“The Ten Assumptions of Science.” No one will ever go out to the “edge of the universe” to prove whether it is infinite or finite. That is why fundamental assumptions are so important and why paradoxical claims are sure signs that the indeterministic language of regressive physics is being spoken. Be reminded, however, that the assumption of infinity, which distinguishes neomechanics from classical mechanics, will not be accepted readily by the mainstream. Those folks are not bothered by paradox, which was commonplace during their religious indoctrination and still is not considered detrimental to physical theory.
This is a blog that takes the name of my magnum opus on scientific philosophy called "The Scientific Worldview." Reviewers have called it “revolutionary,” “exhilarating,” “magnificent,” “fascinating,” and even “a breathtaking synthesis of all understanding.” There is very little math in it, no religion, no politics, no psycho-babble, and no BS. It provides the first outline of the philosophical perspective that will develop during the last half of the Industrial-Social Revolution.
20150610
Partial Proof of the Assumption of Infinity
“The Ten Assumptions of Science.” No one will ever go out to the “edge of the universe” to prove whether it is infinite or finite. That is why fundamental assumptions are so important and why paradoxical claims are sure signs that the indeterministic language of regressive physics is being spoken. Be reminded, however, that the assumption of infinity, which distinguishes neomechanics from classical mechanics, will not be accepted readily by the mainstream. Those folks are not bothered by paradox, which was commonplace during their religious indoctrination and still is not considered detrimental to physical theory.
6 comments:
Thanks so much for your comment. Be sure to hit "Preview" to see if it will publish correctly. Then hit "Publish". Include your email address if you wish to receive copies of your comment as well as all other published comments to this Blog.
For those having trouble getting this comment section to work:
Nitecruzr writes:
[FAQ] Why can't people post comments on my blog?
The Blogger / Google login status, and the ability to post comments, is sensitive to both cookie and script filters. Your readers may need to enable (stop filtering) "third party cookies", in their browser and on their computer. The effects of the newly unavoidable CAPTCHA, and the Google "One account" login, requires third party cookies, even more than before.
http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/11/the-google-one-account-login-and-cookie.html
http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/10/comments-and-cookie-filters-october-2014.html
http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/10/the-new-commenting-captcha-is.html
Third party cookies filtering, in a browser setting, is the most common solution, overall - but your readers may have to search for other filter(s) that affect their use of Blogger / Google.
Any filters are subject to update, by the creator. If the problem started a few days ago, your readers may have to look on their computers, and find out what product or accessory was updated, a few days ago.
http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/01/almost-nobody-controls-their-own.html
Sorry about all the typos in the first version. You would think that I could at least not get infinity and finity backwards, even if it was written on an airplane. Here is an interesting comment from Bill Westmiller:
ReplyDelete"I agree with your response: in essence, that a paradox is proof of a false premise.
But, there's another interesting problem: misunderstanding mathematical operators.
For example, Loschmidt infers from the equal sign that combinations described in an equation are necessarily "time reversible". Thus, if H+H+O = H2O, it must be equally probable that H2O = H+H+O. What he misses is that the equation is NOT a statement about a process (=>), but rather a state of being. If construed as a process, either assertion's combination "+" requires the application of external energy (some other mass in motion) that isn't expressed in the state equation. The amount of energy required is different for an inversion of any "process equation". Thus, an equation is NOT a statement of causation."
For the Wiki on Loschmidt, go here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loschmidt%27s_paradox
Actually, classical mechanics rectified the problem by inventing energy. Prior to that, reactions would be written like this:
NaCl => Na + Cl
and
Na + Cl => NaCl
This was recognition that all reactions involve the transformation of one kind of matter into another kind. Under appropriate conditions, many reactions were observed to be “reversible.”
Afterwards, they would be written like this:
NaCl + energy => Na + Cl – energy
and
Na + Cl - energy => NaCl + energy
This was recognition that all reactions necessarily involve interactions with the macrocosm (environment). These interactions involve supermicrocosmic collisions that decrease or increase the submicrocosmic motion within the microcosm, which in this case happens to be a sodium chloride crystal. You can test this yourself. Just put some salt crystals in water and the temperature of the water will drop. Temperature is the vibration of matter, so some of the vibrations of the water molecules are needed to cause Na and Cl atoms to escape the imprisonment that is the salt crystal. This is called an endothermic reaction. Reactions that give off energy are called exothermic.
I am encouraged that Bill is getting closer to a real understanding of energy, which neither exists nor occurs. It is simply a calculation that we use to describe the effects of matter in motion.
Good explanation. Now, is E=mc2 a state expression or a process expression?
ReplyDeleteIt's widely read as a process: "converting" mass to energy, or vice versa, depending entirely on velocity.
Bill:
ReplyDeleteAs you imply, E=mc2 is a calculation describing a process, just like the other common matter-motion calculations represented by momentum, force, etc. In this case, the E=mc2 equation can be interpreted in two different ways, with the math being the same for both:
Indeterministic
Einstein’s fanciful interpretation implies that mass can be converted into “energy.” Thus, during atomic fission, mass within the atom disappears, flying off through empty space as “energy” travelling at the speed of light.
Deterministic
The neomechanical interpretation is a bit more complicated, but does not rely on magical thinking. In the end, however, it is simpler and no different than other common material interactions. Remember that mass is the resistance of an xyz portion of the universe (a microcosm) to a change in position due to collisions from other microcosms outside itself defined as “supermicrocosms.” Now, because we assume infinity in neomechanics, we define matter as that which contains other matter ad infinitum. The matter inside a particular microcosm of concern consists of “submicrocosms.”
The E=mc2 calculation simply describes how submicrocosmic motion inside the atom is transferred across the microcosmic wall to supermicrocosms outside the atom. As mentioned above, neomechanics assumes that there are submicrocosms within and supermicrocosms without for every xyz portion of the universe. That is why neomechanics requires an aether for that calculation to work. It also explains why the transferred motion travels at c when outside the atom. The velocity of wave motion is a property of the medium, which consists of particles just as air consists of nitrogen and oxygen molecules. Sound travels through air at a roughly constant 700 mph. Motion through the aether medium travels at a roughly constant 300,000 km/s.
Note that the amount of matter within the atom remains the same before and after fission. The mass is less because the submicrocosms within are slowed, causing their momenta to decrease. Their impacts against the insides of the microcosmic wall are less forceful, providing less resistance to any supermicrocosms that might be used to measure mass.
Of course, the tendency for fission to defy observation of the above mechanism is a bit of a problem when the bomb explodes. Nonetheless, common mechanical interactions behave in the same way. As Gardner (1962) put it: "As the coffee cools, mass is lost." In that case, the internal vibratory motions of the water molecules in the coffee are transferred to the surrounding air molecules. The equation is a bit different (KE = mv2), but that still refers to the transfer of motion from inside to outside.
References
Borchardt, Glenn, 2009, The physical meaning of E=mc2, in Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, Storrs, CN, p. 27-31.
Gardner, Martin, 1962, Relativity for the million: New York, Macmillan, p. 66.
Re: Coffee. Coffee loses rest mass by evaporation as it cools as well as mass in the form of K.E.
ReplyDelete“Note that the amount of matter within the atom remains the same before and after fission.”
Yes, because you define the universe as matter. So, any microcosm is always 100% matter, as is any macrocosm. But the atom is a smaller microcosm when at a lower energy state in terms of Total Energy content. We have to measure things in physics. The dimensions of the atom change with different energy states. Its xyz position occupies less space.
George
“ Indeterministic
ReplyDeleteEinstein’s fanciful interpretation implies that mass can be converted into “energy.” Thus, during atomic fission, mass within the atom disappears, flying off through empty space as “energy” travelling at the speed of light.
Deterministic
The neomechanical interpretation is a bit more complicated, but does not rely on magical thinking. In the end, however, it is simpler and no different than other common material interactions. Remember that mass is the resistance of an xyz portion of the universe (a microcosm) to a change in position due to collisions from other microcosms outside itself defined as “supermicrocosms.” Now, because we assume infinity in neomechanics, we define matter as that which contains other matter ad infinitum. The matter inside a particular microcosm of concern consists of “submicrocosms.” “
{FIELD Determinism. A field view is consistent with the view that matter (even if considered at that there really is) changes form continuously. Physicists have no empty space. It is all matter for some, field for others. We have to have an abstract conception of what it really is. This concept changes over time. Right now I like a field interpretation that allows for waves like action as well as particle like appearances.}
George
So true. According to neomechanics, when submicrocosms lose some of their motion, their impacts against the internal wall of the microcosm have less momentum. If the impacts due to supermicrocosms on the outside of the wall remain the same, the microcosm will contract. None of this has anything to do with energy, which does not exist or occur. Energy is a calculation. All of this is much easier to understand when we view it simply in terms of matter in motion. Energy calculations are useful for comparing things, but they are not always necessary for understanding the underlying processes.
ReplyDelete