A letter
from reader Dean
Steeves:
Glenn:
First off, I would
like to purchase a copy of your book “The Scientific Worldview” Please let me
know how I can do so.
[GB: Best is to go to the PSI website ( www.scientificphilosophy.com ), where you can scroll down to
see the various options at prices between $6 (iUniverse ebook) and $33.26
(hardcover). For the paperback or Kindle version just click on:
Second off, one of
your statements I read on your blog site if I grasped it correctly is that you
believe the universe is INFINITE.
Question:
When you say
infinite do you mean infinite in linear size i.e. DIMENSIONALLY UNLIMITED or do
you mean infinite in the sense of ETERNAL i.e. NEVER ENDING time (motion) wise
or do you mean BOTH or NEITHER?
Thank you,
Dean
[GB: My conception of infinity comes from the Eighth
Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite,
both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). Although various thinkers
have assumed microcosmic infinity (e.g., Aristotle) or macrocosmic infinity (e.g.,
Newton) on occasion, this is the only form of infinity that is logically
consistent, being independent of scale. An infinite universe, of course, has no
beginning and will have no end, although each part of it always has a beginning
and will have an end.]
DS: Are not you really referring to TRANSFORMATION HERE
since energy (matter and motion) including what you call part can never be
created nor destroyed.
[GB: What I mean by “parts” here are xyz portions of
the universe, which have locality with respect to other portions of the
universe. In "The Scientific Worldview"[1]
(TSW) I call them “microcosms,” with the implication that each of them has an
environment I call a “macrocosm.” You are right, according to the Fifth
Assumption of Science, conservation, that matter and the
motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed. Thus each microcosm
consists of submicrocosms that join as a result of convergence. No matter or
the motion of matter is harmed in the process. BTW: I consider energy to be a
calculation rather than a thing or a motion. It simply is a description of
matter in motion. Thus, energy neither exists nor occurs. What exists is the
matter and what occurs is the motion of that matter. I think you get that,
since you used matter and motion as well. Many folks seem to think that energy
is matterless motion, per Einstein.
All things,
except the infinite universe itself, come into being via convergence and go out
of being via divergence per complementarity, the Sixth
Assumption of Science. Even if one did believe all that nonsense about a
pre-existing “singularity” being triggered into an explosion by a “quantum
fluctuation,” the Big Bang Theory would be an especially strange cosmogony. In the
real world, we create things by bringing their various parts together, not by blowing
them apart.]
DS: I do not
believe it ever happened. To me it’s not what you see is what you get, it’s
what you see HAS ALWAYS BEEN, ALWAYS WILL BE and ALWAYS REMAINS THE SAME
relative to how it works. Some people call it God, I just call it ENERGY
(matter and motion).
[GB: We seem to agree that the Big Bang never
happened. WYSIWYG is often useful, but here, the “remains the same” part is
clearly not WYSIWYG. According to the universal mechanism of evolution, univironmental
determinism, every microcosm in the universe is continually in motion, changing
via exchanging matter and the motion of matter with its macrocosm.]
DS: Agreed in principle with the awareness that the
bringing together is in fact a RECONCILIATION of what appears to be opposing
forces such as for example centrifugal and centripetal. IMO creation is
the PROCESS of overcoming the appearance of resistance? In other words,
energy (matter and motion) exists in a perpetual state of DUALITY that in appearance can
seem/feel like opposition; however, once the duality is RECONCILED then
SUBSTANCE emerges. PRESTO, we have our FINITE UNIVERSE. This to me
is the process called creation.
[GB:
Actually, there really are no “forces,” opposing or otherwise (i.e., even
regressive physicists admit that centrifugal and centripetal motions are
“pseudo” forces). Force, F=ma, is a calculation describing the collisions
between microcosms. What brings them together is simply their inertial motions
as described by Newton’s First Law. The “creation” of baryonic matter from aether-1
particles occurs when those normally high-speed particles are forced out of
their normally linear motion into vortex motion via collisions with the
macrocosm. As in the atomic model, the aether particles may continue to travel
in circles at high velocities just as electrons do around the nucleus. Also,
like the atom, the resulting aether vortex (e.g., electron) travels at much
lower velocities. This process is similar to the “roundup” that cowboys use to
slow the herd for the night. As with aether, it is as if we were unable to see
the cattle when they were moving linearly at high speed, and then, we were
suddenly able to see them when their circular motion forced them into a vortex
with little, if any lateral motion. This “creation of matter from aether”
theory was further developed in my E=mc2 paper[2]
and our Neomechanical Gravitation Theory paper.[3]
So you
can see that the formation of baryonic matter is in tune with your statement
about conservation of matter and motion as well as our assumption of infinity.
On the other hand, we do not propose an “opposition” between matter and motion.
Check out our Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as
there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion). The
essence is that motion is what matter does.
Motion is not “part” of the universe; it is what various parts do. Matter has
xyz dimensions and motion does not. Nonetheless, the objectification of motion
has been ever popular. It was one of the reasons that Einstein’s indeterminism
was so readily accepted.[4]
After reading "The Scientific Worldview,"
you may wish to read "Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the
Hierarchically Infinite Universe"[5]
to get further details and their implications. Among the most important is our
conclusion that the infinite universe has no largest structure, just as it has
no smallest structure. Infinity implies that solid matter and
empty space are only ideas. Reality always exists between these two
idealizations. Nonexistence is impossible. Whenever one asks: Where did this or
that thing come from? The answer in the infinite universe always is: From
somewhere else. The infinite universe always has a good deal of passing of the
buck, necessarily circular reasoning, and the requirement that the correct
assumptions are necessary for understanding it.]
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].
[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 ( 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.
[3] Borchardt,
Glenn, and Puetz, Stephen J. , 2012, Neomechanical gravitation theory ( http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6529.pdf ), in Volk, G., 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.
[4] 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.
[5] Puetz,
Stephen J., and Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Universal cycle theory: Neomechanics of
the hierarchically infinite universe: Denver, Outskirts Press ( www.universalcycletheory.com
), 626 p.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment