Regressive physics does not know what energy is

PSI Blog 20170628 Regressive physics does not know what energy is

Thanks be to George who gave us the heads-up on the usual difficulty that regressive physicists have with defining energy:

“GC: Hi Glenn

This is from The Physics Hyper Textbook http://physics.info/motion/:

‘The term energy refers [to] an abstract physical quantity that is not easily perceived by humans. It can exist in many forms simultaneously and only acquires meaning through calculation. A system possesses energy if it has the ability to do work. The energy of motion is called kinetic energy.’

Based on this definition, energy is abstract matter, which means it is an idea of an abstraction for all things (i.e. matter.) That suggests that the word "energy" refers to a thought, which can be quantified. That makes no sense.”

[GB: George, I love these regressive faux pas that you keep digging up! I really get a kick out of this guy’s definition of energy as “an abstract physical quantity that is not easily perceived by humans.” You bet. That is because energy does not exist despite his confused belief that ‘It can exist in many forms’. He gets a bit closer when he mentions calculation, because that is all that energy is, a calculation. It is neither matter nor motion, but a way of understanding those mechanical phenomena through calculation.]

GC: “Do you know how it is possible that so many people can be so idealistic that they easily accept that motion can occur without matter?”

[GB: George, remember that such idealism is a necessary part of indeterministic philosophy. Without it, the idea of a “soul” would be intellectually impossible, as I discussed in this Blog:

http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-soul-of-regressive-physics.html

I must admit that when I was religious I did not think twice about how one could “go to heaven” after dying. I never thought about how this physically could happen. It didn’t seem to involve the material body lying there in the casket. I think we all just thought that the “spirit” (i.e., motion) that folks displayed was simply what made the heavenly trip. After all, that was the great expectation we shared with family and friends. How wonderful that would be! We could visit our departed relatives and live with them for an eternity! It is all that anyone ever talked about when someone died. As believers, we wanted to believe.

We tended not to believe the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion). After all, even if you had physics, the evil mechanistic view (that the universe consists only of matter in motion) had been abandoned by Einstein and followers. It was said that mass could turn into pure energy, which like the imagined soul, could miraculously leave the atom, travelling through perfectly empty space as matterless motion.

All this shows why relativity and its regressive ideas got so popular and why Einstein is always purported to be right. Both relativity and religion are founded on the same indeterministic assumptions. Even though the most accomplished scientists are atheists, they live in religious countries and most probably were once believers. Those assumptions we were born with and are surrounded by don’t just disappear. They hang around as unconscious presuppositions.[1] Working physicists and cosmogonists don’t have time to bring those presuppositions into the light of day. They remain as the foundation of cosmogony, which will not be rejected until they are abandoned. As Kuhn maintained, paradigms do not change until the underlying assumptions change.[2]

So George, that “abstract physical quantity that is not easily perceived by humans” is akin to the soul we were all taught to believe in. We cannot escape from the myth that the universe exploded out of nothing without finally realizing that energy is nothing but a calculation.]

---

[1] Collingwood, R.G., 1940, An essay on metaphysics: Oxford, Clarendon Press, 354 p.

[2] Kuhn, Thomas S., 1962 [2012], The structure of scientific revolutions (With an Introductory Essay by Ian Hacking) (50th Anniversary ed.): Chicago; London, The University of Chicago Press, 264 p.

Steve Patterson on “It Doesn't Take a Genius to Challenge Orthodoxy”

PSI Blog 20170621 Steve Patterson on “It Doesn't Take a Genius to Challenge Orthodoxy”

Thanks be to Rick who gave us the heads-up on this great 9-minute video by young philosopher Steve Patterson, who is “creating a rational worldview.” It is especially apropos to this Blog site and for anyone who is concerned about all the nonsense that goes for physics and cosmology these days:

It Doesn't Take a Genius to Challenge Orthodoxy

Although it is mostly about the low regard that academics have for anyone questioning their ideas. I especially liked his statement that:

“I think the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics is laughably nonsensical, embarrassing, and stupid.”

Right on Steve! I also saw his video on the Tai Chi master who was defeated summarily by a nonmaster who had to go into hiding for being so “disrespectful.” I subscribed to his YouTube channel and took him up on the Patreon support. 

BTW: Patreon lets you use PayPal to provide as little as $1 per month to outstanding artists and writers. This could be an excellent way for dissidents to get financial support from those who have not fallen for regressive physics and cosmogony.

“Gravitational waves” once again confirm the presence of aether

PSI Blog 20170614 “Gravitational waves” once again confirm the presence of aether

In PSI Blog 20160217 LIGO: Gravitational attraction is dead I commented on the initial discovery of “gravitational waves,” which were supposedly predicted by Einstein. I pointed out that the attraction hypothesis was dead because we were not “attractive” enough to pull anything toward us. I also pointed out that the discovery amounted to a confirmation of the existence of aether.

Some dissident physicists doubted that the experimental data were valid. Now, this third detection seems to confirm the first two. Astute reader Arus wanted me to comment on the latest result, which was the subject of this BBC report:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40120680

The reporter writes that “It is the third time now that the labs' laser instruments have been perturbed by the warping of space-time.” Now, in GRT space is perfectly empty and spacetime is too. So, the “perturbing” does not make any sense. “Perturbing” can only occur when something collides with something else. The report says that “two times the mass of the Sun were converted into deformations in the shape of space.” That would be remarkable for space that is devoid of anything at all. That was Einstein’s original view, but most dissidents know that he recanted it in 1920:

“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."[1]

The popular press, as reflected in this “Einstein is always right” article, does not seem to know that. Instead, they push the usual stuff about sensing “the distortions in space-time” and the view that the collisions of cosmic bodies might “vibrate the very fabric of the cosmos.” Of course, all that is happening is the vibration of the aether that pervades the entire universe. Empty space could not have vibrations, which must involve compression and expansion of a medium (see figure).

There is one detail about this “gravitational wave” we need to address. The BBC says that “Einstein's general theory of relativity forbids any dispersion from happening in gravitational waves as they move out from their source through space towards Earth.” In fact, Bangalore Sathyaprakash, a LIGO team member said: "Our measurements are really very sensitive to minute differences in the speeds of different frequencies but we did not discover any dispersion, once again failing to prove that Einstein was wrong..." This is typical of most “Einsteinisms” (right for the wrong reason). Dispersion or refraction occurs when aethereal wave motion encounters high concentrations of baryonic (ordinary matter). That is what happens when light travels through water, bending the image of the submerged end of your fishing pole. The speed of light in water is 225 million m/s, while it is 300 million m/s in air. The frequency of light in water is the same as it is in air—only its wavelength decreases.

Let me sum up. LIGO is simply detecting the result of a cosmic collision, which has converted some microcosmic motion to macrocosmic motion in the aether. It has nothing to do with gravitation other than that the resulting wave motion is being transmitted by the aethereal medium, which is responsible for the local pressure differences that cause gravitation.[2]

[1] Einstein, Albert, 1920, Ether and the Theory of Relativity: An address delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leyden [http://bit.ly/AE20ether]. 

[2] Borchardt, Glenn, and Puetz, Stephen J., 2012, Neomechanical gravitation theory, in Volk, Greg, Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 19th Conference of the NPA, 25-28 July: Albuquerque, NM, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, v. 9, p. 53-58 [http://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3991.0483].

BS for detecting loyalty

PSI Blog 20170607 BS for detecting loyalty

In last week’s Blog I repeated my claim that the evolutionary purpose of religion was to instill and enforce loyalty. But how does one know whether that process has been successful? This question is important, not only for understanding religion and its wars, but also for understanding the current paradigm that binds regressive physics and cosmogony. Remember that in science, a paradigm is a set of theories, experiments, and interpretations that are used to advance a particular discipline.[1] A mature paradigm sponsors what Kuhn called “ordinary” science. To be financially rewarded in that discipline one must be loyal to the paradigm. As in religion, disloyalty can result in rejection or banishment. Unlike religion, it seldom results in imprisonment or execution (with rare exceptions such as Galileo and Bruno).

As one observing the current mainstream paradigm from the outside, I have been amazed by the utterly ridiculous and contradictory nature of many of its claims. For instance, long ago I was taught the First Law of Thermodynamics, the conservation of energy, which I have restated as the Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed). Thus I have always seen the idea that the universe exploded out of nothing to be borderline crazy. I think that I am now getting a better idea of why such contradictions do not seem to bother the mainstream. I have long known that religious folks tended to be immune to contradictions and that they generally thought that the universe was itself contradictory. I got a better focus on it after reading Matthew Yglesias’s pertinent essay on this website:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/30/15631710/trump-bullshit

He referred to a famous essay by Prof Harry Frankfurt of Princeton in which he explained it this way:

It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose. ^[2]  

Yglesias points out that bullshit has two purposes: 1) it is used to test loyalty and 2) to isolate followers into a distinct tribe. For “tribe” you can insert most any religious sect or hysterical group you wish. You also could insert “modern physicists” or “Big Bang theorists,” who comprise the current mainstream paradigm. This helps to explain the craziness (explosion of the universe from nothing, massless particles, 4D expanding universe, waves that are particles and particles that are waves, attraction, immaterial fields, matterless motion, etc.). Spreading any of these, especially to the public, proves your loyalty to the paradigm.

Frankfurt’s analysis also helps to explain the vehement reactions commonly used to defend both religious sects and mainstream physics. Trolls with too much time and loyalty roam the Internet guarding against suggestions that the current paradigm might be out of whack. In the mainstream, the censorship of the word “aether” is paramount, while massless particles, wormholes, and Einstein’s glorification are dirigeur.

In scientific disciplines other than physics and cosmogony contradictions and paradoxes generally are anathema. Nonetheless, contradictions appear where data and knowledge are missing. They often indicate the frontier in science. Any apparent contradiction provides grist for the next graduate thesis. All disciplines have their loyalists, of course, but in my experience the use of BS in defense against contrarian ideas is relatively mild—unless you dare to mention anything about climate.

To sum up, I go back to the original question… Is mainstream BS in physics and cosmogony a good test of loyalty? The obvious answer is clearly YES. Believers want to believe. Folks naïve enough to fall for BS are not particularly interested in details. You can find this out yourself by asking pertinent questions about the contradictions and the “facts” used to support them. For instance, you can ask most any physicist about whether those clocks flying around Earth proved Einstein right. Of course that experiment proved nothing at all. The raw data show that some of the side-by-side clocks sped up and some slowed down. The bogus manipulation of the unpublished raw data and the “Einstein is always right” conclusion was borderline fraudulent.[3] Those who teach that conclusion actually believe it along with the idea that the universe is four dimensional. They are not lying anymore than the ministers of all the other religious sects you oppose. They are simply spreading BS.

---

[1] Kuhn, Thomas S., 1962 [2012], The structure of scientific revolutions (With an Introductory Essay by Ian Hacking) (50th Anniversary ed.): Chicago; London, The University of Chicago Press, 264 p.

[2] Frankfurt, Harry, 1986 [2005], On bullshit:  [http://www.csudh.edu/ccauthen/576f12/frankfurt__harry_-_on_bullshit.pdf].

[3] Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Einstein's most important philosophical error, in Volk, Greg, Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 18th Conference of the NPA, 6-9 July, 2011: College Park, MD, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, v. 8, p. 64-68 [http://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3436.0407].