PSI Blog 20170315 Distinguishing Matter from Motion
Captain Bligh
writes:
“How do you
explain light from the Sun if photons do not exist? They are a dynamic action
in the aether, as is matter. Matter moves does it not? Matter is also a
dynamic. It changes constantly since it is a wave motion.”
[GB: Sagnac long
ago showed that light was a wave and not a particle. Light from the Sun occurs
as waves in the aether in the same way that sound occurs as waves in the atmosphere.
Surely, you don’t think we need “soundons” to explain sound? You seem to have trouble understanding the
difference between matter and the motion of matter. Try repeating the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without
matter, so there is no matter without motion) several times. Better yet, reread
the entire chapter on it, as the book is now in pdf and free to all:
This from p. 60 is
particularly apropos to your problem:
“INSEPARABILITY
AND CLEAR THINKING
Let me restate. The dialectical nature of the
world stems from its character as matter in motion. Its unity consists in the
INSEPARABILITY of this matter and its motion. Although matter and motion are
not physically separable, it is impossible for the mind to conceive of matter
and motion as a singular phenomenon. Although we may invent terms for
conceiving of matter-motion as a unity, they inevitably fail, taking on the
connotations of either matter or motion, not both at once. Clear thinking
requires us to be cognizant of INSEPARABILITY.
Consequently, we
must guard against four types of errors of logic that violate the assumption of
INSEPARABILITY:
1. That matter
could exist without motion.
2. That motion
could occur without matter.
3. That matter is motion.
4. That motion is matter.
Only by avoiding these
indeterministic errors can we achieve a description of the universe that
includes both subject and predicate, and is therefore both meaningful and
scientific.”
The ten assumptions of science: Toward a new scientific worldview. Free pdf available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275045159_The_ten_assumptions_of_science_Toward_a_new_scientific_worldview [accessed Mar 10, 2017].
You write: “They
[photons] are a dynamic action in the aether, as is matter.” False. Photons
(even if they were not imaginary) are supposed to be particles, they are not
motions. As such, they take up xyz space—motions do not. Matter is an abstraction
for “all things in existence.” All things have xyz dimensions, including aether
particles. You write: “It [matter]
changes constantly since it is a wave motion.” False. As seen above, matter is not motion,
least of all wave motion. That would be error #3 above. You are correct in
stating that matter changes constantly and that it is always in motion, but
don’t forget: matter is not motion. Perhaps you got the “matter is
wave motion” idea by reading too much regressive physics. Much of quantum mechanics
is based on aether denial, in which the waves produced by the ship appear to
have been mistaken for the ship itself. (See: http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2012/11/wave-particle-duality-is-really-just.html
)
BTW: I have not
come across anyone other than religious folks and regressive physicists who
have so much trouble understanding this subject. See: http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-soul-of-regressive-physics.html
Are you pulling
(motion) my leg (matter)? Seems simple to me: There are things that we call
matter; when they move, we call that motion—it is the difference between legs
and running. Legs exist; running occurs. Legs have xyz dimensions; running does
not. Actually, this may not be your problem so much as it may be my problem. I have great difficulty in
understanding how folks could have completely opposed assumptions when the
correct ones are so logical and so obvious. I try to lay out the logic,
repeating salient points where necessary adding real-life examples, etc., but
this seldom does any good.
Our friend Bill
Westmiller is another example. He is a Finite Particle Theorist (FPT). I have pointed
out that the perfectly solid matter needed for the theory is impossible. That is because perfectly
solid matter is one ideal end member of the matter-space continuum:
MATTER-SPACE CONTINUUM. A range
or series of microcosms that are slightly different from each other and that
exist between what we imagine to be perfectly solid matter and perfectly empty
space.[1] Like
all idealizations, solid matter and empty space do not and cannot exist.
Again, none of
this does any good. In Bill’s case I can understand that after working many
years on FPT and believing in the necessity of solid matter, one is unlikely to switch views quickly. That would negate everything. It would be like Hawking or
the Pope finally confessing that everything they ever said was a complete hoax.
I can see the reputational and fiducial reasons for hanging onto beliefs past
their expiration dates. So, my good Captain, please try to help me understand what
you get out of continuing to have difficulties distinguishing matter and
motion. Do you need that confusion in order to maintain belief in wave-particle
duality? Does the confusion help you to achieve financial gain or reputation? Will
it help in getting published by the mainstream?
I must admit that
I once believed in photons too, mostly, I suppose because everyone else did. And
that was after I wrote “The Ten Assumptions of Science.” It was not until I
looked into the situation with greater detail than the average high school physics
teacher that I found the the remedy: I needed to apply the 4th assumption in the
strictest sense. Also, what brings you and Bill to the dissident table need not
be all of the hundreds of
contradictions in regressive physics and cosmogony—just a few will start the
journey. In science, we often start a project by looking for contradictions. The project is not finished until the resolution. Now, you
have to ask yourself: Why don’t I think that wave-particle duality is a contradiction?
Posts
3 comments:
Rigid adherence to simple ideas sometimes is not able to express modern physical understanding. By now, waves (motion) are understood to be fundamental to particles (matter). This is shown by the QED theory. Schrodinger, deBroglie, and Einstein (he got this one right for a change) support this modern idea.
My oscillation theory of the aether, which I prefer to call the field, quantum field, or vacuum, explains how matter and motion are all one thing. David Bohm would be pleased.
Glenn Borchardt writes:
>Our friend Bill Westmiller is another example ...
Of course, I have no problem distinguishing matter from the motion of matter. Our disagreement persists on the issue of "perfect" matter, which we've discussed extensively in the past.
>... Like all idealizations, solid matter and empty space do not and cannot exist. ...
We agree that all known *compositions* of matter consist of physical components in motion. It took a long time to discover that a "perfectly solid" rod of iron is composed of atoms in motion. It took longer to discover that the atoms themselves are not "perfectly solid" objects, but are compositions of smaller physical particles in motion.
My proposition is that there are even smaller particles of mass that compose those sub-atomic particles. So, it's no surprise to me that you would be skeptical about those particles (Unimids) being "perfectly solid" objects. Even if they are not, I think the Unimid Theory explains a host of problems common in quantum particle theory.
However, our dispute is primarily philosophical. My position is that no matter can be in motion unless there is space where that matter does not exist. If all space is occupied by matter, no motion can occur. There can be no such event as a "collision" or "interaction" among particles, since they would all be in constant contact. The universe would be one infinite solid block of matter, with no motion whatever.
You have dismissed this objection as a "problem of boundaries", which is to admit that all compositions of matter have unique identities, separated from each other in space. Each atom of iron is separate from every other atom of iron. That is, they can only exist because there is space which is "not iron". That is not to say that there are no sub-atomic objects of interaction between them, only that those objects are not iron. But, note that this doesn't make the iron atom an abstract "idealistic" composition. They are very real.
Granted, I still have a lot of writing to do before you can critique my Unimid Theory, which does posit universal, identical units of "perfectly solid matter", separated by "perfectly empty" space. When it's done, I'll welcome your comments.
FYI: The cause of my lengthy delay in making that presentation is that I thought it necessary to refute most of the ideas in Relativity and Quantum Mechanics as valid alternatives to my theory. Understanding those propositions - so they can be refuted - has been a huge task. I'm thankful that you (and Steve Bryant) have provided a lot of the ammunition.
Thanks Bill.
I will have a Blog on divisibility next week.
Post a Comment