Blog
20160210 Regressive physics, reform, and progressive physics in relation to the
eventual demise of the Big Bang Theory
Regressive
Physics
Astute
readers know that the Big Bang Theory could not have arisen without the help of
regressive physics. I define “regressive physics” as the indeterministic step
backward that physics underwent at the beginning of the 20th
century. This resulted in some fanciful indeterministic interpretations leading
to all manner of paradoxes and contradictions that persisted despite numerous
falsifications. As early as 1913, Sagnac showed that light was not a particle in the classical sense, but that it was a wave in the
aether.[1] Einstein's particle had miraculous properties leading to the various contradictions. Nonetheless, believers want to believe. At PSI we
dismiss relativity outright due to its objectification of motion.[2]
Reformism
in Physics
The
regression was so powerful because its underlying indeterministic assumptions
were accepted by the populace. I doubt that there is a physics course anywhere
that does not mention relativity in anything but favorable terms. Its contradictions
remain, however, bedeviling critical thinkers across the globe. So much so that
folks have proposed hundreds of theories that would handle particular contradictions
in one way or another.[3] De
Climont’s list contains the names of over 8,000 dissident scientists opposed to
aspects of relativity and quantum mechanics since 1905. He counts over 550
alternative theories about aether. No wonder the press has trouble highlighting
any one of them.
I
classify many of these theories as “reformist,” a type of theory that rejects some
aspects of the regression but still accepts other aspects. One other
characteristic of reformism is the general lack of a set of consupponible
fundamental assumptions. I can quickly spot a reformist theory just by reading
the first few sentences. For instance, some reformists seem to think, along with
Einstein, that time (motion) can dilate and that the universe is 4-dimensional.
Some are aether deniers and others think that energy (a calculation) actually
exists. True, many reformist theoreticians have interesting analyses involving
recalculations and new interpretations. But the fact there are so many
different theories just goes to show that mixing a little determinism with a
little indeterminism is not especially productive.
Progressive
Physics
By now, readers of this Blog and of the PSI website should know what
progressive physics is all about. We follow univironmental determinism, the assumption
that what happens to a portion of the universe is determined by the infinite
matter in motion within and without. The overthrow of a major paradigm such as
the Big Bang Theory cannot be accomplished without replacing its fundamental
assumptions. All our analyses adhere strictly to "The Ten Assumptions of
Science,"[4]
which are, in most cases, the deterministic opposites of the indeterministic
assumptions that underlie Special Relativity Theory, General Relativity Theory,
and the Big Bang Theory. Following those assumptions, our analyses
leave little doubt that those theories are headed for the garbage bin of
history.
[1] Sagnac, Georges,
1913a, The demonstration of the luminiferous aether by an interferometer in
uniform rotation: Comptes Rendus, v. 157, p. 708–710.
---, 1913b, On
the proof of the reality of the luminiferous aether by the experiment with a
rotating interferometer: Comptes Rendus, v. 157, p. 1410–1413.
[2] Borchardt, Glenn,
2011, Einstein's most important philosophical error, in Proceedings of
the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 18th Conference of the NPA, 6-9 July, 2011,
College Park, MD, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, p. 64-68.
[10.13140/RG.2.1.3436.0407]
[3] de Climont, Jean,
2016, The worldwide list of dissident scientists. [ https://books.google.fr/books?id=KnzBDjnGIgYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=climont+dissident&hl=fr&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=climont%20dissident&f=true
]
[4] Borchardt, Glenn,
2004, The ten assumptions of science: Toward a new scientific worldview:
Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p.
Posts
5 comments:
“Sagnac interference” definitely falsified Special Relativity Theory.
Doug Marett (2012) provides a good explanation of how this Sagnac effect contradicts relativity. His article concludes:
“It is often argued that the predictions of Special and General Relativity have been continuously verified and that therefore the theory is unquestionable. However, other theories, such as Lorentz ether theories modified to take into account gravitational effects, can also make similar claims. There are in fact multiple mathematical routes by which a correct prediction can be arrived at, but these theories may imply very different interpretations of what our physical reality is. And this is at the heart of what is wrong with the theory of relativity – it may make successful predictions based on math, but implies a nature of time and space which are not only inconsistent with logic and reason, but are even contradictory/”
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/SagnacRel/SagnacandRel.html
GB writes:
"The overthrow of a major paradigm such as the Big Bang Theory cannot be accomplished without replacing its fundamental assumptions."
I agree with 95% of your assumptions, but I don't think it's possible to "overthrow" incorrect assumptions by reference to logical contradictions or incoherence alone. When empirical facts from valid experiments can be shown to refute "regressive" assumptions, then people will notice and reconsider.
That's my approach: take the experimental "proofs" of false theories and demonstrate why the facts conflict with the purported conclusions. For example, GPS doesn't prove relativity theory because that theory has nothing to do with the actual operation of the system.
If "assumptions are just choices and none can be proven", as you indicate, then experimental facts are irrelevant and cannot justify one choice or the other ... even if one of the choices seems intuitively absurd.
I'm not minimizing your contribution: it's important to demonstrate logical contradictions on purely philosophical grounds. I agree with (nearly) all of your arguments for why certain assumptions are consistent and coherent. But, I don't think people will accept them until they've reviewed the facts, established by scientific experiment, and concluded that reality is consistent with your assumptions.
Physicist Steven Bryant takes a different approach, which is to show that the mathematical analysis of experimental results are invalid, either because of a misrepresentation of the variables or improper use of functions. That too is important and valuable. However, if the math is wrong, but it still produces useful approximations, users are not likely to totally reject the theory itself.
It's a psychological issue too. As long as indeterminism is easy, fun, and profitable, most people will adopt it as the "best theory".
Bill, you wrote: "If "assumptions are just choices and none can be proven", as you indicate, then experimental facts are irrelevant and cannot justify one choice or the other ... even if one of the choices seems intuitively absurd."
Sorry, but that is not true. We assume that "there are material causes for all effects," but we cannot completely prove that without finding the cause for all effects, which is impossible. The reason we choose that impossible to prove assumption, is that it works.
You write that "As long as indeterminism is easy, fun, and profitable, most people will adopt it as the "best theory". Unfortunately, this is true even though it is of little use in real science.
As a hypothetical support for acknowledging "assumptions", imagine Nick Bostrom's assertion that if humans are capable of creating virtual reality that is indistinguishable from actual reality at any point in our future, then we are most certainly already living in a simulation. That alone was enough to move me from "atheist" to "agnostic". We live in a pivotal moment in human history. Is it likely that we just happened to be born right at that moment, or that it is important for some reason as part of an historical simulation that perhaps new humans undergo as a form of schooling prior to being admitted into a society with a technological prowess so advanced that it is dangerous to give access to new personalities without subjecting them to an all immersive experience of what humanity does to itself absent certain values.
Brings a whole new meaning to being "saved" - as in control-s.
He who endures until the end... ;)
Even religion can find possible interpretations in a materialist context.
Sorry joogabah, but this life definitely is not a simulation. If it were, you would have been given proper instructions on how to perform. I have heard of this idea of living in a simulation before. It makes no sense to me. I am trying to understand why anyone would want to abandon reality for some willy-nilly simulation. I suppose it results from a disappointment about what this life offers. Remember that life is beautiful and that it only lasts for a few microseconds. You need to get a grip. If you don't like your present "simulation" or whatever you call it, change your environment. Anything would be better than thinking you are living in a simulation. Remember that there are only two mistakes you can make in philosophy: fatalism and solipsism. In the first, you mistakenly believe that the macrocosm (your environment) controls you and in the second you mistakenly believe that you, a microcosm, control what happens to you. It actually is an interaction between both: univironmental determinism. Also, remember that religion assumes the opposite of materialism. Good luck with that.
Post a Comment