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 .)
[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.
[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.”
Posts
6 comments:
I just read the newspaper about the proof that 'the beginning of the universe exists' and maybe it has to do with the subject mentioned here. I quote the model described in the newspaper: A hypothesis introduced in 1980 by A. Guth, within a second after the bang of something smaller than an atom into an football sized object. Let it be. Then I stop. It seems that the mother atom was pregnant of something and soon got obesitas. But an object in rest even the inside of it can't be observed as time do not exist within the object due to the failure of motion. So there has to be something inside the atom that 'moves around' in it and that implies that time within mother atom can be measured. But that time seems to be different from what we experience or else it can be copied in the 'twins' of mother atom. Secondly what is remarkable in the article is the explanantion of the interaction of radiation with the 'twins' of mother atom. I cannot grasp it. I myself stopped thinking about the subject as I am considered to be a painter which is very enjoyfull, nevertheless I have the idea that even in the formulae of kinetic energy one has introduced already the idea of a very beginning of the universe by putting at time t=0 then kinetic energy(KE) is zero for every object in the universe otherwise I cannot get the formulae KE=0.5*m* v^2 and not asking what mass is.
henk:
Others have sent me emails, but you are the first to comment on this latest publicity stunt once again “confirming” the Big Bang Theory. I sympathize with your confusion, as the explosion of something from nothing still makes no sense at all, no matter how they sensationalize it. Have they no sense of decency? How dare they trample willy-nilly on the First Law of Thermodynamics?
As I said to my daughter, who sent me the link: “Thanks so much. These guys think they know what happened 13.8 billion years ago to an accuracy of 10-35 second! What BS! Most of them probably can't even tell us what happened yesterday.” BTW: A year ago, the universe was supposedly 100 million years younger (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.403979-Scientists-admit-mistake-The-universes-age-isnt-13-7-billion-years.
Of course, it is all mathematical hocus-pocus with indeterministic assumption built upon indeterministic assumption, as I have been pointing out in detail for decades. You get rid of such mental crap by holding fast to one deterministic assumption in particular: the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). Of course, the regressive physicists responsible for this most recent embarrassment hold just as fast to the opposite assumption: finity. My prediction is that they will do so up until the year 2050. So, be sure to keep a copy or two of the latest Big Bang illustration as a collector’s item: http://www.space.com/25078-universe-inflation-gravitational-waves-discovery.html?cmpid=514648_20140317_20193074
Your problem with there being any kinetic energy at t=0, is a legitimate beef and only one of the many holes in the Big Bangers’ arguments. And as you imply, there can be no mass (m) or velocity (v) at t=0 either. There are no such problems with Infinite Universe Theory, in which all things are continually in motion and come from other things that are continually in motion. Such a universe does not and cannot have a beginning.
The observations discussed in the article do not prove cosmic inflation. They are simply observations (probably quite reliable) that need to be interpreted in a logical manner.
One interpretation (the standard interpretation) is that the observations (along with galactic redshifts) indicate that the universe exploded from nothing -- i.e., the Big Bang Theory.
Another interpretation (neomechanical) is that the observations indicate compressions-and-decompressions are occurring that are similar to any type of wave. In this scenario, the data indicates that large-scale waves are moving through the regions of the universe that we can observe.
The same data, but two dramatically different interpretations..... Of course, the two interpretations have dramatically different assumptions and consequences.
Let's expose gibberish for what it is.
I've read plenty of books and articles about the big bang theory, including a couple of Stephen Hawking's books. I'm pretty good at visualizing the descriptions given by quantum theorists and big-bang cosmologists. Their own visualizations and thought-experiments reveal how incomplete and deeply flawed their descriptions are.
For one great example: citing a 4th-dimensional "gravity well" is just putting the problem of gravity one step further away; it defines and visualizes gravity's cause by using gravity itself. A lot like the old "tortoises all the way down" explanation of the universe.
Sounds exactly like a theologian's explanation of God's Grace, or other such mental gymnastics based on "alternate realities". A ball bounces because it has "bounce energy" inside of it. You are coughing because you have "a cough". You are using a concept to define the selfsame concept.
Don't get me wrong, I love Sci-Fi. But let's not confuse Sci-fi with reality, even if the mathematics are wonderfully beautiful to gaze upon (like Moses gazing upon God's backside).
I'm interested in whether Captain Bligh can illustrate the way we can visualize something "automatically attracted to itself". How would that look without invoking "action at a distance" or some other supernatural fantasy? What is the word "automatically" denoting? Much like the word "random" in the phrase "random quantum fluctuation", it means "we don't understand, but like to pretend we understand".
I also got a big headache visualizing Captain Bligh's "neutral field, where there is no matter".
What the hell? How can there be a "where" that contains no matter? How would you delineate the boundaries be for that "where"?
Very similar to the hocus-pocus that is involved when cosmologists talk about "one second after the big bang" or the inflation after "the universe was the size of a football".
I'm here to tell you that we can only measure size or time in reference to other times and objects. So, if time only came into existence with the big bang, how do we delineate that first second; it has no boundary on the leading edge, so you can't measure it.
Similarly, if matter came into existence with the big bang, how can you measure a football? There is nothing outside to use as reference points.
I must be dense. It all sounds like the religious fantasies and miracles I was taught by the nuns in my Catholic elementary school. Yes, Sister Mary, I believe with all my heart.
Sorry if I'm being too sarcastic. I really do enjoy and appreciate the discussions and comments that are more civil than mine. Mea culpa.
Between painting I do read books and I just read that Bertrand Russell once wrote that force is just a mathematical concept as a limit is needed to get acceleration. As far as I underhave understood math it means that one can say precisely at that point in time-space the object accelerated which is to my opinion the same as saying that at 20-03-2014 9.57 I started to believe in God's existence. The limit expresses that in asmall interval of size differential the objects velocity changed somehow. Secondly I have a question obout mass: if you do not know what mass is how can you talk about velocity despite the fact one can observe the displacement of an object. Thirdly, as far as I have understand one can only objectify time by using a clock calibrated by some consistently repeating movement which has a simple chaotic representation, a sinusoïd.
henk:
To paraphrase the most interesting man in the world: “I don’t often agree with Russell, but when I do, it is time for a beer.” You and Bertrand are right. Force is a concept. Specifically it is a calculation (F=ma) that describes the change in motion undergone by a portion of the universe (a microcosm) when it is hit by some other portion (a microcosm). Force neither exists nor occurs; force is neither matter nor motion.
Mass is the resistance that a microcosm has to a change in motion (acceleration). We determine the mass of a microcosm by attempting to accelerate it with another microcosm of known mass and velocity. Both mass and velocity are relative, so we have established standards, which on Earth, are relative to the acceleration of gravity (9.81 m/s2). Because length and time are relative, we have established conventions for those too.
Time is motion. Time is not an object. Time is not a microcosm, but what microcosms do. You are correct, however, that we need to objectify time in order to measure it. For instance, we may think of a second or an hour as a “quantity” of time. We can imagine this “quantity” by observing the cyclic motion of Earth or some other object. We can use this imagined, relative quantity in the matter-motion calculations (momentum, force, energy, spacetime) we use in physics. After doing so, however, we must always remember that time is not an object. Time has no dimensions and is not “part” of the universe. Einstein forgot this [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], but Russell did not.
Post a Comment