Critique of TSW Part 18a The Infinite Universe

Blog 20140820

Being a believer in microcosmic finity, Bill has problems with Infinite Universe Theory even though he opposes the finite universe of Big Bang Theory.

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: ".

The Infinite Universe (Part 1 of 2)

BW: This is a long and complex chapter, with many citations and issues. I'll try to pick out the most relevant, but in two parts: general gravity theory, then your aether theory.

Since I agree that the BBT is nonsense and that the universe is infinite, my primary quibble is with your aether theory, which is vague and contradictory.

TSW:  "[SLT] assumes that the universe, like other finite, ideally isolated systems, must become more rundown and disordered over time."

BW: Earlier, you endorsed a natural pursuit of equilibrium, which is all that SLT professes. In the absence of "attractive forces", objects in motion tend to disburse into stable energy states: equilibrium. This seems fairly evident from Newton's Second: whenever matter in motion collides, it separates; absent some boundary condition, it will necessarily expand to a minimum "degree of freedom" state: entropy. There doesn't *have* to be a boundary, much less an "ideally isolated" condition. In the absence of a boundary (infinity), matter never reaches equilibrium, so entropy rules.

[GB: Sorry Bill, but one of the requirements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (SLT) is that it applies only to isolated systems. This is the same type of idealization Newton uses in his laws of motion. In fact, in neomechanics the SLT is simply a reiteration of Newton’s First Law of Motion. The submicrocosms within a microcosm are in continual motion just like the “object” or “body” in the First Law of  Motion. They eventually leave the microcosm under inertial motion, with the microcosm becoming more disordered as entropy increases. You are right that there does not have to be a finite boundary of the type you usually seem to desire. Likewise, the ideal isolation required by the SLT really never obtains, just as the body imagined in the First Law never really exists by itself. Both idealizations actually require a macrocosm for them to work. If the microcosm in the SLT were truly isolated, with a fixed, impenetrable boundary, none of the submicrocosms could leave and the microcosm could not “rundown” as the SLT predicts; if the body in the First Law were confined, it also would not demonstrate the inertia that is its essence.]

TSW:  "Lemaitre’s imagery ... galactic redshift was cherished as proof that the whole universe had exploded out of a cosmic egg, thereby producing order out of chaos."

BW: Lemaître simply made a false assumption: that cosmic entropy could logically be reversed to infinity: all matter in motion could be reduced to a singular object lacking motion: "disentropy". This is the same logical error Aquinas made about all causes being reduced to a singular cause: it simply isn't true that causes diminish in recession to a singular Cause (God). Obviously, that's where Lemaître got his idea.

TSW:  "The individual submicrocosms within a particular microcosm diverge from each other, their movements succeeding best in those directions in which the macrocosm temporarily offers the least restraint."

BW: Correct: entropy, or the natural pursuit of equilibrium.

[GB: Partly correct, except that there is no such activity as the “pursuit” of equilibrium. Water running downhill is not in any kind of “pursuit,” although it reaches what we call equilibrium at the bottom. The motion of the microcosm slows when it is confronted by the restraint of the macrocosm.]

TSW:  "In an infinite universe, a divergence from one point is a convergence on another."

BW: No and yes. It is true that collisions cause divergence and that matter in motion moves from one place to another. That happens perpetually, in the absence of boundary conditions. The BBT says that are is no boundary, so the expansion continues to infinity: "heat death". So, the BBT endorses an infinite universe, but one in which matter hasn't yet moved to fill it all: it can't ever reach equilibrium.

The distinction is NOT that your universe is infinite and BBT is finite, but that your universe *does have* a compound boundary condition, since it is all "occupied" by other matter. If that's the case, then your universe is *always* - and always has been - in a state of equilibrium: it is always in a stable state, with the minimum amount of free (non-interactive) motion.

That's problematic, because entropy *should have ended* in your perpetual universe: every object should have achieved (had always had) a stable state. What you have to argue is that there are *natural* local boundary conditions that result in the discrete universe we observe, rather than everything degrading to a universal, energetic fog of "chaotic" objects. In other words, the universe may be in a state of equilibrium, but individual objects and composites of matter are not. Then, you have to explain why discrete objects exist. Simple divergence or convergence, without boundary conditions, doesn't make them discrete. Consequentially, your "microcosms" have to have *objective existence* in reality; they aren't just figments of your imagination.

In my Unimid Theory, our "cosmos" is one portion (within our light cone) of a unique "luniverse" (local universe), with a definitive center point, evolving entropically, but with real and natural boundaries to particular configurations of matter. There are "luniverses" adjacent to ours, emitting energetic particles (CBR) and also "pulling" our luniverse apart from eight sides gravitationally. There are an infinite number of luniverses, configured like soap bubbles, with octagonal "boundaries" between them all, each in it's own state of entropy. There is universal equilibrium among all those luniverses, but each is always in a state of disequilibrium, due to natural boundary conditions. I'm reluctant to call it a "multiverse" theory, which implies superposition of invisible dimensions.

[GB: Huh? I am glad that I don’t have to explain your theory to anyone. Good luck with that. You also have a strange idea of what equilibrium is. Remember that relativism means that no two portions of the universe are identical. So what we call equilibrium at any one place is only temporary. The static view you hold is more in tune with atomism. Remember also that inseparability says that all matter is always in motion. The stasis that you seek can never occur.

Also, I suggest that you dump the “luniverse” stuff as that is no better than the equally oxymoronic terms “island universes” “multi” and “parallel” universes. Universe is always singular.]

TSW:  "But as Newton himself warned, the idea of action-at-a-distance implied by gravitational attraction is 'so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it.'"

BW: A misrepresentation, since Newton was referring to gravity requiring a *media* - some form of matter in motion - as the mechanical necessity of gravitational action. He refused to select either "pulling" or "pushing" action, but simply asserted a force that *had to have* some material means of causing the effect. In other words, it couldn't be "supernatural"; nor did he want to assert that gravity was "essential and inherent" in matter itself. If he had a better notion of light speed, he might have also said that gravity wasn't "superluminal" either. Hard to say.

[GB: I don’t get it. That is what he said, and your paragraph says the same thing. Newton’s push theory requires a medium just like our Neomechanical Gravitation Theory ( http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6529.pdf ). The attraction theory was approved by indeterminists, who found it more suited to their world view.]

TSW:  "... if [gravity] equations actually applied to a finite universe ... 'all matter would fall down'"

BW: A misrepresentation, since Newton's observation applied to either finite or infinite universes. What he was saying was that *in the absence of any other forces than gravitation*, everything would accumulate at some "middle" point. He certainly didn't deny "other forces" of entropy, nor boundary conditions that counteracted gravity.

[GB: Huh? Look at the equations again. Neither entropy nor boundaries contradict gravitation. Reread NGT at least.]

TSW:  "In the Principle of Equivalence, [Einstein] had taken a giant step toward destroying the concept of attraction, correctly observing that gravitation and inertia were identical phenomena."

BW: Except that isn't what he said, what he did say was false, and Einstein didn't destroy attraction. His statement is rather muddled. First, he asserts that mass is mass (whether in an inertial or gravitational formula). That's correct. However, he then claimed that gravitational force was "equivalent to" any acceleration of mass by collision.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle#Einstein.27s_statement_of_the_equivalence_principle

That is true in the general sense that gravity induces an acceleration, but it isn't true that they are the same process. Gravity is clearly radial, rather than linear, so it is clearly dependent on proximity, while most other forms of acceleration require direct contact (electrical charge is another radial form).

Therefore, given a very wide spaceship, an astronaut could (theoretically) identify the angular force of gravity at different positions in the ship. However, the force of his engines would always be linear.  The two forces are similar, but not the same.

Consequentially, Einstein incorrectly considered gravity as a linear force *inherent in the mass* of an object ... which is exactly what Newton refused to condone. With that error, Einstein had to find some means of accounting for the radial effect. Since gravity was an inherent quality of mass, he had to fabricate a "curved space" through which the gravity acted. It was the curvature of space itself that induced an attraction, rather than a repulsive, interaction of two objects. So, the General Theory is just compounded errors and excuses.

I won't try to explain my Unimid Theory of gravity here, but it is a particular kind of collision between massive particles, resulting in an attractive force. No aether required or implied; no curvature of nothingness.

[GB: Looks like you need to read “Universal Cycle Theory” in which Steve and I explain how vortices are necessary for the formation of matter from aether and its accumulation in solar systems, galaxies, etc. Each cosmic microcosm rotates and is surrounded by rotating matter, with increasingly dense rotating aether at the outer limits. The entrained aether thus forms a kind of “curved space.” We have no “attractive force,” since that makes no sense. The laws of motion only involve pushes.]

Next: The Infinite Universe Part 2 of 2 

cotsw 038