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.]
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment