Light Transmission in Aether

Blog 20140430

Hello Mr. Borchardt,

I have a question with regard to your aether theory and how you would explain transverse light waves in the gaseous/liquid medium of aether. As I have come to understand from certain objectors to aethereal theory, the polarization of light, and their conclusion that it must be a transverse wave, is one of their claims to the impossibility of aether being the medium of a light wave. My question is: Can you explain how light in your ether can be a transverse wave, or do you have a different theory of what "polarized" light is where a  compression wave can also explain it?

I came to wonder about this thanks to Ionel Dinu (another NPA member) bringing it up years ago in an NPA video conference, saying that the question of the polarization of light was important for aether theories to address. I am aware that Ionel Dinu has done some theoretical thinking on this problem, and that apparently there are experiments that are putting the transverse conclusion into question:

(http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/4207).

[GB: Thanks for a question that has bedeviled aether theorists for more than a century. I do not think there is any doubt that light is a transverse (T) (shear) wave and that it is not a longitudinal (L) (compression) wave. For physics beginners: An L wave compresses and decompresses the medium in the direction of travel. A T wave compresses and decompresses the medium in all directions perpendicular to the direction of travel. The fact that we can polarize light proves that it is a T wave, despite some desperation on the part of other aether theorists. As you know, gases and liquids only have L waves. Only solids have T waves in addition to L waves. This makes aether a strange beast, with none of the transmission properties of gases and only one of the properties of solids. Dinu’s evidence for L waves does not seem convincing. There may be some, but it seems insignificant, and simply may be a result of imperfections in the apparatus. Of course, we should not necessarily expect aether to behave exactly like baryonic (ordinary) matter.

On the other hand, the Ninth Assumption of Science, relativism (All things have characteristics that make them similar to all other things as well as characteristics that make them dissimilar to all other things) teaches us that aether particles will have some of the characteristics of other microcosms. As we showed in “Universal Cycle Theory,” one of the most prevalent structural forms in the universe is the vortex. Obvious examples are the Milky Way, the solar system, Saturn, and the hydrogen atom. Back in 2009, I used vortex theory to speculate about the structure of the electron and positron.[1] Thus, it is likely that aether_-1 particles are vortices formed from aether_-2 particles. Vortices form disc-like shapes as rotation rates increase (Figure 1). If this speculation is correct, then it appears unlikely that a medium filled with these aether discs would produce much compression and rarefaction in the direction of travel. Head-on collisions between disc edges would be rare, giving way to motion perpendicular to the direction of travel. L waves would be insignificant, while T waves would dominate.

 

Figure 1. Do aether particles look like this?

{The Sombrero Galaxy (M104) Credit: HST/NASA/ESA.}] 

The following isn't part of the question, just some thoughts and things you might find of interest.

Also, I have come upon another aether theorist by chance but I find his work interesting. Mr. Distinti is an electrical engineer who is using a dipole aether model to deal with the transverse wave problem, but his use of mathematics for his models are impressive and add much strength to conceptual theory. Perhaps you may find some interesting things in his work that may aid you in yours:

(https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyA7M234nykgKUSs_L9AjZQ) 

I thank you for any response you can give.

Sincerely, a student of univironmental determinism 

[GB: Thanks for the link. Distinti has some interesting ideas. I like his demand for a mechanical cause for activities that regressive physicists shrug off as a kind of magic. He realizes that baryonic matter must form from aether-like particles and that Standard Particle Theory is mostly working with what he calls “junk” (I have called it “rubble”) from accelerators. On the other hand, like most dissidents, he does not get everything right. For example, he apparently believes that energy exists and that time dilation is possible. Being an electrical engineer, he takes charge and electrostatic attraction for granted, never explaining what they are. His videos are a work in progress, needing a good reorganizing effort.]

---

[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2009, The physical meaning of  E=mc² ( http://scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/The%20Physical%20Meaning%20of%20E=mc2.pdf ): Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, v. 6, no. 1, p. 27-31.

 

 

An Infinite Question

Blog 20140423 

Here is a great letter from a very sharp student in England:

Dear Mr. Borchardt,

My name is Meghan Avery and I'm a 16 year old student from the North of England. I'm doing an Extended Project at School (a 5000 word investigation into a topic of my choice) on the concept of Infinity, and the applications of it in Maths, Physics and Philosophy. While researching the question of whether the Universe is infinite, I came across your 2007 paper on the Infinite Universe Theory. I found it really interesting to compare to the Big Bang theory and I was wondering whether you could give me an opinion on my view on Infinite Universes.

Before I started researching the concept of an Infinite Universe, my opinion was that if our universe was infinite, then surely there is an infinite amount of planets, stars and anything you can think of. This means that some planets will be identical to one another, so there will be an infinite number of planets like our Earth in the Universe. However, ever since humans have been on this planet, we have had no known contact with any other life forms from other planets. Surely if there were an infinite number of different planets with human life, we will have had contact with any of these planets, and in fact an infinite number of times?

My opinion is quite based on the theoretical idea of an infinite universe, and I hope it will give you something to think about. I would be fascinated to receive your opinion because I find the Infinite Universe theory really interesting!

Thank you very much and looking forward to your reply,

Yours sincerely,

Meghan Avery

[GB: Meghan, thanks so much for your question. It is certainly one that many others will be interested in.

It is not possible to prove conclusively that the universe is infinite or finite. No one will ever be able to go to the “edge” of the universe to get a yes or no answer. Today, most cosmologists are cosmogonists. That is, they assume that the universe is finite and must have had a beginning (like all finite things). Although cosmogonists increased the age of this beginning by 100 million years about a year ago, they now believe they know what happened during the first 10^-35 seconds (I kid you not). Big Bangers feel that they pretty much have this figured out, although the theory has many obvious contradictions (explosion from nothing, etc.). Some of these have even resulted in speculations concerning “multiverses” and “parallel” universes. Some of the smarter ones are beginning to reach out toward Infinite Universe Theory, which is good even though they have had to use oxymorons to do it. There can be only one universe.

Most of modern physics assumes finity, but at the Progressive Science Institute, we assume just the opposite, infinity, which is the Eighth Assumption of Science (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). Steve Puetz and I used this to good effect in our recent book, "Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe."

Now to your question: “If the universe is infinite, why are there not an infinite number of planets similar to Earth, with beings who should have contacted us by now?” Your question is similar to Olbers’ Paradox, which says: “If the universe is infinite, why is the sky dark at night?” Paradox resolution involves the discovery of the erroneous assumption that makes it so. Olbers’ mistake was based on the assumption that light could travel an infinite distance without anything happening to it. The same applies to all kinds of electromagnetic radiation, including the radio waves generally considered necessary for communication with extraterrestrials. Wave motion tends to diminish with distance (that is why you do not feel the seismic waves from our California earthquakes).

Our Milky Way galaxy is finite, but still no word from those folks either. Even so, there are about 300 billion stars in the Milky Way. Current speculation is that there are from 8 to 60 billion associated planets with an Earth-like habitable zone. That is not infinity, but it is quite a few. Either biopoesis (the development of life from inorganic chemicals) is extremely rare, or the transmission is bad. I vote for the latter.

Meghan, sorry you were not able to determine whether or not the universe is finite or infinite. I guess, like the rest of us, you will have to assume one or the other. I hope you choose infinity. We need young folks like you to help us discard the current paradigm, replacing it with Infinite Universe Theory.]

Resolution of Paradoxes in Regressive Physics

Blog 20140416 

Dear Dr. Borchardt,

From the information presented in World Science Database I would appreciate the opportunity to interact with you.  Presented below is a sketch of the approach I’m utilizing in trying to comprehend some of the conceptual enigmas associated with contemporary science.  I have labeled these enigmas “Pivotal Concepts”. 

  

From “Snakes In a Box” to Pivotal Concepts

As a young kid my Uncles told me that my Grandfather had found two snakes eating each other.  Each had the other’s tail in its mouth.  He placed them in a secure box and when he opened the box the next day, it was empty.  The snakes had eaten each other!  Try as hard as I could, I could not visualize how it could have happened.  But it had to be true, my trusted Uncles had told me.

I entered college with the same faith in my professors and encountered concepts, i.e. snakes in a box, such as the dual nature of light that I could not reconcile.  Later, an acquaintance asked: “Why do you think you are wrong and are just unable to grasp such foundational concepts?”  From that point my quest has become to understand: What is the structure of the Universe that makes our laws and theories useful?  This approach is somewhat different than trying to disprove a theory.

Listed below are some “Snakes in a Box”, now designated Pivotal Concepts. Explanations for observations upon which they are based have been developed.

1.   Matter and energy are inter-convertible, i.e. E₀ = m₀c².

2.  The speed of light c is independent of the relative motion of the source and observer.

3.  Light is both a wave and a particle – the dual nature of light.

4.  A light signal traveling in a vacuum at c undergoes a reduction in speed when it enters a transparent medium, but resumes the speed c upon exit back into the vacuum.  Explanation also accounts for photon drag.

5.  Regardless of the intensity of a source, the velocity of energy released never exceeds c, and the electromagnetic radiation component from a source only occurs at c.   This requires that the mediation of energy may go from zero to c when radiation is emitted and vice versa when the absorption of radiation occurs.

6.  In the area of optics, signal transmission may be represented by rays, which may change directions, be divided, and recombined.

7.  When two rigid bodies collide, i.e. an elastic collision, equal quantities of momentum are exchanged.

Please visit http://www.pivotalconceptsinscience.com for my approach to explaining pivotal concepts based on ultimate components.  It has been a lone venture and I would appreciate your input. An expanded version of The Ultimate Components from that presented in Pivotal Concepts is available @ <http://www.researchgate.net> under William Blackmon.

Regards,

William Blackmon

        

[GB: William:

Thanks so much for the great list of regressive paradoxes. I liked your snake anecdote—sort of like the “snipe hunt” trick we used to play on newbies. You wait all night along the trail holding the bag to catch the snipe. Only one problem, there will be no snipe. Just goes to show that there is a sucker (baby) born every minute. Fortunately, naïve indeterminism tends to disappear with experience.

Paradoxes occur because one or more of their underlying assumptions is incorrect. One of the best examples is Olbers’ Paradox, which concludes that the universe is finite because, otherwise the night sky would not be dark at night. An infinite number of stars eventually would light the sky at every point. As in many paradoxes, the false assumption upon which that paradox is based is highly idealistic: it assumes that the space between those points is perfectly empty. This unprecedented assumption ignores the fact that nothing we know ever travels from point A to point B without being changed in the process. Today’s big bangers have added a new, equally idealistic and unprecedented twist, by assuming that space itself is expanding. Of course, there is no such thing as perfectly empty space. Otherwise the cosmic background radiation would yield a temperature of 0.0 degrees Kelvin. Instead, it is 2.7 K. Temperature is the motion of matter, so that proves that intergalactic space is by no means perfectly empty (see http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2012/08/paradox-resolution.html ).

Paradoxes are of major importance in regressive physics. Although they invariably indicate theoretical weaknesses generated by false assumptions, their existence is easily accepted by indeterminists who have become accustomed to similar contradictions in their religious lives. They provide mystery, amusement, and solace to those happy to see that the greatest minds are similarly plagued. It is a tough trade-off: Resolve the paradox, but give up the long-held indeterministic assumption on which it is based. For regressive physicists, it is the ultimate Faustian bargain.

Your list gives me a chance to review some of the major contradictions in physics today: ]

1.  Matter and energy are inter-convertible, i.e. E₀ = m₀c². [GB: As I have explained (http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2014/01/neomechanics-of-massenergy.html ), this is false. In short, energy is only a calculation and cannot possibly be equal to mass. It is true that the mass of an object increases when it absorbs motion and decreases when it emits motion. The amount of matter remains unchanged.]

2.  The speed of light c is independent of the relative motion of the source and observer. [GB: This is correct. Light is wave motion in the aether. Like all wave motion, light velocity is dependent on the characteristics of the medium. Thus, because it is not a particle, it is not accelerated by the motion of the source, as a particle would be. The measurement of light velocity, however, is partially dependent on the motion of the observer. For instance, you will encounter more waves sooner if you move your boat toward the source of water waves than if you remain motionless.]

3.  Light is both a wave and a particle – the dual nature of light. [GB: False. Light is a wave in particles of aether. This is a paradox only to aether deniers.]

4.  A light signal traveling in a vacuum at c undergoes a reduction in speed when it enters a transparent medium, but resumes the speed c upon exit back into the vacuum.  Explanation also accounts for photon drag. [GB: As I mentioned, like all wave motion, the velocity of light is dependent on the medium. The particle density of the aether medium decreases when aether is crowded out by baryonic matter. This causes the velocity of light to diminish from 300,000 km/s in vacuum to 225,000 km/s in water. If light was a particle, such changes in velocity would require immense accelerations by unobserved magical forces. The velocity of sound in baryonic media also decreases with density—of the baryonic media. Thus the velocity of sound through steel is about 5,120 m/s, while it is 343 m/s in air. Being a wave and not a particle, the transition between the two does not involve deceleration. I cannot imagine what “photon drag” is, because photons do not exist, just as “soundons” do not exist.]

5.  Regardless of the intensity of a source, the velocity of energy released never exceeds c, and the electromagnetic radiation component from a source only occurs at c.   This requires that the mediation of energy may go from zero to c when radiation is emitted and vice versa when the absorption of radiation occurs. [GB: As explained above, this is exactly what would be expected if light were a wave and not a particle. Such sudden changes in velocity would be impossible for a particle.]

6.  In the area of optics, signal transmission may be represented by rays, which may change directions, be divided, and recombined. [GB: These are all wave properties.]

7.  When two rigid bodies collide, i.e. an elastic collision, equal quantities of momentum are exchanged. [GB: Partially correct. This is the indeterministic definition of Newton’s Third Law of Motion. Realize, however, that momentum is a calculation and that momentum neither exists nor occurs. All that exists is the colliding bodies and all that occurs is their motions.]

[GB: William: So you can see that we have a long way to go before we would reach agreement on most of these “pivotal concepts.” Even my co-author, Steve Puetz, took three months to finally agree that “time is motion.” Without that realization, we would never have written “Universal Cycle Theory.” BTW: If you should happen to find any paradoxes or contradictions in that book, we sure would like to know about it.]

Critique of TSW Part 12d Interconnection

Blog 20140409 

Bill estranges water from its environment and considers light to be a particle, as he continues 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: ".

TSW: "At what point should we consider this water to be nonhuman?"

BW: H₂O is always H₂O, no matter where it is. There is no such thing as "human water" or "non-human water". The *location* of any particular molecule of water is *not* an essential characteristic of water, it's just a position. If we were to consider position to be an essential characteristic, then all 200 zillion molecules of water in the Earth environment, each with a different position, would have to be defined and named as unique "objects". That would be pretty silly: H₂Ox24924231y10678323z8501231731. Of course, each molecule of water is a *different* object and each of them interact with other objects (H₂O or otherwise) to create effects, but they all share identical characteristics.

[GB: Bill, my sentence was an illustration of interconnection. Obviously, water inside the body is a vital constituent, while it becomes less vital as it leaves the body. A molecule making the transition from body to epidermis does not make that transition instantaneously. Gradually, it moves from being part of what we call “Bill Westmiller,” to being part of a sweat-soaked shirt. It does make quite a bit of difference where that water is. Just ask the fellow suffering dehydration in the desert.

Your championing of systems philosophy in connection with that sentence nicely illustrates the pitfalls of microcosmic overemphasis. H₂O does not exist all alone in the universe. Each H₂O molecule exists at the behest of its environment as well as its constituents. What happens to a particular molecule of H₂O is not simply dependent on the characteristics of that particular microcosm. It depends on the univironmental interaction between that microcosm and its macrocosm. H₂O molecules within the human body are not identical to those outside it. By making the identity claim, you once again demonstrate how important the indeterministic assumption of absolutism is to systems philosophy. Per relativism, we assume that microcosms may be similar, never identical. For practical purposes, of course, we often simply assume that they are identical. A snowflake is a snowflake even though no two of them are identical. It does not make any difference when we make a snowball.

Snowball fighters probably would consider all of this to be mere philosophical nit picking. It is not. The absolutism you display is consupponible with the modern indeterminist’s belief in finity. Determinists know full well that relativism, not absolutism is the correct assumption. We just need to keep that in mind when we are forced to ignore the less significant characteristics of microcosms in order to classify them as “identical.” We do this in the same way in which we use causality. We know that there an infinite number of causes for a particular effect but, in practice, we need to discover only the most significant ones in order to make predictions. No two of these predictions are ever perfectly identical because we necessarily had to leave out an infinity of less significant causal factors. We recognize this every time we include an error bar along with our analysis.

You have touched upon another way in which we might be able to understand the uniqueness of all microcosms. I have defined microcosms as xyz portions of the universe that have location with respect to other portions of the universe. Because each of these microcosms is in motion with respect to all other microcosms, we can now avail ourselves of the only legitimate use of the matter-motion term, “spacetime.” Even if we assumed that all H₂O molecules were identical, each would have a unique spacetime position. The macrocosm of each molecule would be unique. Its univironment therefore would be unique as well, even though absolutists married to microcosmic finity still would think all the microcosms were identical.]

TSW: "Where does the human being end and the environment begin?"

BW: Humans are as much a "part" of the concept "environment" as water. We are distinguished from all those other environmental objects by essential characteristics, particularly a body. Any physical thing not directly interacting with our physical body is not a part of our body. So, H₂O in, or on, my body is one aspect of my identity as a human. A molecule of H₂O in the Indian Ocean is not an aspect of my identity ... until it evaporates, is blown H₂O around the world, inhaled or consumed, and finally absorbed by the tissues that compose my body. Then - and ONLY then - is it "connected" to my body. I am not "connected" to all the H₂O remaining in the Indian Ocean.

[GB: It is interesting to see you struggle with the placement of your hypothetical disconnection. Glad to see that you agree that “H₂O in, or on, my body is one aspect of my identity as a human.” On the other hand, it is unfortunate that you feel that you have no relationship with the Indian Ocean. I guess, for those who assume disconnection, it is “out of sight; out of mind.” Your examples hit upon an important aspect of both interconnection and causality: distance. The significance of connecting microcosms and causes often follows a distance function. Thus, the Moon has more influence on Earth than does Mars, Jupiter, Pluto, etc. That is not because there is an absolute disconnection between any of those microcosms, but because the significance of each depends partially on distance. We do not need to hypothesize some imagined discontinuity for us to understand that.]

TSW: "Long after they expire, the old cells lie loosely upon the skin as so much dead weight - they are actually part of the environment.

BW: Ignoring the fact that humans are always a part of the environment, dead skin cells are not an *essential* component of human identity, so how or when they shed isn't relevant.

[GB: Sorry, but in that particular analysis I had chosen the human body as my microcosm of interest. I considered the macrocosm (i.e., environment) to be everything outside that microcosm. I was illustrating the essential fact that the boundaries between things are not as definite as the absolutist tends to believe. Earlier in that discussion, I mentioned that some of those skin cells were in the process of dying. One minute they were alive and a microsecond later they were dead. Where to place the physical boundary? Because interconnection obtains, the boundary keeps changing every microsecond.]

 
TSW: "A thing is transformed into another thing only as it gains or loses matter or motion to other things in its environment.

BW: Correct: transitional phases aren't relevant to the issue of whether anything is "connected" to one entity or another: their constituent parts are simply moving from one position to another. The two primary objects don't need to come into contact at all.

[GB: I do not think that it is that simple. Most transformations I am familiar with go through transitional phases. It is never just the movement from one place to the other, although we sometimes use that reduction to advantage. Actually, every transformation involves the exchange of motion as well as matter. In mainstream vernacular, any chemical reaction you can name always involves a gain or loss of “energy.”]

TSW: "... interconnection and infinity demand that subquantic exchanges must occur somewhere in the subatomic hierarchy."

BW: It does occur "subquantic", though it has nothing to do with interconnection or microcosmic infinity.

In the UT, a photon is a rotating stack of Unimids moving at c, while an electron is a quasi-spheroid, usually in an orbital shell. When the photon hits the electron, and a sufficient portion of the photon energy is absorbed, the electron accelerates and separates from the electron shell. The "separation velocity" required has been accurately measured in the Photoelectric Effect, but it isn't correct to say that the electron picks up a "full quanta of motion" ... it acquires energy, which is a composite of mass and motion, from the photon.

Except for the instantaneous moment of collision, there is no "connection" between the photon and the electron. There's nothing in the process that is "infinite", it's all done in finite quantities of energy (mass in motion).

[GB: Glad to see that someone is working on aether_-1 (your “photon”) as well as aether_-2 (your “Unimid” particles). It is good that you did not put your disconnection at the photon boundary. Otherwise, you would have been out of the “subquantic” business altogether and would have to claim the photon as a finite particle. In "Universal Cycle Theory[1]," Steve and I proposed an infinite series regressing from baryonic matter that forms from aether_-1 particles that form from aether_-2 particles that form aether_-3 particles, ad infinitum. Without interconnection we would have been unable to develop that speculation. In our Neomechanical Gravitation Theory[2], we show that aether_-1 is not only the medium for light and gravitation, but also the unseen particle that forms ordinary matter via vortex motion.] 

TSW: "... the exchange of motion between those infinitely subdividable particles is not restricted to the quantum."

BW: A longer story, but the Plank "quanta" is not actually a quantity, it is a conversion factor. It's just the relationship between rotational frequency and energy content. Those two features are modified concurrently in the process of generating light particles.

[GB: Sorry, Bill, but there are no such things as “light particles.” Light is wave motion in the aether.]

TSW: "We have rejected Greek atomism in the study of matter; let us reject it in the study of motion."

BW: A purely mystical stance. You can assume whatever you'd like, but you can't expect acceptance of a postulate with no evidence whatsoever. I expect skepticism in advocating the existence of Unimids, but if they can be shown consistent with actual experiments (like the Photoelectric Effect), that will constitute evidence.

[GB: I consider Planck’s smallest quantum of motion to be the impact produced by the collision of a single aether_-1 particle. In the spirit of infinity and interconnection, still smaller impacts are expected from aether-2 particles, ad infinitum. Thus the sentence you think “mystical” is a deduction implied by those two assumptions. As a positivist and aether denier you once again claim that theoretically necessary microcosms do not exist, unless they are your own “Unimids,” of course.]

 
TSW: "For a connection to occur between two objects, we merely require there to be something else between them. This something else need not be 'solid' matter."

BW: This doesn't correlate with any definition of "connection", nor with your previous statements about the lack of empty space between all objects, to infinity ... which is a perpetual solid.

[GB: I do not think that knowledgeable people really believe that connections require solid matter. The “solid matter” of a copper wire is mostly “empty space.” Remember that your misunderstanding in the last half of your sentence is based upon a misquote. Infinite subdividability always produces what we idealize as “solid matter” and “empty space.” I know that this is hard to understand, especially for an absolutist who believes in finity. The truth is that you cannot make a universe out of finite particles. We have learned through much experience that each thing in the universe must be made of other things. In the infinite universe, there can be no stopping point, either microcosmically or macrocosmically. All matter comes from other matter, ad infinitum. Univironmental determinists consider this evidence-based assumption to be more realistic than the explosion of the universe out of nothing. The existence of unchanging finite particles from all eternity is no better.]

TSW: "... interstellar regions contain gas and dust that form at least a partial interconnection."

BW: According to your previous statements, there must be matter between every particle of gas and dust: there can be no such thing as "partial" connections if there is no such thing as "empty space".

[GB: I put that “partial” in there for the benefit of positivists, such as yourself, who assume that if they cannot detect intervening particles, then they do not exist. Maybe you ought to be more consistent and try that on your Unimid particles.]

TSW: "Even those who still support the ballistic theory of light must admit that space is not empty when light is traveling through it."

BW: I do support the Newtonian or Ritzian theory of light as an emitted material object (even if it has "wave-like" characteristics). Unimid photons cannot travel through *occupied* space: any collision would disrupt at least a portion of the Unimid photon stack.

[GB: Egads!]

TSW: "This [aether] view survived until about 1910 when the Michelson-Morley experiments and special relativity led to its widely acclaimed rejection."

BW: Einstein's Special Theory was advanced *for the sole purpose* of preserving the wave theory. He consistently believed in an invisible "Aetherial Medium" before and after it was disproved by the Mitchelson-Morley experiments. He just "waffled" by saying the concept was no longer "necessary". In order to save the aether, he had to destroy the concepts of length, motion, and time. Dualism asserts that light is *both* a particle and a wave. Totally irrational, since the two states of motion are entirely different.

[GB: Agree. Irrational indeed. Also, remember that MM87[3] did not prove there was no aether, only that the aether was not fixed.]

TSW: "... consupponibility without interconnection is a contradiction in terms."

BW: I'll treat the next section as a distinct "chapter" on logical coherence.

Next: Consupponibility

cotsw 027

---

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

[2] 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.

[3] 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.

Critique of TSW Part 12c Interconnection

Blog 20140402 

Bill tries to disconnect himself from the environment and declares hypotheses about unseen things to be mystical as he continues 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: ".

TSW: "It is ironic that at one time the hypothesizing of things for which there was no direct evidence was pretty much left to indeterminists."

BW: I don't think "hypothesizing" is the exclusive province of any ideology. However, the assertion of something for which there is NO evidence whatever is the province of mysticism, not determinism.

[GB: Obviously incorrect, as indicated in my diatribe in the previous post. I am sorry, but that is clearly not the case. For instance, I do not think that I am being mystical when I hunt in an area that has absolutely no evidence for the species I am seeking. My travels through the area are a test based on the deterministic belief that such evidence eventually will be found. We call it hunting, not shooting.

There is no evidence for solid matter either, but, as a finite particle theorist, you continue to hold that belief, just as I continue to hold the belief that matter is infinitely subdividable. So far, with all the evidence brought forth to date, it seems that your belief is closer to mysticism than mine is.]

TSW: "Today, however, it is the determinist who believes that interconnecting objects must exist, while it is the indeterminist who more often believes that they do not."

BW: I don't think that's a valid characterization. A determinist believes there is a cause for every effect, whether known or not. However, there can be no "determination" of cause in the absence of an effect. So, IF a determinist sees an event, he will try to find a "connection" to the objects which might cause it. That's different than the automatic assumption that some unknown objects are "interconnected" in the absence of ANY event whatever. That's "idealism", not determinism.

[GB: Again, just more positivism, combined with the inability to see that an assumptive choice must be made.]

TSW: "If a thing is not subject to interactions with other objects in its surroundings, then it would exist like the solipsist: all alone in a universe supposedly of its own making. Insofar as we distinguish among things, but fail to relate them to other things, we reveal a juvenile bias in favor of disconnection ..."

BW: Your mixing insults and misrepresentations. The question is NOT whether objects are "subject to interconnections", but whether ALL things are physically connected to ALL other things. That's your proposition: "All things are interconnected." It isn't "juvenile" to believe that objects are not connected UNTIL there is evidence that those specific objects have produced an event which requires a causal explanation.

[GB: The reason that it is juvenile, is that, like causality, the belief in interconnection grows over time. After having seen so many causes for effects and interconnections in specific cases, we eventually generalize, taking the lazy shortcut that continues to succeed. Instead of mouthing the indeterministic pronouncements of positivism, which have proven to be so useless, we just get on with the work.]

TSW: "It begins with the child’s egocentrism, develops along with the bourgeois notion of individualism, and retreats, finally, to the citadel of free will."

BW: So, totally abandoning the effort to demonstrate your case, in favor of insults, characterizations, and Marxist rhetoric?

[GB: Huh?]

TSW: "Solipsism, egocentrism, individualism, anthropocentrism, and systems philosophy are merely variations on a theme."

BW: But, none of them correspond to Leibniz's assertion that God "implanted" all things with fixed and totally distinct identities. You're wandering off into religious, social, and psychological commentary, rather than pursuing the premise of your stated proposition about the interconnection of all Borchardt Things.

[GB: Huh? What does Leibniz or any imaginary being have to do with those themes? BTW: I wish for you to give up on the “Borchardt Things” rhetoric. By now you should be familiar with my use of the term “microcosms” to mean any portion of the universe. The thematic variations I mentioned are all portions of the universe suffering from microcosmic overemphasis. Remember, the book is entitled “The Scientific Worldview.” I would be remiss in leaving out any portion of the universe just because some indeterminist had turf issues.]

TSW: "... the search for a universal disconnection fails with each improvement in knowledge."

BW: Now, you're flipping the burden of proof on it's head, with a strawman that doesn't exist: the claimed assertion of "universal disconnection" of all objects, rather than defending what you claim: universal connection of all objects. I don't know of any philosophy that says ALL objects are *disconnected*, much less "absolutely separate" in every way from ALL other things.

[GB: Boy, I do not see how you get that out of my observation that improvements in knowledge lend support to interconnection. How could it be otherwise? Any apparent disconnection exists for a time, and then is removed by new discoveries. Those new discoveries do not simply disappear to once again provide support for disconnection.]

TSW: "Absolutists believe otherwise."

BW: It's hard to determine what form of "absolutism" you're characterizing. Hegel was an "absolute idealist", so I guess he's repugnant. There are those who believe in "absolute space" and others in "absolute truth":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolutism

[GB: Bill, I get the feeling that you do not realize that you are using the assumption of absolutism when you claim that you are privy to some “unmitigated truths.” Also, I would not quite characterize Hegel as an idealist, absolute or otherwise. He was a dualist who considered the universe to contain two phenomena: matter and spirit. This major philosophical error appeared even though he was famous for what I deem the 4^th assumption of science. He might have left idealism altogether if he would have been able to dump the religious “spirit” in favor of the scientific “motion.”]

BW: You also seem to be stuck on the term "Systems Philosophy", which isn't what you make it out to be. It asserts that there are NO systems in nature. They believe that systems are just conceptual models created by humans for the purpose of understanding causation. Those models have an arbitrary boundary, chosen to isolate specific events. So, it would seem to me that you agree with them!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_philosophy

[GB: Do not kid yourself. I do not know of any systems philosopher who would claim that there are no systems in nature. Read the literature. It is true that their boundaries and the boundaries of my microcosms are necessarily conceptual. (They can be nothing else because of interconnection, which prevents them from being absolute, finite, and absolutely disconnected.) The key difference between systems philosophy and univironmental determinism is the microcosmic overemphasis that plagues systems philosophy. That is, after all, how we got the Big Bang Theory: A finite universe with no macrocosm. This apparently suits systems philosophy just fine. Above all, systems philosophers certainly are not bound by the demand to consider the inside and outside of a thing to be of equal importance.]

TSW: "... their own bodies demonstrate against disconnection."

BW: Humans are an *effect*, caused by the Earth environment. Like all living things, we are created by, composed of, and survive in the environment. Does that mean we are "physically connected" to the environment? Not necessarily.

[GB: Yes, of course. Are you serious about trying to exist without the environment? You would not last for a microsecond.]

BW: First of all, the environment is not a Borchardt Thing, it is a Westmiller Thing: the interaction of a multitude of material objects. Some of those objects occasionally collide, creating effects. But each of those collisions is a momentary impact, not a persistent connection. Some objects combine with others upon collision, with the effect that they become a new, distinct object, composed of their constituents (e.g.: C+O2 = CO2). Are they "connected"? No, they are *combined* and have unique attributes, distinct from their components.

[GB: Your belief in classical mechanics and its assumption of finite causality is showing through here. That is why you believe that the interaction between microcosm and macrocosm is only “occasional” with the intervening period being a disconnection consistent with your consupponible belief in absolutely empty space. With the assumption of infinity, all microcosms are forever subject to collisions from supermicrocosms at all times. It is true that when objects collide, they may combine to form new entities with unique attributes (the guts of evolution). I do not think that many chemists consider the oxygen and hydrogen in water to be an example of disconnection.]

BW: Second, because one thing is caused by an interaction with another thing does not mean they are "connected", only that they were once in contact and produced a result. For example, humans build a house. That doesn't mean that all those humans are physically "connected" to the house, only that humans are logically associated with the construction of the house ... some more and some less. The objects "humans" are always *disconnected* from the object "house".

[GB: That is a matter of opinion. Personally, I feel connected with every house, every object, and every person I have come in contact with. These relationships are what I am. Take all those memories of those former convergences away, and I am nothing. You have illustrated very well that disconnection is more important to you than any kind of interconnection.]

BW: Third, an abstract composite of things does not make them "connected". Every object in existence is a "part" of the concept "universe". Because we formulate that abstraction does not mean that our thought *makes them* connected (that's idealism). A molecule of water in the Indian Ocean is not "connected to" a molecule of water in my teardrop, even if they both correspond to our definition of water: H2O.

[GB: Again, you have illustrated nicely what indeterministic absolutism is all about. It is more important to you to emphasize disconnection rather than interconnection. You could just as well have emphasized that the H2O in the ocean and the H2O in the teardrop were similar, but you did not. Already, when we get into individualism versus collectivism, I have no doubt which side of that equation you will overemphasize.]  

Continued as 12d…

cotsw 026