Like Bill Westmiller,
who will not give up his belief in free will and “Westmiller things,” Captain
Bligh will not give up his belief in matterless motion. So, I have decided to
answer some of the Captain’s most recent comments in this week’s Blog. Both
Bill and Bligh claim to accept the "The Ten Assumptions of Science."
Nonetheless, they have stubbornly held onto contradictory beliefs despite much
discussion and much explanation on my part. I should be discouraged, but
instead, I have become more enlightened. All this shows the extreme importance
of assumptions and how tightly they are held by supporters of the status quo. Folks who have tread certain
paths for decades are unlikely to abandon them overnight. Convincing either of
them of the error of their ways has about as great a chance as convincing the
pope to become an atheist.
Nevertheless, people do
change their minds. That is what education is all about and why it is most
successful among the young. Philosophy changes only when contradictions are
obvious, the choice is clear, and participants have less to lose by following
new directions. Even then, what is clear to you and I may not be clear to
someone else—that all depends on one’s experience. In the exchange below, I was
shocked to read that Bligh thought that motion without matter was “compellingly
logical.” That logic is akin to the one that sees walking on water, virgin
birth, and living after dying as “logical.”
Perhaps, one day Bligh
will give up matterless motion. In the meantime, I suspect that his journey
will be of interest to others going through the same transition:
“Fundamentally, time is
motion. [GB: Agree. There are only two fundamental phenomena in the universe:
matter and the motion of matter.]
The ancient Greeks
called it change. I like energy best, but that is vague also. [GB: Energy is
neither change nor motion. See below.]
The physical universe
"changes" at an infinitesimal rate. [GB: No. Changes can be slow or
rapid.]
The "state" of
physical matter changes in an analogue fashion. [GB: False. That would be a
violation of the Tenth Assumption of Science, interconnection (All
things are interconnected, that is, between any two objects exist other objects
that transmit matter and motion). What we think of as analog processes really
are digital.]
Best thought of as a
wave like form. [GB: No. Changes occur via collisions between microcosms as
described by Newton’s Second Law of Motion (F=ma). Waves occur in media, which
consists of particles.]
The infinitesimal state
changes are what we recognize as time evolution. [GB: Sorry, but “time
evolution” is redundant. Both time and evolution are terms for motion.]
Is that more clear?” [GB: Nope.]
“Glenn, as I said in my other post, it can be argued that matter is
dependent on motion, but not the other way around. I think that is a compelling
logic.”
[GB: Sorry, but that is not logical. It is a blatant violation of the
Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability
(Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without
motion). I can imagine being hit by a truck, but I cannot imagine being hit by
the motion of that truck without the truck.]
“Is motion "real"? [GB: Yes. Motion really occurs. However, for
millennia, indeterminists have had problems understanding the reality of
motion. Some think of matter as real and motion as unreal or immaterial. Those
who assume separability, such as Bill
and yourself, think of motion as having an independent “existence,” considering
it to be an object rather than what objects do. That’s how we get ghosts and
spirits as well as the whole idea of “spirituality.”]
If there were no "change" would we exist? [GB: No, per the Fourth
Assumption of Science, inseparability
(Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without
motion).]
If energy is motion, it has to be considered a fundamental property of the
universe. [GB: No. Energy is not motion. It is a calculation. That is why we
state the First Law of Thermodynamics as the Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion
of matter can be neither created nor destroyed). Regressive physicists
substituted “energy” for “matter and the motion of matter” in reaction to
materialism. Of course, energy calculations follow the First Law just fine. It
gives trouble only when motion is transferred to unrecognized microcosms. For
instance, without aether, regressive physicists are forced to imply that, during
fission, the internal motion of an atom is converted into “energy,” misconstrued
as a matterless object traveling through perfectly empty space.]
Taken as a whole, the universe is both matter and motion, not just matter in
motion. [GB: False. As assumed above, there can be no motion without matter.]
It turns out that motion (energy) oscillation is fundamental according to
quantum theory as I understand it. [GB: That helps explain why you think that
matterless motion is logical. Quantum mechanics (QM), which eschews infinity, is really not
all that mechanical. In neomechanics, we consider oscillation to be a property
of wave motion in media consisting of particles. Wave motion is group behavior,
not the property of any single particle as it supposedly is in QM. I predict
that the wonderful results of QM will survive once aether denial and the
assumption of finity disappear from
physics.]
Taking "matter" to be fundamental is begging the question isn't it?
Explain matter! [GB: Per infinity, we “define” matter as that
which contains other matter. Material things always have xyz dimensions and
location with respect to other things. With infinity, “begging
the question” is the name of the game. Just as we cannot see an end to the
universe, we cannot see an end to the particle subdivision. The question
begging goes on—get used to it.]
Ok, it is that produced by oscillation energy. It is a state, actually, two
states, matter and anti-matter.” [GB: Sorry, but nothing is produced by
“oscillation energy,” which, again, is a calculation. “Oscillation energy,”
like “dark energy” and all types of “energy,” do not exist or occur. Also, be
reminded that “anti-matter” is an oxymoron. Matter has xyz dimensions and
whatever is mistakenly called “anti-matter” would have xyz dimensions and be
matter too.]
“Glenn, I see where you recognize mass as energy, motion, or perhaps oscillation.”
[GB: Bligh, wherever did you get that idea? Please let me know where I
wrote that and I will beg forgiveness and provide a correction immediately.
Mass is the resistance of a microcosm to acceleration. Energy does not exist,
so therefore it is not mass. It is a calculation. Mass is not motion. Mass is
not oscillation.
Let me guess. Perhaps you did not understand my explanation of the E=mc2
equation. In short, that equation describes the transfer of submicrocosmic
motion inside the atom to supermicrocosms in the environment (see p. 141 in "The
Scientific Worldview" on the emission of motion). When submicrocosms slow
down, they have less momentum and are thus less able to provide inertia to the
microcosm as a whole.]
“Please explain what motion is if not "energy". No free
lunches. Explain motion without some sort of concept that energy sits in for.”
[GB: Again, the universe consists of matter in motion. We measure motion
by calculating the velocity of a microcosm, which we get
by measuring the distance travelled over time: v = d/t. Energy is: KE=½mv2
or E=mc2. These energy equations already contain terms for motion.
The “m” is the term for matter. Like momentum, P=mv, and force, F=ma, energy is
a matter-motion term. These are calculations that describe matter in motion and
the motion of matter, but in a strict sense, they are neither. In neomechanics,
we observe that matter always has xyz dimensions (which energy does not) and
that it always has motion (which energy does not).
Matter-motion terms are extremely useful in physics, but they must be
used with caution. They are calculations, not things. No one can give us a bit
of momentum, force, or energy. None of these exist or occur. All that exists is
the xyz matter and all that occurs is the motion of that xyz matter. Modern
physics has fallen into a trap amenable to the indeterministic philosophical
point of view by fetishizing or objectifying matter-motion terms. Thus,
regressive physicists often talk of the “four fundamental forces” as if they
actually existed. At most, they simply are calculations involving four
different kinds of matter in motion.
Bligh, I hope all this detail helps. Maybe you can break the record (3
months) for finally grasping these concepts and realizing that energy does not
exist. BTW: There will be a quiz!]
For the latest on no-nonsense physics and cosmology, see: