Critique of "The Scientific Worldview": Part 8b The Ten Assumptions of Science: Complementarity

Why the expanding universe needs the assumption of finity and can you have wave motion without a medium?

I am ever so grateful to Bill Westmiller, whose comments are marked "BW: ". The quotes marked TSW are from "The Scientific Worldview[1]" and my comments are marked "[GB: ".

TSW: Sixth Assumption: Complementarity (Part 8b)

[GB: Note that Bill’s essay below is founded on the regressive assumption that the universe is expanding. But as I pointed out in my blog, the cosmic redshift in no way indicates that the universe is expanding. Only an idealist (like Bill) could believe that light could travel 13.8 billion light years without losing energy. Like other indeterminists, Bill assumes that perfectly empty space is possible (he is an aether denier) and that Einstein’s hypothesized light wave-particles therefore suffer no ill effects on that trip. I will leave it to Bill and other regressive physicists to explain how the Doppler Effect (or empty space expansion), which they claim to be “fairly evident” evidence for expansion, could occur without a medium. I include Bill’s essay below for those of you who still believe as he does.]

BW: Macrocosmic infinity *might* explain why composition (convergence/order) occurs as often as decomposition (divergence/disorder), but the evidence says otherwise. If our cosmos is expanding (fairly evident) ... even expanding at an accelerated rate ... then it has "somewhere else to go": it isn't isolated (nor confined by the existence of non-visible portions of the universe) and all matter in motion still has "a less dense space to fill" before it achieves maximum separation or a state of balance (equilibrium). On the evidence, entropy still rules. We could speculate that this is a temporary "imbalance" in one portion (our cosmos) of the universe, but there's no evidence supporting that proposition. So, the mere assumption of infinity doesn't solve the observed problem Whyte noted:

"... the tendency toward disorder has not been powerful enough to arrest the formation of the great inorganic hierarchy and the myriad organic ones."

Even if we ignore the evidence for "local cosmic entropy" (within our light cone), even if we posit an infinite universe that has always been in equilibrium, even if we suppose an eternal universe that has had forever to reach some kind of "steady state", we still have NOT identified the material causes for a disentropic effect.

For example, what in my simplistic definition of entropy needs to change, in order to eliminate the "bounce"? For a starter, the presumption is that the "objects" are homogenous atoms or molecules of gas. If they aren't, then some might combine in chemical reactions, producing a momentary disentropy. The same effect occurs if the objects are a mixture of opposite-charged particles. So, we're left with only a few forces that might counteract the "bounce" of entropy: gravity, the strong, and the weak atomic forces.

In Unimid Theory, the cause is an "existential bond" between fundamental particles, which causes them to compose themselves into fractal structures that exhibit emergent properties. They are only "entropic" under specific conditions, which I won't describe here.

TSW:  "In reality, all systems are open systems; truly isolated or truly closed systems cannot exist."

BW: I agree, though I would have expected you to vociferously object to the distinction of Closed Systems, which presume motion without matter. Usually, it's phrased as an exchange of energy, which we know is actually matter in motion.

[GB: Let me repeat the definitions of the two idealizations:

An isolated system exchanges no matter or motion with its surroundings.

A closed system exchanges only motion with its surroundings.

In neomechanics there are no isolated systems. Although there are no closed systems either, we use the idealization portrayed in the figure below:

Fig. 5-4. Type D interaction: Emission of motion. A submicrocosm collides with and transfers motion to a low velocity supermicrocosm (TSW, p. 142).

This is by no means an illustration of motion without matter, as suggested by Bill and other aether deniers. When motion leaves an ideal closed system, it is transferred to the macrocosm via a collision with supermicrocosms contained therein. This nicely illustrates my paper on “The physical meaning of E=mc²,” which forthwith dispelled Einstein’s notion that matter could be converted into energy.[2] All we are doing here is transferring the motion of one thing to another thing. Of course, without aether, there would be no “another thing” to transfer motion to. That is why energy, construed as matterless motion, became so popular in handling this particular Einsteinian contradiction. During the fission that occurs in an atom bomb, for instance, this transfer of motion is quite a shock to the surrounding aether, as indicated by the energy calculation. Glad to see that Bill is getting somewhat closer to discarding the idea that energy might exist or occur. Maybe someday he will be able to think entirely in terms of matter in motion as Steve and I did in "Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe."[3] ]

TSW:  "Complementarity assumes that, in an infinite universe, all real systems exist between the extremes of ideal isolation and ideal nonisolation."

BW: Correct, but even in an Open System, the effects of extraneous environmental forces can be minimized to inconsequentiality for familiar particles and objects ... even if the universe is infinite and eternal.

[GB: True. That is what makes science possible: controlled experimentation. We try to control as much of the macrocosm as we are able, changing only one macrocosmic factor at a time. This works even though there may be an infinite number of influencing microcosms.]   

TSW:  "In itself, [Schrödinger's] idea of an ordering process that functions as the dialectical opposite of the disordering process is excellent. The term negentropy is likewise excellent."

BW: Schrödinger was characterizing it as a "bridge" between matter and life; a poor substitute for the evolution of life in nature. It was actually Léon Brillouin who coined the term "negentropy", but I prefer disentropy. I think "negentropy" hints at a unique "life force", rather than a natural effect. I won't repeat my distaste for the term "dialectics" in nature (though I just did). Whyte's natural "morphic force" derived from the "geometry of space" is even less attractive.

TSW:  "... Einstein explained gravitation ..."

BW: He didn't "explain" gravity any more than Newton did. All he did was to construct a fanciful analogy to "fabrics" which was mistaken in a dozen different ways.

[GB: I agree, although he could have used turtles in his explanation or even curved empty space and it would still have been an explanation.]

cotsw 014

---

[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] Borchardt, Glenn, 2009, The physical meaning of E=mc², in Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance ( http://scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/The%20Physical%20Meaning%20of%20E%20=%20mc2.pdf ), Storrs, CN, Space Time Analyses, Ltd., Arlington, MA, p. 27-31.

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