Borchardt Podcast on the Big Bang Theory

Blog 20150527 

I thank David De Hilster of CNPS for this excellent 49-minute podcast of an interview he did with me:

http://dissidentscience.com/portfolio/the-big-bang-is-a-bust/

Note that CNPS (Chappell Natural Philosophy Society) appears to be the new alternative to the NPA (Natural Philosophy Alliance), which has recently come under severe organizational stress. NPA was once the primary organization serving dissident science in the USA. Dissidentscience.com is the home of podcasts featuring various dissident physicists and other scientists who object to current fantasies.

  

Borchardt Video on Assumptions and Univironmental Determinism, the Mechanism of Evolution

Blog 20150520

Thanks to Andrew Scott for another clip from the Open Mind interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsNWyPcFcog

Borchardt Video on Materialism vs. Immaterialism

Blog 20150513

I thank Andrew Scott of the Open Mind Project for this excellent HD video of an interview he did with me:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGTob0neb7w

This short clip explains Einstein’s popularity, and why materialism has such a bad rep in the USA despite its necessary adoption by every scientist worthy of that designation.

New Scientist: Reigning Promoter of Regressive Physics

Blog 20150506

New Scientist, the popular science magazine, has been outdoing itself lately. It has been an ardent supporter of the Big Bang Theory at least ever since I got disgusted with Gribbin and the gang in the late ‘70’s. One of the latest outrages should shine on the soul of every immaterialist:

Does consciousness create reality?

“Samuel Johnson thought the idea was so preposterous that kicking a rock was enough to silence discussion. "I refute it thus," he cried as his foot rebounded from reality. Had he known about quantum mechanics, he might have spared himself the stubbed toe. Johnson was responding to Bishop Berkeley, a philosopher who argued that the world was a figment of our minds. Could he have been right? With its multiverses and cats both alive and dead, quantum mechanics is certainly weird. But some physicists have proposed that reality is even stranger: the universe only becomes real when we look at it. This version of the anthropic principle (see "Was the universe made for us?") – known as the participatory universe – was first put forward by John Archibald Wheeler, a heavyweight of 20th-century physics. He likened what we call reality to an elaborate papier mâché construction supported by ...”

It seems that there is more of such claptrap most every week. New Scientist should be anointed “Reigning Promoter of Regressive Physics.” Maybe we should have a full-time staffer for keeping track of the magazine’s activities. Right, “the universe only becomes real when we look at it.” Egads! In the real world, there are material causes for all effects. The quantum world is supposed to be extra special, so special that even determinists such as Jerry Coyne are not sure that a vestige of free will might be contained therein.

You can search on “quantum” in the Blog site just to see what I think about quantum mechanics. In Infinite Universe Theory, of course, quantum mechanics follows all the basic rules of the universe (TTAOS[i], anyone). Size is relative, and while we will never be able to observe smaller and smaller particles, we still assume they exist. I especially like the Blog in which Morgan Freeman follows the partly line as he observes an experiment in which particles make waves in liquid, declaring that combination to be a true “wave-particle.”

I won’t bore you with all the Deepities in the article, which you can read yourself. The next one asks the question: 

Can we understand everything? What with finity being the go-to assumption in regressive physics, this is thought of as a legitimate question. Egads again!

---

[i] Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The ten assumptions of science: Toward a new scientific worldview ( http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/assumptions.html ): Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p.