The Scientific Worldview

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.

20150930

Gravitational redshift misunderstood again

Blog 20150930 Gravitational redshift misunderstood again

Bill Westmiller writes:

Since I agree with 95+% of what you write, I won't dispute 78 of your 84 "possibilities", but thought I'd challenge a few of them:

"7. Discovery of the gravitational redshift proved that light velocity increases with distance from Earth."

Gravitational redshift is a component of Einstein's "time dilation", which you oppose, but it has nothing to do with "distance from Earth", only the emission of light from a higher gravitational field than the observer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift

[GB: Bill, reread our paper on the neomechanical explanation of the so-called and misnamed “gravitational redshift”:

Borchardt, Glenn, and Puetz, Stephen J., 2012, Neomechanical gravitation theory, in Volk, G., Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 19th Conference of the NPA, 25-28 July http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6529.pdf : Albuquerque, NM, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, v. 9, p. 53-58.

Pound and Rebka (1960) assumed that c (velocity of light) was constant, which it is not—it depends on the density of aether medium. In particular, aether pressure and density increases with distance from baryonic matter. They therefore assumed that it was light frequency that changed and not wave length. The velocity of light in water is 225,000 km/s and 300,000 km/s in air without any change in frequency (color). The wave length changes proportionally. Light is motion and cannot dilate, but Einstein and Pound assumed that it could. Aether pressure and light velocity increases with distance from all massive bodies and has been noted for all masses in the universe.]

The redshift of distant stellar light (relative to Earth observers) is a standard Newtonian application of the Doppler shift, indicating that the remote source is moving away faster than a proximate source.

[GB: All Doppler shifts occur in a medium. The cosmic redshift of which you write is simply a result of “tired light.” Read my Blog on the indeterminist’s “untiring light theory.”]

"30. Light does not have mass; it is motion."

Contradicts your Inseparability Axiom, asserting there is no motion without matter. If (#31) light is the motion of particles, then the particles have mass, as does light.

[GB: Duh? I have explained this a dozen times before. The analogy is sound. Sound is wave motion in the atmosphere, just as light is wave motion in aether. The aether medium, like the atmosphere, consists of particles in motion. Aether particles, like the nitrogen molecules in the atmosphere have mass, but neither light nor sound have mass. Bill, it is time that you finally get this. It isn’t that hard.]

"54. The Higgs boson does not give mass to matter."

It IS strange that "modern physicists" make this assertion, since the Higgs claim is that mass is not acquired from an object, but from a "field" that permeates space ... a slight variation of the "aether medium".

[GB: You are correct that this is one way for regressive physicists to get out of the aether denial box. Even Einstein was way ahead of them (Einstein, Albert, 1920, Sidelights on relativity: 1. Ether and relativity. 2. Geometry and experience: London, Methuen, 56 p. In which he stated: “Careful reflection teaches us that special relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume its existence but not ascribe a definite state of motion to it ..." "There is a weighty reason in favour of ether. To deny ether is to ultimately assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever.”]

"66. The unobserved quantum particle exists."

Planck never claimed that there was any quantum "particle" and didn’t even invent the word. His research merely showed a direct relationship between light frequency and it's energy (mass in motion).

[GB: Yes, and that “mass in motion” really was aether. Being smaller than any baryonic matter, aethereal collisions are the “smallest unit of motion.” According to the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions), there must be microcosms smaller than any baryonic matter—in neomechanics we call them aether or aether_-1 particles.]

"72. There is no free will."

Depends on how you define "free" and "will".
That's all. I'm working on an article explaining why GPS has nothing to do with relativity (#80). Let me know if you're interested.

[GB: In neomechanics, we deny free will based on our assumption that there are “material causes for all effects.” I agree that relativity is worthless and has nothing to do with GPS, as shown by Ron Hatch and others: Hatch, Ronald R., 1995, Relativity and GPS - I ( http://ivanik3.narod.ru/GPS/Hatch/relGPS.pdf ).

Hatch, Ronald R., 1995, RELATIVITY AND GPS: Section I: Special Relativity, 3rd Natural Philosophy Alliance Conference: Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, p. 26.

Springer, Barry, 2012, Does the GPS system rely upon Einstein's relativity ( http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6813.pdf ).]

Pound, R.V., and Rebka, G.A., 1960, Apparent Weight of Photons: Physical Review Letters, v. 4, no. 7, p. 337-341.

20150923

Reviewers for New Book Wanted

Blog 20150923 Reviewers for New Book Wanted

I am currently wrapping up progress on a new book, “Infinite Universe Theory,” addressed to a general audience that might be willing to leave the regressive aspects of today’s physics and cosmology behind. To that end, I would like to get prepublication reviews from as many sceptical folks as possible. For a chance at your free copy of the review manuscript, just send me an email at gborchardt@gmail.com. There is a limit, of course, on how many reviews I can handle, so I cannot guarantee that you will be chosen as a reviewer. I would like to have comments from all walks of life. If your critique is useful, you will receive an acknowledgement in the frontispiece and/or a free copy of the final product.

There have been hundreds of books and papers critical of the Big Bang Theory and relativity, but this one will be different. First, it is written with the realization that the strange ideas promulgated in modern physics and cosmology are founded, not on mathematics, but on philosophy. Second, Infinite Universe Theory presents only a few of the major contradictions that plague the Big Bang Theory, being mostly concerned instead with the nature of its replacement.

The paradigm shift being asked for will be the most dramatic that humanity will ever experience. It requires an equally dramatic change in fundamental assumptions and their application. I have been writing about the necessity for this shift for over 30 years.[1] Much of this is quite technical, and it looks like I need to do a better job of explaining it to a wider audience. That is where you come in. Anyone with a college education or the curiosity to know more about the universe and the scientific worldview necessary for understanding it should be able to critique my presentation. To that effect you may be eligible if you agree with many of the “Neomechanical Possibilities” in Blog 20150916. The objective of the Infinite Universe Theory is to get you to accept even the most startling possibilities, or at least understand the logic behind them. If you are specially hesitant, just search this Blog or the Progressive Science Institute website for more details. In any case, consider reviewing the book and getting your free copy. Just email me at: gborchardt@gmail.com with “IUT” in the subject line. After reading the book you will appreciate why the answers in that Blog are what they are. If not, I would love to hear what I need to do to clarify the issues involved.

[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 1984, The scientific worldview: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 343 p.

---, 2004, The ten assumptions of science: Toward a new scientific worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p.

---, 2007, The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 411 p. [ http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/The%20Scientific%20Worldview.html ]

Puetz, Stephen J., and Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Universal cycle theory: Neomechanics of the hierarchically infinite universe: Denver, Outskirts Press, 626 p.

20150916

Neomechanical Possibilities

Blog 20150916 Neomechanical Possibilities

Revised 2015-09-28

With strict application of the Ten Assumptions of Science[1] in neomechanics, we discover that there are numerous possibilities otherwise denied by various indeterminists. We have mentioned many of these throughout our books and within the first 332 Blog entries. There you will find detailed arguments in favor of these possibilities. I put them here in short form as a convenient reference list. I expect to add to this frequently, since determinists (scientists) continually produce new data that requires interpretation.

1. You are unique. Another person exactly like you does not and will not exist anywhere in the universe.

2. Action at a distance is impossible.

3. All electrons are unique.

4. All things have xyz dimensions and location with respect to other things.

5. Clocks flown in jets around Earth proved nothing with regard to relativity.

6. Dark energy does not exist.

7. Discovery of the gravitational redshift proved that light velocity increases with distance from Earth.

8. Eddington proved that the Sun’s atmosphere could produce refraction.

9. Energy does not exist; it is a calculation.

10. Energy does not have mass; it is a calculation.

11. Energy does not occur; it is a calculation.

12. Evolution is irreversible.

13. Extrasensory perception is impossible.

14. Evolution cannot stop.

15. Fields contain matter.

16. Force does not exist; it is a calculation.

17. Force does not occur; it is a calculation.

18. There was no first cause.

19. Gravitation is a push.

20. Gravitation is not an attractive force.

21. Gravitation is caused by aethereal pressure, which increases with distance from ordinary matter.

22. Humanity is becoming increasingly civilized.

23. Humanity will not commit suicide.

24. Ideal objects do not exist.

25. If the universe were infinite, only univironmentally possible things would exist.

26. Individual photons do not exist.

27. It is not possible to travel back in time.

28. It is not possible to make perfect predictions.

29. No two snowflakes are identical.

30. Light does not have mass; it is motion.

31. Light is not a particle; it is the motion of particles.

32. Light is not a wave-particle; it is the motion of particles.

33. Matter and mass are not identical.

34. Matter cannot be turned into energy.

35. Matter is infinitely subdividable; a finite, solid particle cannot exist.

36. Measurement errors never can be eliminated entirely by improvements in technique.

37. Motion does not have mass.

38. Motionless matter is not possible.

39. Matterless motion is not possible.

40. Momentum does not exist; it is a calculation.

41. Momentum does not occur; it is a calculation.

42. Nonexistence is impossible.

43. Perfect precision is impossible.

44. Perfectly empty space does not exist.

45. Perfectly solid matter does not exist.

46. Photons do not exist.

47. All events have causes.

48. Spacetime does not exist; it is an idea.

49. Spacetime does not occur; it is an idea.

50. The Big Bang Theory will be replaced by Infinite Universe Theory.

51. The brain is a thing but the mind is the motion within the brain.

52. The cosmic redshift is due to tired light.

53. The cosmic redshift is not due to the expansion of space.

54. The Higgs boson does not give mass to matter.

55. The Tired Light Theory is correct.

56. The universe did not begin; much less with a “quantum fluctuation.”

57. The universe consists of space; time is not a thing.

58. The universe did not explode out of nothing.

59. The universe did not have a beginning.

60. The universe has three dimensions.

61. The universe is eternal.

62. The infinite universe cannot expand.

63. The universe is infinite.

64. The universe will not end in “heat death.”

65. The universe will not have an ending.

66. The unobserved quantum particle exists.

67. The velocity of light is not constant.

68. There are a infinite number of causes for every event.

69. There are only three dimensions.

70. There are no multiverses.

71. There are no parallel universes.

72. There is no free will.

73. There is an aether.

74. There is evidence for aether.

75. Time cannot dilate; time is motion, it is not a thing.

76. Time is not a mysterious object; time is motion, it is not an object.

77. Wave-particles cannot produce the Doppler Effect, which is produced by waves in media filled with particles.

78. We do not need free will to make decisions.

79. Without the illusion of free will, society will be much improved.

80. Without relativity, the Global Positioning System (GPS) does just fine with classical mechanics.

81. Wormholes are imaginings of especially gullible regressive physicists.

82. You exist; the event of your birth does not.

83. You will be able to think of more possibilities:

84.

[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The ten assumptions of science: Toward a new scientific worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p.

---, 2007, The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 411 p. [ http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/The%20Scientific%20Worldview.html ]