Sensing Matter

Blog 20160427 Sensing Matter

In a comment to Blog 20160420 henk korbee asks:

“If time is motion what is then the meaning of Time times Velocity equals distance? How can one recognize matter without motion?”

Thanks henk for another good brainteaser. I believe you refer to this equation:

d = (t)(v)  = (t)(d/t) = td/t = d (t/t) = d

Thus if we travel alongside an object for 1 hour at 1 km/hr, we will have travelled a distance of 1 km. This is one way of measuring length. Another would be to use a 1-km long tape measure. Ostensibly, we do not need to measure time to measure distance. We might imagine that the object is motionless and that motion (time) is as irrelevant as any factor divided by itself (e.g., t/t).

Of course, as with other “henkisms,” this is not so simple, as you point out with your comment that: “How can one recognize matter without motion?” Your implication is correct: We cannot. To recognize matter we need at least one of our five senses (touch, sight, hearing, smell, or taste). The use of any of these requires motion, specifically, the collision of at least one microcosm with another. Trillions of such collisions would be involved in travelling alongside the object or measuring it with a tape. Again, we need motion in order to recognize matter. That gives additional meaning and support to the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion).

The philosophical implications of henk’s question are numerous. For instance, indeterminists sporting the assumption of separability sometimes propose all manner of theories of the paranormal (e.g., ESP, etc.), which are assumed to avoid this necessity for matter to collide with matter. Scientists reject such claims outright along with those suggesting the possibility of perpetual motion. Unfortunately, regressive physicists are not ashamed to hypothesize matterless motion, as Einstein did when, in the spirit of aether denial, he claimed that magnetic and gravitational fields were “immaterial” despite the obvious motion displayed.

Of course, just because matter exists, does not mean that we can always sense it. The Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions) guarantees that, no matter how sophisticated our investigations, we will always reach a point beyond which microcosms are so small that we will not be able to sense them, even with sensitive instruments. At that juncture, we will have a choice: we can assume that they exist nonetheless, or we can assume that they do not, being replaced by the nonexistent “perfectly empty space” of the idealist.

Lastly, henk’s suggestion that matter cannot be sensed without motion means that the matterless motion of the indeterminist cannot be sensed either. The sensing process always involves collisions between microcosms per Newton’s Second Law of Motion. The idea that motion could occur divorced from matter, is the ESP of regressive physics.

    

Matter-motion Terms in Physics

Blog 20160420 Matter-motion Terms in Physics

Matter-motion terms represent essential calculations describing the motion of matter. Without the calculation of “momentum,” “force,” and “energy” much of physics would be impossible. Nonetheless, these terms containing a symbol for matter and a symbol for motion are often misused. Momentum (P=mv), force (F=ma), and energy (E=1/2 mv² or E=mc²) neither exist nor occur—they are only calculations. The misuse is due to many factors. It involves general sloppiness induced by shorthand use over time. It involves the necessary contradiction between reality and ideality, an affliction especially common to those who use mathematics. Above all, it involves the great philosophical struggle between materialism and immaterialism.

Remember that the First Assumption of Science, materialism (The external world exists after the observer does not) implies that the world consists only of matter, an abstraction for “all things” having xyz dimensions. Immaterialists, of course, do not agree. They have a tendency to hypothesize “things” that do not have xyz dimensions. In their minds, momentum, force, and energy have a kind of objective existence. That is why regressive physicists speak of the “four fundamental forces” and of “dark energy” as if those were actual things. In popular culture, General Dodonna of Star Wars hopes that the “Force” may be with us as if the “Force” could protect us by looking over our shoulder or we could carry it with us for self-defense.

All in good fun, but this gets to be serious in the usual misinterpretation of the E=mc² equation.[1] In this, “mass” supposedly turns into “energy,” which flits off into empty space. The idea behind the equation was first mentioned by Newton[2]:

 Note that Newton hereby uses “corpuscles of light” in much the same way that “energy” is used in the modern misinterpretation. The correct interpretation is rather simple: What actually happens is that internal, submicrocosmic motion of the atom transfers to supermicrocosms in the macrocosm.[3] What are those supermicrocosms? Aether particles, of course, which provide the medium for the transmission of the motion in the form of waves.

In reviewing the history of the equation, Auffray[4] frankly states: “The discovery of the mass-energy relation E=mc² cannot properly be attributed to Albert Einstein.” Although many others had suggested the relationship from classical principles, the formal discovery was made by Henri Poincaré, a famous physicist, who presented the equation as m=E/c² in 1900. This was five years before Einstein used it without attribution in his (failed) attempt to derive it by using Special Relativity Theory.

Although the interpretation is usually messed up, the E=mc² equation proves to be correct whenever atomic fusion or fission occurs. The equation has nothing whatsoever to do with relativity. Its association with Einstein is just an unfortunate product of regressive propaganda. This is especially important since Steve Bryant showed relativity to be both invalid and unnecessary.[5]

That goes for General Relativity Theory as well. If any matter-motion term is to be associated with Einstein, it is the concept of “spacetime.” Without spacetime, there would be no Big Bang Theory—the hypothesis that the universe is expanding away from us in all directions would be obviously absurd. In neomechanics, we assume that space is matter and that time is motion. This means that, like the other matter-motion terms, spacetime neither exists nor occurs. The demise of relativity will be followed by the destruction of the Big Bang Theory and its replacement by Infinite Universe Theory.

---

[1] Rothman, Tony, 2015, Was Einstein the First to Invent E = mc2?:  [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/was-einstein-the-first-to-invent-e-mc2/]. (After much pandering, Rothman concludes that the answer is: NO!)

Bodanis, David, 2000, E=mc²: A biography of the world's most famous equation: New York, Walker & Company, 337 p.

[2] Newton, Isaac, 1718, Opticks or, a treatise of the reflections, refractions, inflections and colours of light. The second edition, with additions. By Sir Isaac Newton (Second ed.): London, Printed for W. and J. Innys, printers to the Royal Society, 382 p. [http://books.google.com/books?continue=http%3A%2F%2Fbooks.google.com%2Fbooks%2Fdownload%2FOpticks_or_A_treatise_of_the_reflections.pdf%3Fid%3DTwhbAAAAQAAJ%26output%3Dpdf%26hl%3Den&id=TwhbAAAAQAAJ&q=queries#v=snippet&q=query%2021&f=false].

[3] Borchardt, Glenn, 2009, The physical meaning of  E=mc², in Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, Storrs, CN, p. 27-31 [10.13140/RG.2.1.2387.4643].

[4] Auffray, J. P., 2006, Dual origin of E=mc2:  [arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0608289].

[5] Bryant, Steven B., 2016, Disruptive: Rewriting the rules of physics: El Cerrito, CA, Infinite Circle Publishing, 312 p. [http://www.amazon.com/Disruptive-Rewriting-physics-Steven-Bryant/dp/099624090X].

Writing for the Progressive Science Institute

     

Blog 20160413 Writing for the Progressive Science Institute

Occasionally, we get inquiries from aspiring writers who wish to write for PSI. Some wish to have us review their work. So I thought it was time that I presented some guidelines for those interested in doing that.

Guest bloggers generally are members of PSI who have demonstrated their understanding of "The Ten Assumptions of Science”[1] (TTAOS), univironmental determinism, and neomechanics.[2]  Usually, they have asked astute questions and commented appropriately on this Blog site. Writing is thinking, so you must be thinking about the “big questions” addressed here. Not only that, but you must be thinking along lines that show you are firmly grounded on the fundamental assumptions that we use. Transgressing any one of them generally gets the circular file, whether in the first paragraph or the last.

For example, regressive scientists often write about what I call “matterless motion,” a concept that is a clear violation of the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion). We just saw a demonstration of that with recent claims about the LIGO experiment detecting gravitational waves that purportedly “compressed and expanded empty space.” The experiment proved, instead, that there is an aether and that gravitation is a push, not a pull.

Do not get me wrong, I love speculation as much as anyone, but I try to adhere to univironmental speculation. That is what Steve Puetz and I did aplenty in "Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe,”[3] discovering the physical cause of gravitation in the process.[4] We need more investigations like that, even if we cannot afford high-priced instruments to prove our univironmental predictions. We may as well get those predictions out there as soon as possible—the window of opportunity will close in a few decades. Regressive physics and cosmogony will not be with us forever. The end is near, particularly, with books like Steve Bryant’s “Disruptive” pointing out that relativity is riddled with critical math errors and completely unnecessary.

That is our mission: To get rid of relativity and the Big Bang Theory. I explained where PSI fits into this quest in Blog 20160210. The jist of that puts us on the progressive side of the philosophical spectrum that purports to be “scientific.” It looks like this:

Progressive     Reformist     Regressive

As progressives, we are only a tiny fraction of that spectrum. Remunerated physicists and cosmogonists in the mainstream seem to be on the regressive side—they actually do believe that Einstein is right and that the universe started with a big bang. Of the 8,000 dissidents who cannot stomach relativity or quantum mechanics,[5] most appear to be reformists. That is, they dislike some parts of those theories, but wish to retain other parts. Like agnostics in general, reformists tend to mix deterministic and indeterministic fundamental assumptions, coming up with a hodgepodge that often is not much better than the unbelievable regressive theories.

Note that in Blog 20150909 I compiled a list of neomechanical impossibilities that you might want to avoid while writing for PSI. On the other hand, we greatly encourage writers to explore what I call the neomechanical possibilities, as mentioned in Blog 20150916.

All in all, writing about the foibles of regressive physics and cosmogony is great fun. You do not have to be a physicist or cosmologist, just an expert on TTAOS. Even a rock star like Rick Dutkiewicz can poke the big bang giant with some telling arrows. Check out his Blog 20120620 chastising a book entitled “A Universe From Nothing.” The author, famous cosmogonist Lawrence Krauss, wrote of matter fluctuating in and out of existence. In response, Rick’s best line was “I think his reasoning has random fluctuations of insanity.” I hope you can do as well.

---

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

[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 2007, The scientific worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 411 p.

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

[4] Borchardt, Glenn, and Puetz, Stephen J., 2012, Neomechanical gravitation theory, in Volk, G., ed., Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 19th Conference of the NPA, 25-28 July: Albuquerque, NM, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, p. 53-58. [10.13140/RG.2.1.3991.0483]

[5] de Climont, Jean, 2016, The worldwide list of dissident scientists.

Review of “Disruptive”—The demise of relativity

Blog 20160406 Review of “Disruptive”—The demise of relativity

This is a review of a book written by my good friend and colleague Steve Bryant:

Bryant, Steven B., 2016, Disruptive: Rewriting the rules of physics: El Cerrito, CA, Infinite Circle Publishing, 312 p. [ http://www.amazon.com/Disruptive-Rewriting-physics-Steven-Bryant/dp/099624090X ]

Steve Bryant’s remarkable book puts the kibosh on relativity where it really matters: mathematics. My own objections to both Special and General Relativity (SRT and GRT) are well known, being centered on Einstein’s flagrant violations of “The Ten Assumptions of Science,” particularly his objectification of motion.[1]  As a superb mathematician, Steve adheres to the rules of mathematics and computer science to clearly demonstrate where Einstein made critical errors that invalidate relativity. Among the errors are the following:

1)   Einstein’s failure to correctly derive the relativistic hypercone, which was a critical first step in his work.[2]

2)   Einstein’s improper usage of types. In computer science, which is Steve’s specialty, a primary rule is that one cannot mix types. For instance, there are two main types: discrete and compound. Discrete types are formulas that do not have divisors, while compound types always do. Thus length and time are discrete and frequency (cycles/second) and wavelength (meters/cycle) are compound. That means, for instance, that length and wavelength cannot be used interchangeably as Einstein did.

3)   Einstein used two-system mathematics for what actually calls for three-system mathematics. Here is where Steve introduces what he calls “Modern Mechanics Theory (MMT),” his replacement for relativity, classical mechanics, and quantum mechanics. This involves an outer reference system, which remains fixed, an inner system that moves in one direction, and an oscillatory system that moves back and forth.

The beauty of MMT is that it removes all the paradoxes and contradictions that afflict SRT and GRT. Thus, for example, there is no need for “time dilation,” “length contraction,” “4-dimensions,” “wave-particle duality,” “massless photons,” “perfectly empty space,” and a “universal speed limit.”  Nonetheless, Steve recognizes that SRT, despite all its subtle mathematical errors, still has produced some valuable first approximations in the description of electromagnetic motion.

Michelson-Morley^[3]

His analysis of the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887 is superb. He points out that the results said to disprove the presence of aether actually did no such thing. First of all, their own calculations of the raw data show that there was a less than 0.1% chance that the experiment supported a null result. They were looking for an interference pattern that could have been used to calculate the velocity of Earth around the Sun (30 km/s). Instead, they got only 8 km/s, which Einstein and others mistakenly considered to be a null result. Second of all, the equations they developed to analyze the raw data were for discrete types (e.g., time and distance), when they only were capable of measuring compound types (e.g., frequency and wavelength).

After developing the proper equations for compound types, Steve used MMT and their raw data to calculate a velocity of 32 km/s. With a calculated error of about 3 km/s, this is very close to the expected result for Earth’s velocity within a partially dragged aether.

Ives-Stilwell[4]

The Ives-Stillwell experiment of 1938 is among those generally considered as proof that SRT is correct and that time dilation is a fact. Despite the famous Sagnac experiment supporting the existence of aether,[5] regressive physicists continue to blame the results of similar experiments on time dilation.[6] Of course, readers of this Blog know that “Time is Motion” and that motion cannot dilate—only things can dilate.

Steve is ever magnanimous in his claim that, even though relativity set back theoretical physics for over a century, it provides a useful first approximation for certain experiments unexplained by classical mechanics. This is true, despite all the silliness that goes along with it. His analysis of the famous Ives-Stilwell experiment tends to prove it. Table 7-4 on p. 253 of “Disruptive” shows that the mean wavelength for their observed Doppler shift was 15.69, while the value predicted by the relativistic Doppler equation was 15.72. MMT predicts a value of 15.69. The 0.03 difference had been considered measurement error, but the accuracy of the MMT values for all eight of the observations used in the experiment shows this not to be the case. The relativistic equation simply is not good enough.

Wave-particle Duality

Steve uses Thomas Young’s double slit experiment to reiterate that light is motion—a wave in the aether. He emphasizes and illustrates that multiple wave fronts tend to reinforce each other, producing the interference pattern commonly observed. When actual particles are used in the experiment, similar patterns have been observed. He uses a resuscitated “Pilot Wave Theory” to explain how “bow waves” precede particles, causing waves in the aether similar to those produced by the motion we call light. This all makes more sense than the indeterministic mysteries presented by quantum mechanics fostered by the aether denial common to regressive physics.

All in all, “Disruptive” is a must-read for all progressive physicists and cosmologists. The implications of this book are far reaching. The elimination of relativity also means the elimination of the Big Bang Theory. I find the hype on the back cover to be inadequate. After reading the final copy, I believe more than ever that Steve Bryant is “Nobel-bound.”

---

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

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

---, 2009, The physical meaning of  E=mc², in Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, Storrs, CN, p. 27-31. [10.13140/RG.2.1.2387.4643]

---, 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]

[2] Bryant, Steven, and Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Failure of the relativistic hypercone derivation, in Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 18th Conference of the NPA, 6-9 July, College Park, MD, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, p. 99-101. [10.13140/RG.2.1.1404.8406]

[3] Michelson, A.A., and Morley, E.W., 1887, On the relative motion of the earth and the luminiferous ether: American Journal of Science, v. 39, p. 333-345.

[4] Ives, Herbert E., and Stilwell, G. R., 1938, An Experimental Study of the Rate of a Moving Atomic Clock: Journal of the Optical Society of America, v. 28, no. 7, p. 215-226. [10.1364/JOSA.28.000215]

[5] 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.

[6] Botermann, Benjamin, Bing, Dennis, Geppert, Christopher, Gwinner, Gerald, Hänsch, Theodor W., Huber, Gerhard, Karpuk, Sergei, Krieger, Andreas, Kühl, Thomas, Nörtershäuser, Wilfried, Novotny, Christian, Reinhardt, Sascha, Sánchez, Rodolfo, Schwalm, Dirk, Stöhlker, Thomas, Wolf, Andreas, and Saathoff, Guido, 2014, Test of Time Dilation Using Stored Ions as Clocks at Relativistic Speed: Physical Review Letters, v. 113, no. 12, p. 120405.