Critique of TSW Part 12b Interconnection

Bill becomes muddled, misquotes, and leans toward some bad philosophies in his effort to save solid matter, while continuing to review The Tenth Assumption of Science: Interconnection.

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

BW: Finally, determinism requires a cause for every effect. Effects are events. Events can only occur between two or more distinct objects, usually in the form of a collision. Therefore, determinism requires that all Borchardt Things be separated ... by space. Otherwise, no collision can ever occur and there are no effects for which there might be causes. So, it seems that your "discontinuity" assumption is not just indeterministic, but *counter-deterministic*, denying the existence of any effects and all causes.

You seem to recognize this logical contradiction in the very next paragraph, but I don't think you succeed in resolving it.

"... interconnection assumes, along with infinity, that matter is infinitely subdividable to produce two things: 'matter' and 'empty space.'"

[GB: That is why I put quotes around ‘matter’ and ‘empty space.’ Some folks think of matter as taking up space, which is correct, and that space, even though thought to be empty, still would take up space. I guess that implication was not enough for you, and that it would be best to leave out the word ‘empty.’ I need to realize that I am dealing with idealists, such as yourself, who actually believe that solid matter and purely empty space could exist even though I have repeatedly maintained that those are only ideas, ideals, or idealizations. Above all, Infinite Universe Theory teaches us that non-existence (absence of matter) is impossible. Infinite Universe Theory should not be trivialized as the simple claim that matter in the universe goes on forever and becomes infinitely small. It is the generalization of the observation that if matter exists any where at all, then it will exist everywhere.]

BW:   ... which is a direct reversal of your initial statement that there is no such thing as "empty space". It's also a violation of your description of Borchardt Things as strictly material objects: space is not a "thing". Now, you say it is a thing. Not only that, but it is a "discontinuous thing", with more interposed objects, which is what you condemned as a feature of "indeterminism" just a paragraph earlier.

[GB: I realize that interconnection can be very difficult to grasp. Both Steve and I initially struggled with it, so let me try this: Think of the smallest thing you can imagine. Now, look at the night sky and imagine that the structure of that smallest thing looked like the night sky, with its tiny bits of matter surrounded by “empty space” or your preferred “space,” which is, by no means, empty. Each of these tiny microcosms is free to collide with each other, simply because the intervening space or empty space does not contain the kind of matter that provides sufficient resistance to prevent that from happening. There is no scale at which this visualization could break down, without an indeterministic belief in the ideals of solid matter and empty space.]

    
BW:   The whole section is a muddle, unless you redefine "connection" as the possibility of multiple recurring *events* between *some* distinct objects, which requires a spatial separation between those objects. You could also use the "associated" sense of "connection", if you can demonstrate the existence of sequential events that suggest a cause and effect relationship between the motions of two objects. In that case, you could *hypothesize* some intervening medium or object, yet to be identified. But, that's what science does already.

TSW: "By the [bad philosophies], space is to be regarded helplessly as 'perfectly empty' until evidence to the contrary is demonstrated."

BW:  The alternative being: assuming some Borchardt Thing is there, when there is no evidence of its existence? You seem to be mocking the *realist* view and advocating a mystical view: that there must be invisible Borchardt Things there, because your universal, infinite, "interconnected" philosophy demands it.

[GB: Bill, you are catching on. The “bad philosophies” I was alluding to are known in the philosophy of science as “empiricism,” “positivism,” and “operationalism.” Each is mystical in its own way. Pure empiricism states that data collection need not be guided by thought, that is, by theory of any sort. Pure positivism states that, unless I can see, hear, feel, smell, or taste a phenomenon, it does not exist. Pure operationalism states that unless I can detect and measure a phenomenon, it does not exist. Your complaint is a bit dated. At one time, these now “bad philosophies” were instrumental in the struggle against indeterminism. They were thought to be sure ways to distinguish between the real world of science and the imagined world of religion. Only one problem: they did not work. Without imagination, science cannot advance. At the frontier, we continually face the unknown and can only imagine what the reality may be like.

Based on prior experience, we invent theories and prepare ideal models that we can test through observation and experiment. Pure empiricism is dead. As we reach further and further toward the infinitely small and infinitely large, our analyses become increasingly indirect, with our five senses becoming increasingly removed from direct observation of what does or does not exist. Pure positivism is dead. Rapid technological advances tend to falsify early statements about what can be detected and what cannot be detected. Pure operationalism is dead.

These philosophies, like classical mechanics itself, were suited to a finite universe filled with finite particles. The naïve realism they sprang from worked for the easy part, the front end of causality. It did not work for the rest of it. Those unsensed causes continue to bug us, which we acknowledge in our Second Assumption of Science, causality (All effects have an infinite number of material causes). We could treat them “mystically,” as you say, or we could treat them as the result of material entities (microcosms) that we, at least, temporarily cannot detect. With the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions) we assume that they do exist and that eventually some of them will be detected. You can call that belief “mysticism,” as you choose, but it has worked pretty well so far. Unfortunately for positivists and operationalists, Infinity no longer allows us to use detection as the sole criteria for distinguishing between science and religion. Much of regressive physics is just as “mystical” as the worst religion. At PSI we now make that distinction by evaluating how well particular analyses adhere to "The Ten Assumptions of Science."]

  
TSW: "... disconnection leads to the overemphasizing of the internal and the ignoring of the external."

BW: I would think it would be the exact opposite. Disconnection (in the sense of distinct and separate objects) focuses on the *external* relationship of one object to a separate object, which produce events. That is, the *internal* components of each of the objects is ignored, for the sake of establishing the cause for the effect.

[GB: That indeed is one way of looking at it. With that statement, I was thinking more of today’s systems philosophy, which has that particular disconnect in abundance. As you point out, classical mechanics had it the other way around. The correct view, of course, is univironmental determinism, in which there is equal emphasis on both the internal and the external, with no “disconnect” between them.]

TSW: "But in general, systems philosophy. tends to assume disconnection, always failing to the degree that it refuses to recognize that the surroundings of the system are as important as the system itself."

BW: Yes, it attempts to isolate unique, discrete causes for distinct events. That doesn't *deny* the existence of incidental external influences that might cause slightly different effects. It accepts their existence and tries to reduce them to inconsequential aspects of the actual relationship under consideration. To the degree that their efforts are successful, none of the chaotic external influences are "important" to the primary event under study. That's how science is always done.

[GB: Well stated. As systems philosophers we draw a sphere around the portion of the universe that we are focusing on, ignoring almost everything outside that system. That is how science was “always done”—until 1970 when the “environment” became more than “inconsequential.” Unfortunately, it is still how it is “always done” with regard to cosmology. Fortunately, the best scientists do not do it that way any more. Instead, they divide the universe into two parts. For example, in pedochronopaleoseimology I study the properties of a particular soil profile in relation to all that surrounds it. I do not ignore the surrounding rocks, topography, seismic, geologic, and cultural history, etc. It is true that many of the properties of the microcosm (soil) and its macrocosm (environment) are not significant, but I will not admit to having left anything out of consideration.]    

TSW: "Barry Commoner, one of the first to emphasize the importance of the environment, declared that in ecology, the most important law is: 'Everything is connected to everything else.'"

BW: You're taking Commoner out of context, since he's referring to the Earth "ecosphere" shared by all living organisms.  They are all "connected" because the earth environment is a *closed system*. He doesn't even share the "Butterfly Effect" perspective of Edward Lorenz, which seems more consistent with your proposition.

[GB: Sorry Bill, but the earth environment is not a closed system, a fact noticeable every time the climate changes or an asteroid swerves toward us. There are no closed systems. That mindset was supposed to have gone out with Copernicus.

On the so-called “Butterfly Effect”: It is true that, because Earth’s atmosphere covers the globe, the motion of a butterfly’s wings in Japan might be noticeable at quite some distance from that butterfly. Some of the nitrogen molecules involved in that event might even end up in the USA someday even though that occasion might have nothing to do with that particular butterfly. As you know, the significance of a particular motion generally follows the inverse square law. It is a long way to Japan, and the effect of a butterfly’s motion is unlikely to be noticed as a contributor to tornado production in the USA.

The effect stems from work in “chaos theory,” which was one of the first realizations by the mainstream that the finite universal causality of classical mechanics was not exactly correct. The “chaos” in the theory reflects the uncertainty that is characteristic of the infinite universe, in which there are an infinite number of causes for any effect. The upshot is that no relationship is perfectly linear because there are always an infinite number of factors involved. All but a half dozen or so of these are significant most of the time, but occasionally a tiny impact can have tremendous consequences. Here is an example:

Once, when we were camping on a small alluvial fan in Colorado, we looked for the nearest water supply, which was over 100 m away. This was in spite of the presence of a dry creek within meters of our camp. Going up the creek toward the apex of the fan, I noticed what was “wrong.” The stream coming down from the mountain side was now traversing the south side of the fan by taking an oblique left turn. All I had to do was move one small rock to cause the stream to make a right turn past our camp.]

TSW: "... interconnection. may be a useful generalization, but it remains for us to show, in each specific instance, what the connections are. If we fail to do that, we must assume that the connections do not exist."

BW: ... in which case, "interconnection" does not qualify as a fundamental supposition. Until you show that the connection exists, the only valid assumption is that no connection exists. You've just demolished your own assumption.

[GB: Sorry Bill, but you seem to have gotten that quote wrong. The last sentence should read: “Whenever we fail to do that, indeterminists tend to assume that the connections do not exist.” You incorrectly restated it from the opposite point of view. Naughty naughty!]

TSW: "if we are to reject the positivistic view altogether, then we need to show that things do not simply exist in the same universe, but that their motions invariably influence the motions of other things."

BW: If you show that, then the positivists would agree with you, since they believe that "information derived from sensory experience, logical and mathematical treatments and reports of such data, are together the exclusive source of all authoritative knowledge." However, to support your universal, infinite connectedness of ALL Borchardt Things to each other, you'll have to produce an awful lot of evidence.

[GB: That is why interconnection is an assumption. Assumptions do not just pop up out of nowhere. Both the deterministic and indeterministic assumptions are grounded on “an awful lot of evidence,” as pointed out in your Wikipedia quote. As I have maintained all along, each side points toward its evidence as support for its viewpoint. The determinist assumes that connections will be discovered; the indeterminist assumes that connections will not be discovered. The choice between these two assumptions is dependent on one’s experience. It is by no means a random, willy nilly choice, as you have implied previously. For instance, my scientific specialty involves quite a lot of detective work in the field. Whenever I look for connections, I usually find them, while a person, particularly a believer in disconnection, untrained in fieldwork might find nothing at all. Your previously stated belief that there are “material causes for all effects” follows the same tack. Like interconnection, that belief in causality underpins all of science. A scientist or detective who did not believe both of them would be worthless. Unless you believed there might be a connection or a cause, you would cease to look for one.]

Continued as 12c…

cotsw 025

Critique of TSW Part 12a: Interconnection

Bill’s idealism confronts reality when he reviews The Tenth Assumption of Science: Interconnection and catches another error.

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: ".

BW: This chapter is problematic, because the meanings of critical terms are vague or inconsistent. I've tried to be true to the context, which changes.

TSW:  "All things are interconnected; that is, between any two objects exist other objects that transmit matter and motion."

BW: Strange presumption, strongly implying a Block Universe: if there are only objects between objects, rather than space, then the entire universe is a singular object, which is perpetually immobile. Usually, such a proposition is a characteristic of an Eternalist Theory, based on a four-dimensional space-time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)

... but your description doesn't have space ... and therefore can't have time. If that's the case, then you can't have TWO objects interacting, ever.

[GB: Sorry, but the assumption clearly states that whatever is between any two objects must be able to transmit matter and motion. Looks like you are having trouble with scale again. As a believer in Finite Particle Theory, you must imagine solid matter to be a possibility. As one who denies that possibility, I am a believer in WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get), regardless of scale. Thus, for me, your so-called “finite particle” looks like the night sky—filled with all manner of submicrocosms, each separated by what appears to be empty space. That is the beauty of Infinite Universe Theory. You need to remember, once again, that perfectly solid matter and perfectly empty space are only idealizations. Neither could possibly exist, for they are only ideas. Reality is always something in between. In other words, at any scale, the area between any two microcosms will have two constituents: what we might call “solid matter” and what we might call “empty space.” The “solid matter” always contains “empty space” and the “empty space” always contains “solid matter”—at all scales. For instance, we may think the wall to be “solid matter” and the doorway to be “empty space.” But upon examination we always find that not to be true. The “empty space” of the doorway contains matter even though that matter provides little resistance to our passage. This is what we mean when we say that there is matter in motion between any two microcosms, ad infinitum. Regressive physicists have so much trouble with this because they assume just the opposite: finity and disconnection. They really do believe in the possibility of solid matter and empty space, even though there is no evidence for it. No wonder they are aether deniers, with all the paradoxes and contradictions that entails.]

TSW:  "The word universe portrays a fundamental property of existence: interconnection."

BW: Every definition I can find is a variant of "All existing matter and space". Etymologically, Latin; uni- (all) -verse ~ -versus (turned) ... into one. The other meanings are variants or subsets of all Westmiller Things (Borchardt material objects, plus any motion, attribute, or process).

So, the concept doesn't "portray" any property, beyond ontological existence. It doesn't require or preclude interaction among any particular things, much less a physical "connection" among all Borchardt Things.

[GB: Right Bill, “universe” means all turned into one, as in “united we stand” and “United States.” What is portrayed here is the interconnection between things, people, and states, not the disconnection. It is the USA, not the DSA (Disconnected States of America). Indeterminists often do not quite see it that way, favoring individualism over collectivism and dissimilarity over similarity among peoples. As cosmogonists they even hypothesize “parallel universes” and “multiverses” in tune with that mindset. You are right that “universe” only reaches out toward interconnection. While it comes close, it is really not a fundamental assumption, because, unlike interconnection it does not have an opposite. That is, unless you should get really wild and start to hypothesize things that are not “part of the universe.” Perhaps the uncaused causes of your “free will” would qualify.]     

TSW:  "After disconnecting the world conceptually (analysis), we put it back together again (synthesis)."

BW: The conceptual process isn't necessarily sequential and it is almost always "discriminating" (disconnecting) rather than compounding ("putting it back together"). It may be compounding in the sense of putting selected characteristics into a single word, but the *meaning* of the concept is always a process of identifying essential differentiating attributes.

For example, the definition of "horse" first establishes a category of being (animal) that is distinct from other things (Borchardt Things or Westmiller Things), then a distinct category of animal (mammal), then a distinct category of mammals (vegetarian), then a distinct category of vegetarian things that are solid-hoofed, domesticated, with a flowing mane and tail. There is no "synthesis" beyond assigning those characteristics to a single concept. A good definition ensures that the discriminating characteristics are, as a compound set, both unique and essential. You don't define "horse" as an object with legs ... which would be distinct from a stool ... even if legs are clearly a characteristic of horses.

[GB: As in the Sixth Assumption of Science, complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things), analysis and synthesis follow the same pattern. Nothing can be synthesized unless there are parts to bring together. One cannot have a new idea without first gathering the ingredients for that new idea. It makes no sense to overemphasize either analysis or synthesis. In detective work, legal work, and in other scientific endeavors we gather bits of evidence first and then put it together to provide the appropriate narrative. We may reverse the process to “take the story apart,” examining each bit of evidence, perhaps from an alternative viewpoint that may destroy the logic of the narrative provided.

Your horse example is a good example. We define a horse by gathering the bits of evidence necessary to list a sufficient number of the infinite number of characteristics that it has. We put these all together and voila! We have a horse. Note that the whole process of “defining” is made necessary by interconnection. Definition requires us to make finite that which is infinite. To define a particular horse as a horse, we must ignore many of the infinite number of characteristics that make each horse unique.]

TSW:  "The philosophical choice we need to make is not between an assumption of continuity and an assumption of discontinuity, but between a deterministic assumption that includes both of those ideas and an indeterministic assumption that does not."

BW: In order to have a deterministic cause, there has to be an effect (a distinct event). If there is no event, then discontinuity is true. If there is an event, then there is some cause. The cause doesn't have to be any continuous "connection", only a momentary interaction (usually a collision). Granted, some causes for some events are continuous (gravity), but that isn't required. It isn't "idealism" to observe no event, or an effect, that is the result of momentary interactions.

[GB: Sorry, but the absence of observable events is no proof of disconnection, or, as you say, discontinuity. With matter being infinitely subdividable, there are always collisions, such as those between aether_-1 particles and aether_-2 particles of which we will necessarily be unaware. What we do observe as a momentary interaction (i.e., a collision) necessarily occurs in a macrocosm containing a milieu of supermicrocosms. After all, that is why we have observed and assumed the Second Assumption of Science, causality (All effects have an infinite number of material causes). Also, there are no “continuous causes,” because all causes are produced by discrete collisions between microcosms. Gravitation, for instance, is produced by discrete impacts by aether_-1 particles on what we call baryonic (ordinary) matter.^[1] Whether or not one observes a particular event has nothing to do with idealism, although the belief that unseen events cannot occur definitely is.]

TSW:  "Outer space is a good example. How can both qualities, discontinuity and continuity, apply to what is commonly envisioned by the naïve realist as completely empty?"

BW: If we recognize that concepts are *entirely* differentiation, there's no problem in distinguishing the *separation* of objects (a Westmiller Thing) from the objects themselves (a Borchardt Thing). Asserting that there is "space" between the Earth and Moon simply says they are separated, not that the space is "completely empty" of all other, incidental, objects. Nor does it say that they are "completely isolated", since everyone knows that they are gravitationally connected and persistently exchange photons. You seem to be fabricating an inconsistency that doesn't exist: Borchardt Things separated by space doesn't require space to be empty.

[GB: Again, I am confused by your terminology about Westmiller and Borchardt things. I do not know about your things, but mine are called “microcosms,” implying that they are xyz portions of the universe that exist within the rest of the universe, which I call the “macrocosm.” I believe the quote was purely rhetorical. I am glad to see that you now believe that space cannot be perfectly empty.

TSW:  "As I see it, an 'element of spatial extent' can represent one of two possibilities: either it is something or it is nothing."

BW: It is a Westmiller Thing, not a Borchardt Thing; attributes are things; separation is an attribute of two objects (otherwise they would be one object). Totally independent of that attribute is the issue of whether the separation (space) also contains other Borchardt Things. It probably does, but they are irrelevant to the Separation Thing.

[GB: Sorry, but separation cannot be an attribute of both things. The fact that there is a distance between you and me is not an attribute of either one of us. It is an attribute of whatever separates us (Interstate 5, etc.). Glad to see that you agree that there is stuff between us, though I do not think some of it is irrelevant.]

TSW:  "If an 'element of spatial extent' is something, then it must have matter within it ..."

BW: Not at all. Westmiller Things are not containers, they are relationships among Borchardt Things. Separation is not a material object that "contains" anything. It is not a constraint, it is an attribute. Of course, Westmiller Things also include Borchardt Things, but attributes themselves don't necessarily have attributes. (That was one of Einstein's logical errors: giving "separation" an attribute of "curved" in "space".)

[GB: Well, Bill, at least you are consistent. Sorry, that you think that your things are relationships. Real things are microcosms that have xyz dimensions and location with respect to other things. I normally refrain from thinking of microcosms as containers, although that would be better than thinking of them as relationships. You are a “container” for your various parts, not a relationship. Again, the separation between microcosms does indeed have attributes, which, in turn, do indeed have attributes, ad infinitum. The Einsteinism (right answer; wrong reason) with respect to “curved empty space” worked out, not because space was empty, but because it was not empty. This was especially noticeable wherever baryonic matter formed an atmosphere around a cosmic body, as it did around the Sun in the famous Eddington observation. The refraction of distant starlight was misinterpreted as evidence for curved empty space and/or the effect of gravitation on Einstein’s hypothetical light corpuscle.]

TSW:  "... the opposing indeterministic assumption that between any two objects there can exist solid, continuous matter or empty, discontinuous space."

BW: If there is solid, continuous matter between two objects, they aren't two objects. It might be one object with two or three different parts, but it can't be considered two distinct Borchardt Things. Yet, that seems to be what you're asserting is true: that "all things are interconnected"; physically linked or attached. If that is the case, there aren't two distinct objects anywhere in the universe. In that case, there can't be determinism, because there can be no cause and effect, because there can be no action between distinct objects.

[GB: Bill, please reread the quote. That is the indeterministic assumption. Where have I ever claimed that matter could be solid and continuous?]

BW: You do phrase it slightly differently in the prior case: "between any two objects exist other objects that transmit matter and motion." Nevertheless, the word "any" precludes the possibility of transmission from one object to the next, because there is always some smaller Borchardt Thing between them, to infinity. The statements you're contrasting seem to me absolutely the same: a Block Universe.

[GB: Huh? Perhaps you are thinking that, because there are things between things ad infinitum, that this is the same as solid matter. Not possible, because the subdivision of microcosms containing matter and space always yields small microcosms containing…you guessed it: matter and space, ad infinitum. The “Block Universe” filled with solid matter that you hypothesize (just like your finite particles) is only an idealization. It cannot exist.] 

BW: Beyond that, the second clause of the quote above says the opposing view proposes "empty, discontinuous space" between objects. This makes no sense. If space is completely empty, it is continuously empty, not "discontinuously empty", which is a self-contradictory phrase.

[GB: Sorry, the hypothesized “pure empty space” of the indeterminist has no properties whatsoever. Being nothing at all, you cannot ascribe any properties to it at all. You might call it a continuation of emptiness or a discontinuity. You are right that the term “discontinuous space” needs to be removed from the second edition.] 

Continued as 12b…

cotsw 024

---

[1] 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.

Definition of Matter, Existence, Reality, and Fields

A Discussion with Captain Bligh (CB:), who says:

I don't know when I will get through all the past blog entries, but do you ever define Matter?

[GB: Matter is defined as that which contains other matter, ad infinitum. You also have to realize that matter is an abstraction, just like “fruit.” You can never eat “fruit,” you can only eat an apple or an orange, etc. Because the universe is infinite per the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions), each microcosm contains submicrocosms, and these submicrocosms contain subsubmicrocosms, ad infinitum. In addition, each microcosm exists within a “macrocosm” (its surroundings) filled with “supermicrocosms,” which are similarly infinitely differentiable as well as infinitely integrable. All microcosms have xyz dimensions and location with respect to other microcosms. Per the Ninth Assumption, relativism, no two portions of the universe are identical. Any other “definition” of matter will be confusing, because that would require an indeterministic belief in finity. That is our definition of “existence” and of “reality.”]

CB:  Agree! I assume matter means something real, like the field?

[GB: Fields were considered by Einstein as being “immaterial,” so it is interesting that you would use them as an example of reality. I happen to agree with you that fields are real, that is, material, not immaterial. In other words, gravitational and magnetic fields must contain tiny microcosms (aether_-1 particles?) that produce the effects we observe.]

CB:   We agree! Particles are a particular problem.  I assume that the field is wave energy, but can form particles.

[GB: No. The particles we observe are aether_-1 complexes. They are not a problem unless you are an aether denier who must then imagine the universe exploding out of nothing via BS concepts such as “quantum fluctuations” or “virtual particles.”[1] Waves require a medium through with they travel (e.g., water, air, etc.). Before Einstein mucked it up, that was taken for granted. A field is not wave energy. A field is a medium, most likely consisting of aether_-1 particles through which waves travel. Waves do not form particles, waves simply occur in a medium containing particles. The particulate nature of a medium is noticed when individual particles within a wave contact ordinary matter (e.g., Photoelectric Effect, etc.). Remember that energy does not exist. Energy is a calculation describing the motion of matter. ]

CB: As I said before, I like to stay as close to the others in these descriptive terms, so Q fluctuations, virtual particles are merely ways to try and describe certain things. We agree that the aether IS the medium. I consider the medium to be a wave property form of energy. The real problem is that you seem to have matter doing "stuff" as a motion. Well, motion, action, and energy are equivalent descriptive words for matter in motion. Granted that matter can exist in positive or negative forms, unless you deny Dirac's work, but in any case the aether or field does change when cause and effect happen. Since I have not mentioned (I think) the neutral aspect to the field, I can see why your "matter" is slightly different than my "matter."

[GB: I understand your reluctance to give up long-standing indeterministic concepts invented by aether deniers who thus had no other choice. Do not be afraid to give up silly stuff such as “virtual particles.” They might come back to bite you in the end. There are no virtual particles. Particles either are particles or they are not. Aether particles form baryonic particles. The transformation can occur in reverse, so the word virtual (Webster: “very close to being something without actually being it”) had to be used, when “aether” had to be considered “nothing.” To see how silly all this is, see our review of the latest travesty, Krauss’s “Universe from Nothing.”[2]

Yes, indeed, I do consider matter “doing stuff” as motion, although I would not put it that way (i.e., “stuff” is matter). You are correct that “action” is motion. Energy, however, is not. That is why there is so much confusion over it, especially when the described motion involves aether.]     

CB:   I tend to use bosons as dynamics in the field.

[GB: Bosons are probably not real. In any case, this newly formed accelerator rubble is said to have a mean lifetime of only 10^-22 seconds and is 250,000 times the mass of an electron. The boson is a strange candidate for “giving mass to matter,” since it is not a constituent of matter, but external to it.]

CB:   Again, "boson" is descriptive of an oscillation motion, action, or energy, in the aether. I think it wonderful that the standard model can be explained by the Mexican Hat effects happening in the field or "ether." I accept that theoretical explanation as perhaps true. Who knows?

[GB: The best I can figure out, the boson is yet another of the half dozen ridiculous attempts to recognize that space contains matter without mentioning the A-word (aether). Check out my blog on the god particle and the extensive comments by henk.[3]]

CB:   No need to since we are in agreement about those things. Like Time, and Gravity. Gravity is only a secondary effect. It, like inertia, is a field effect. Not a real thing at all using forces and field energies as real.

[GB: Sorry, but gravitation is by no means a “secondary” effect. All baryonic (ordinary) matter is affected by and requires gravitation, which is produced by differences in aether_-1 pressure.[4] Gravitation is indeed a field effect. It is not a “real thing,” it is the motion of real things. Again, forces and energies are not real. They are matter-motion terms we use for the calculations in physics that describe the motion of things.]

CB:   Glenn, an "ether pressure" sounds awfully like an energy form to me. :)

[GB: Pressure is produced by the collisions of particles. As with all the motions of matter, we can use energy calculations to describe these collisions (e.g., ½mv², etc.), but that does not turn pressure into energy.]

CB:   My explanation allows the field to form matter (in two opposite attributes matter and anti-matter and to allow the matter to not sit there in space but to move. KE to some. Mass is present (from the field) and when present it (mass) in the field is automatically attracted to itself. Viola! Gravity. The field holds the mass in place relative to itself and that is Inertia! So, gravity and inertia are effects of field-matter relationship. This makes it so much simpler, if you can accept a neutral field, where there is no matter. This neutral status is potential. It is like a battery. Balanced positive and negative aspects of the field. I think I picked this up from Bohm's ideas. You do not deny the two aspects to the aether/field do you?

[GB: I disagree with almost all of this. There is no “anti-matter.” Remember that matter has xyz dimensions, so anti-matter is an oxymoron. There is no attraction. There is no such thing as a portion of the universe “where there is no matter.” If you read our NGT paper[5], you will see that we agree with your statement that “gravity and inertia are effects of [the] field-matter relationship,” providing that by field, you include aether particles.]

CB:   I am thinking you are suggesting particles like (God Forbid) string theory. So, clarify for me or tell me which blog entry addresses this.

[GB: George, forbid away and get help from anyone you can imagine. Theories dealing with more than three dimensions are simply mathematical hocus-pocus. They may be nice mental games, but they can have no application to reality. It is true that they do serve as wonderful illustrations of the kind of stuff one can get published just by adhering to the indeterministic assumptions of the funders. I mentioned my opinion of String Theory back in 2009.[6]]

CB:   We agree, along with Smolin that string theory goes nowhere. Where in the world would the aether/field be that allows string to vibrate/oscillate in?

[GB: Agree, agree. Isn’t it amazing that such crackpot ideas involving more than 3 dimensions[7] actually are taken seriously, while the mere mention of the word “aether” provokes mainstream hilarity and rigorous censorship?]

---

[1] Krauss, Lawrence Maxwell, 2012, A universe from nothing : why there is something rather than nothing: New York, Free Press. (Check out Rick’s wonderful critique at: http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2012/06/dutkiewicz-blasts-krauss-interview-on.html .)

[2]http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2012/06/big-bang-apologetics-and-mainstream.html

[3] http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2011/12/god-particle-in-news-againtentatively.html

[4] Borchardt, Glenn, and Puetz, S.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.

[5]Ibid.

[6] http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2009/08/infinity-or-determinism.html

[7] Wikipedia: “However, to make a consistent quantum theory, string theory is required to live in a spacetime of the so-called "critical dimension": we must have 26 spacetime dimensions for the bosonic string and 10 for the superstring.”

Demise of Hawking's Black Holes

Figure 1. Spiral galaxies photographed by NASA. See any “black holes” in the nuclei?

Much has been made of Stephen Hawking’s recent admission that the black holes envisioned by the world’s greatest Big Banger really do not exist[1]. Still, I doubt that even his recent paper[2] will get many to abandon an oxymoron so critical to the Big Bang and General Relativity Theories. If you have been following this at all, you know that Hawking has been backing away from the original conception for a long time. At first, these theoretical centers of the galactic nucleus would emit no light at all, and then a tiny bit was admitted, and now they might even be grey instead of black[3]. Looks like we should give up on them entirely. Perhaps it is just a simple case of “what you see is what you get” (Figure 1).

In UCT[4] Steve and I pointed out that the densest part of any vortex is the center. We even speculated that the nuclei of spiral galaxies might be a densely packed solid consisting mostly of aether_-1 particles. Unlike regressive physicists, however, we never ascribed properties to these nuclei that were not in conformity with neomechanics. Neomechanics implies that all microcosms, no matter how dense or large or small, contain submicrocosms in motion. As such, they absorb and emit matter and motion[5]. Light is motion, so we have always assumed that anyone who claimed that any particular microcosm cannot emit electromagnetic waves was wrong. We are glad to see Professor Hawking finally admitting his mistake.  

As an aether denier, however, Hawking will never understand that light is not directly affected by gravitation because it is a wave, not a particle. Of course, considering light as a particle meant that it would be affected by gravitation, as Einstein claimed. Like other regressive physicists, Hawking long ago accepted Eddington’s 1919 discovery of the deflection of light traveling past the Sun as evidence for that. There is gravitation involved, but it is of the Sun’s atmosphere, not of the imagined light particle. The light bending discovered by Eddington was simple refraction, which will occur around any cosmic body that has an atmosphere. In the words of physicist Edward Dowdye: “Findings show that a direct interaction between the sun's gravity and the rays of star light in the empty vacuum space is yet to be observed.”[6] And, we predict that it will never be observed, because light is motion, not matter. Einstein’s prediction that light would be bent during its passage near the Sun was a classical “Einsteinism” (right answer; wrong reason).

Black holes were expected to swallow up any matter that came near them due to “gravitational attraction.” The same thing would happen to Einstein’s light corpuscles (photons). Any theoretical movement away from those conceptions is the right move toward neomechanics and the emission of light as a wave in the aether unaffected by the push of gravity. This “breakthrough” by Hawking is akin to the movement toward Infinite Universe Theory by reformers who imagine “parallel universes” and “multiverses.”

---

[1] Merali, Zeeya, 2014, Stephen Hawking: “There are no black holes:” Nature. (http://www.nature.com/news/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-holes-1.14583 )

[2] Hawking, S.W., 2014, Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black Holes (http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5761 )

[3]  Moffat, J.W., 2014, Stochastic Quantum Gravity, Gravitational Collapse and Grey Holes: p. 7.

 ( http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.0906 )

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

[5] http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2014/01/neomechanics-of-massenergy.html

[6] Dowdye, Edward Henry, Jr., 2012, Gravitational Light Bending History is Severely Impact-Parameter Dependent ( http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6523.pdf  ), in Volk, G., Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 19th Conference of the NPA, 25-28 July, 2012: Albuquerque, NM, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, v. 9, p. 141-145.