water, they will recrystallize. Minerals that attained their integrity at high
temperature and pressure lose much of it when they are brought to the surface
of the earth. The new macrocosm contributes to the formation of entirely new low-temperature
minerals that generally are hydrated and/or oxidized.
Carrying forth the above ideas, Steve and I
speculated that univironmental interactions were responsible for the production
of ordinary (baryonic) matter (UCT, NGT). We began by assuming that baryonic
matter could not pop up out of nowhere, despite the special pleading of Big
Bangers. Every observation in science involves the transformation of one kind
of matter into another kind of matter. If you just read NGT, you will see that infinity
allowed us to hypothesize an infinite aethereal series, with the first set,
aether-1 being the constituents that form the complexes we see as
baryonic matter. On the other hand, the finite particle has no aether and no
possible mechanism for its production. The finite particle is the counterpart
to the finite universe. The upshot is that the Finite Particle Theory (FPT) and
the Big Bang Theory (BBT) are consupponible. Both require the formation of
something from nothing.
TSW: "... the mere multiplication of a term for matter and a term for motion really does not guarantee their conceptual unification any more than the designation of matter and motion as separate terms guarantees their physical independence."
BW: ... nor their conceptual or physical *dependence*. I'll agree to "inseparability", but not the dependence of matter on motion.
[GB: Read it again: inseparability
assumes that just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter
without motion, period. Logically, one cannot both accept it and not accept it
at the same time. I suppose you could cherry-pick it in the same way that some
folks choose either microcosmic infinity or macrocosmic infinity, but not both,
but that is not logical either. That would require a completely different set
of assumptions containing an ad hock, arbitrary division based only on scale.]
TSW: "... the all-too-common, but misleading, view that matter is equivalent to energy. This cannot be true because the term for matter (mass) in Einstein‘s equation never appears without the term for motion (velocity of light squared)."
BW: True, but (as noted above) Einstein's equation certainly suggests that matter (mass) increases with increased velocity, to a specific finite limit: c² (the only velocity that isn't relative in SRT[6]). Even Feynman, who I greatly admire, believes that the mass of particles increase with velocity in linear accelerators. (It does, but only because it is acquiring mass from the matter in magnetic fields.)
[GB: Bill, please reread my paper on “The Physical Meaning of E=mc2”.[7]
Particles cannot magically gain mass simply because they are travelling fast.
You are right at implying that any mass acquired by a microcosm has to be a
result of interactions with the macrocosm. Of course, the acquired mass would
be expected to remain after the acceleration is over. It wouldn't just
magically disappear either. However, I am not aware that any accelerated
particles are larger or heavier after the experiment is over. I prefer this
explanation:
Mass Increase with Velocity
When studying anything having to do with Einstein and relativity, one
must first understand his philosophical assumptions. Einstein was not only a
solipsist and an immaterialist, he was foremost a positivist of the
operationalist stripe. This is why he was continually fixated on the observer
and reference frames. This excessively empirical standpoint may be summed up
like this: if a thing or motion cannot be measured, it
does not exist or occur. This view is still common among aether deniers today
even though they forget that he initially based his denial on his mistaken
assumption that the MM87[8] test
of a fixed aether also meant that there was no entrained aether as well. It
also is the reason Einstein denied simultaneity. He was correct that
simultaneity cannot be proven through measurement. For instance, we cannot
prove through direct measurement that Earth and Sun exist at the same time.
Light takes 8 minutes to travel from Sun to Earth. By the time we see the Sun,
it is no longer in that same spot because of the rotation of Earth. Thus, if
the Sun happened to disappear a minute ago, we would still see its image for
another 7 minutes.
In view of this, we need to look at mass and how it is determined. Mass
essentially is the resistance of a microcosm to the impact of other microcosms.
Pretty simple: it is harder to move a heavy object than a light object. The
measurement, however, is not so simple. About the simplest case would involve a
collider with momentum P=mv, where m is mass and v is velocity. One example
would be this: Suppose you were a football player who got hit in the back,
being knocked 5 yards and falling on your face. You would not be able to tell
whether the player who hit you was a 300 lb lineman going at moderate velocity
or a 150 lb linebacker going at high velocity. You would know little about the
other player’s mass or velocity, but way too much about his momentum. To
calculate the mass of the collider from his effect on your body (kinetic
energy, KE=1/2 mv2), you would have to know his velocity. We do this
all the time when we weigh ourselves (weight is W=mg). The weight that we get is dependent on where we are in the
universe. On Earth, we generally assume that the acceleration due to gravity is about 9.81 m/s2. Still, the so-called gravitational
“constant,” g, is not a constant,
varying constantly from place to place. It decreases with altitude, so if you
want to weigh less, just take the measurement flying at 30,000 feet—over water.
Back to mass variation with velocity. I have not yet studied this in
detail, but wouldn't be surprised if it had to do with Einstein’s erroneous
assumption that the velocity of light is constant. Nonetheless, because
everything in the universe is always in motion, there are no constants in
nature, as Steve and I argued in UCT. Of course, idealists who believe in
constants also must believe that there could be matter without motion, finity,
and perfectly empty space. If one assumes a constant velocity, then the
equations of physics can only explain practical results by assuming that other
measurements are not constant. Thus, in the simplest case, if the momentum of a
microcosm, P=mv, increased after a collision, I normally would suspect that its
velocity had increased. If v was constant, however, I would have no choice but
to blame it on an increase in mass. This would be strange indeed—seemingly
miraculous. As a materialist, of course, I would not accept that. There would
have to be some physical reason for the mass increase (chunks of matter added
to the microcosm during the collision?), which never was explained by Einstein,
Feynman, or other immaterialists.]
Next: Inseparability Part 3 of 5
Next: Inseparability Part 3 of 5
cotsw 009
[1] Borchardt,
Glenn, 2007, The scientific worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein ( http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/The%20Scientific%20Worldview.html
): Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 411 p.
[2] UT
is Unimid Theory is a version of Finite Particle Theory currently being
formulated by Bill Westmiller.
[3] UP
is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
[4] UCT
is Puetz, S.J., and Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Universal cycle theory:
Neomechanics of the hierarchically infinite universe: Denver, Outskirts Press (
www.universalcycletheory.com
), 626 p.
[5]
NGT is 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.
[6]
SRT is Special Relativity Theory.
[7] 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.
[8] 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment