What is more fundamental, field or particles?

PSI Blog 20190424 What is more fundamental, field or particles?

Occasionally, we link to some intense debates among regressive physicists. Here is one submitted by Captain Bligh:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/122570/what-is-more-fundamental-fields-or-particles?noredirect=1&lq=1

Astute readers, of course, will recognize this as a non sequitar. Fields, as anointed by Einstein and other positivists, are considered “immaterial.” That is, they contain nothing whatsoever—they are the empty space that was a consequence of his early ether denial. Nonetheless, these matterless “fields” still supposedly caused phenomena such as gravitation and magnetism just as the equations predicted. The matterless ideal perseveres. For instance, according to the popular press the shock wave measured in the LIGO experiment supposedly resulted in a “gravitational wave” that caused the compression and decompression of empty space or “spacetime.” They nevertheless regarded this ridiculous interpretation as yet another proof that “Einstein was always right.” There was not even a hint that it was yet another proof that a medium was necessary for the transmittance of the wave.

In some ways, the “fields vs. particles” debate is akin to the debate one might contrive over the two most fundamental phenomena in the universe: matter and motion. Of course, we reject participating in that debate by considering it a worthless endeavor best handled by the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion). Matter and the motion of matter are equally important. Period. Thus there is no possibility of “matterless motion,” which is what folks imply when they juxtapose “fields” and “particles.” The fields of Einstein and of quantum mechanics supposedly contain no particles that could produce the collisions necessary to accelerate anything. With such fields one even can imagine action at a distance, which was an anathema to Newton and anyone else with a clear head.

It is beyond me how anyone could imagine motion without something moving. Just because one cannot see what is causing the motion, does not mean that nothing is causing that motion. It is time we gave up the primitive idea that the wind in the willows is caused by immaterial spirits.

Does the black hole in M87 falsify the Big Bang Theory?

PSI Blog 20190417 Does the black hole in M87 falsify the Big Bang Theory?

Figure 1. M87* and Chandra X-ray image of M87 galaxy. (EHT Collaboration; NASA/CXC/Villanova University/J. Neilsen)

Biggest news this week was the first confirmation of a black “hole” in a galaxy (Figure 1). The press was hysterical about this being another proof that Einstein was always right. Curved empty space-time was said to have done its incredulous job once again. We might even have a replacement for the disgraced deGrasse. And, judging by the press, it’s a woman! It’s about time. Late night TV awaits a good apologist for cosmogony. We wish Katie Bouman the best of luck with that! (Wouldn’t it be something if she actually read “Infinite Universe Theory” first?)

Now to the question at hand: Does the black hole in M87 falsify the Big Bang Theory? According to the Big Bang Theory, the universe exploded out of nothing 13.8 billion years ago. Since then, matter has been accumulating in the form of about 2 trillion galaxies, with the youngest being spiralic and oldest being elliptical.

Our Milky Way is a spiral with a supposed age of 13.51 billion years. The elliptical, M87, is the galaxy in which the recent radio-wave “siting” confirmed the presence of a black hole. M87 supposedly is 13.24 billion years old. We have reason to believe M87* (the black hole) is much older than that.

Readers know the whole conversion of aether particles into baryonic matter simply requires their reduction in velocity and/or redirection of their motion to form vortices. Like the water drops on your cold bathroom mirror, this process involves condensation or accretion. Fundamentally, and cosmologically, the formation of matter from electron to black hole amounts to the pushing together of those wily aether particles. Early on, this involves the formation of electrons, positrons, and neutrons, etc., of which ordinary matter consists. In the Sun, hydrogen is pushed together to form helium and elements as heavy as iron. This takes a long time—the Sun is over 4.5 billion years old, and is only in the early stages of this process.

The slowing of aether particles via gravitation,[1] complexification, and vortex formation produces solar systems that, once started, tend to accumulate increasing amounts of matter. High velocity aether particles from the intergalactic regions collide with baryonic matter, providing the acceleration of gravitation. For each acceleration there must be a deceleration. That is why baryonic matter tends to be surrounded by relatively low-velocity entrained aether particles otherwise known by regressives as the mysterious “dark matter.” Within the aether medium, the change from high velocity to low velocity amounts to a reduction in pressure. Distal aetherial pressure is high, while proximal aetherial pressure is low. This produces the “force” of gravitation that tends to push all things toward other things. The upshot is that gravitation is neither caused by the “attraction” of Newton nor by the equally magical “space-time curvature” of Einstein. Despite all the relativity pandering in the press, those popular notions are not physics. Contrary to the immaterialism proclaimed by Einstein, physics always involves the collision of one thing with another.

The nuclei of vortices tend to accumulate increasing amounts of matter over time. Almost all the mass of atoms is in the nuclei. The density of Earth’s core is 12.8 g/cm³, while the upper mantle is 3.4 g/cm³. The Sun contains 99% of the mass of the solar system. The complexification and slowing of aether complexes proceeds apace as overburden pressures increase and motion is lost through emission as heat and light.

The nuclei of galaxies are misnamed “black holes”—they are anything but. The aether complexes of which they are composed have slowed so much and have emitted so much motion that they are extremely dense. Most of the “aether complexes” that feed black holes are stars that are pushed therein as they inevitably lose momentum. Surprisingly, SagittariusA*, the black hole in the center of the Milky Way, contains only about 0.001% of the mass of the galaxy. On the other hand, the black hole in M87 is about 0.24% of the galaxy. As seen in the photo above M87* is only a tiny fraction of the M87 galaxy.

Now, there are no doubt many variables affecting the rate at which black holes form, but there is no denying accretion and complexification takes a long time. The rate probably speeds up as the mass increases. Nonetheless, this difference—240 times, seems significant to me. I speculate that the huge black hole in M87 is much older than the one in the Milky Way—possibly 240 times as old. This would make the black hole in M87 up to 3.24 trillion years old! Even if it turns out to be only a fraction of that, it seems to me it is yet another challenge to the Big Bang Theory. Forcing every object in the observed universe into that 13.8 billion year-old bag is suspect. The M87* discovery is akin to the discovery of the elderly galaxies previously observed to be 13.2 billion light years away. Some of them look much like our own 13.5 billion-year old Milky Way:

Figure 2. Close-up of a few of the elderly galaxies near the edge of the observed universe. Light from some of these 13-billion year old objects took 13 billion years to reach the Hubble telescope.

---

[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2018, The Physical Cause of Gravitation: viXra:1806.0165.

[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, Figure 9. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].

Why do the Big Bang Theory and the Steady State Theory regard the universe as expanding?

PSI Blog 20190410 Why do the Big Bang Theory and the Steady State Theory regard the universe as expanding?

Abhishek Chakravartty asks:

“Can you explain how both the BBT and SST rely on Einstein’s “Untired Light Theory” to interpret the cosmological redshift as evidence for an expanding universe?”

This is what I wrote in IUT:

“By 1929, Edwin Hubble discovered enough galaxies to establish that the degree of redshift also was a rough inverse function of their luminosity, which is a measure of their distance… His greatest mistake was to promote Slipher’s speculation that this cosmological redshift always was due to the Doppler Effect. The title of his famous 1929 introductory paper says it all: “A relation between distance and radial velocity among extra-galactic nebulae.””

In other words, he initially assumed the cosmological redshift and the Doppler Effect were one and the same. But the Doppler Effect only occurs in a medium. Einstein had removed that possibility by his temporary rejection of aether. A single particle could not have such an effect. Nonetheless, regressive physicists and cosmogonists accepted Einstein’s eight ad hocs.[1] Both BBT and SST assumed that light was a particle instead of what it really is: a wave in a sea of particles.

Now, the Doppler Effect only occurs when the source of the wave vibrations in a medium is moving. When it moves toward you, wave lengths are shortened; when it moves away from you wave lengths are lengthened. Light from the galaxy Andromeda, for instance, is blue shifted because Andromeda is moving toward us. The light from most distant galaxies, however, is redshifted. If the Doppler Effect was the cause,[2] then these galaxies would be receding from us. Both SST and BBT accept this as the correct interpretation, with the astounding implication the universe is expanding in all directions at once.

But according to Infinite Universe Theory, the redshift measurements (z) obtained by astronomers are the results of at least three different causes:

1.  The Doppler Effect (DE)

2.  The gravitational redshift (GR)

3.  The cosmological redshift (CR)

The simplified equation for these measurements would have to be something like this:

z = DE + GR + CR        (1)

DE, the Doppler Effect, is a function of velocity. Light sources moving away from us have a plus velocity, thus producing a redshift; light sources moving toward us have a minus velocity, thus reflecting a blueshift. Because light from Andromeda is blueshifted, this factor results in a negative z. Andromeda is relatively close to us, the other factors produce relatively insignificant contributions to the measured z. In an infinite universe, half the cosmological objects would be moving away from us, and half would be moving toward us.[3] Half would yield redshifts and half would yield blueshifts. That is not observed because at least two other causes producing redshifting are involved:

GR, the gravitational redshift, is a function of the mass of the source. In wave mechanics, ascribed to here, wave velocity is a property of the medium. According to Infinite Universe Theory, aetherial pressure increases with distance from baryonic (ordinary) matter. The increasing aetherial pressure causes the velocity of light to increase with distance from a source. This causes the distance between waves to increase—a redshift. GR is particularly great for quasars, which are massive cosmological objects—possibly former nuclei of galaxies. Quasars are known for these high z values despite their brightness, which is otherwise a measure of distance. The z measurements for quasars tend to be overwhelmed by the GR.

CR, the cosmological redshift, is a function of distance, although cosmogonists interpret the preponderance of redshift over blue shift in z measurements as indicating “recessional velocity.” In that interpretation CR and DE are one and the same. The claim is that most light sources in the universe are going away from us if the DE was the only phenomenon producing the z measurements. Miraculously, we would be at the center of a universal expansion. This makes no sense, especially in view of the fact that over two trillion galaxies have been observed. Those data are better support for Infinite Universe Theory than for Big Bang Theory, which hypothesizes universal expansion from a tiny mathematical “singularity.” All these extraordinary claims are based upon Special Relativity Theory (light is a particle) and General Relativity Theory (the universe is 4-dimensional “space-time”). The Doppler Effect occurs only in a medium. The idea that a single particle could send DE information from galaxy to eyeball is absurd. The eight ad hocs Einstein used to revive the particle theory also are absurd. As shown by Sagnac, light must be a wave in the aether.

Although aether is a superior medium for wave transmission, it is not a perfect one. The replication of waves through a medium cannot be perfect. A tiny portion of the motion of the particles constituting the wave within the medium fails to be involved in the formation of a second wave. We see this sluggishness as an increase in the distance between subsequent waves (Figure 1). The effect follows from Newton’s First Law of Motion and the Second Law of Thermodynamics in which isolated systems only can lose motion; they cannot gain motion without collisions from some outside the system. Again, for aether this “tired light effect” is significant only over great distances.

Figure 1. Waves in a medium exhibiting redshifting over distance (Borchardt, 2017[4], Figure 12).

In physics lingo the conventional equation for the z for light from any source is:

z = (λ_obs- λ_emited)/λ_emited   (2)

Taking into account all three causes for redshifts, we get:

    z = (λ_obs- λ_emited)/ λ_emited + (dm λ_emited)/K       (3)

Where:

z = measured redshift

λ_obs = observed wavelength due to motion of source, m

λ_emited = wavelength of light emitted from source, m

d = distance to source, m

m = mass of source, g

K = constant, gm²

Again, note that equation 3 first includes the usual Doppler Effect found for all emitting objects in motion. As mentioned, its contribution to z can be plus if the object is going away or minus if it is coming toward the observer.

To the Doppler Effect we must add the (dm λ_emited)/K portion of equation 3 to show that the emitted wave length is increased as a function of distance to the source and its mass. The constant, K, presently is unknown, but must be in terms of mass (g) and distance squared (m) for the second term to be unitless like the z term.

The upshot is this: The expanding universe interpretation is based on the particle theory of light. Both BBT and SST assumed light was a particle. Once we finally realize light is wave motion in the aether, the Big Bang Theory and its contradictions will disappear.

---

[1] Einstein’s eight ad hocs (Borchardt, 2017, Table 6).

1.	Unlike other particles, his light particle always traveled at the same velocity—it never slowed down.
2.	Unlike other particles, it attained this velocity instantaneously when emitted from a source.
3.	Unlike other particles, it would not take on the velocity of its source.
4.	Unlike other particles, it was massless.
5.	Unlike other particles, light particles did not lose motion when they collided with other light particles.
6.	Unlike other particles, any measurement indicating light speed was not constant had to be attributed to “time dilation”—another especially egregious ad hoc.
7.	Time was to be considered something other than motion, for motion cannot dilate.
8.	The claim light speed was constant flew in the face of all other measurements showing there are no constants in nature because everything is always in motion. Because the universe is infinite, every measurement of every so-called “constant” always has a plus or minus. The velocities for wave motion in any medium are dependent on the properties of that medium, which vary from place to place.

[2] As instruments improved, the redshift measurements for distant galaxies became so great that calculated “recession velocities” were greater than the speed of light. To remove this absurdity, cosmogonists were unable to use only the Doppler explanation and subsequently were forced to invent the “expanding space” ad hoc. Perfectly empty space, of course, cannot expand. This is where “dark energy” came into play. Conceived as magical, matterless motion, it nonetheless was deemed responsible for pushing galaxies apart in violation of the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion).

[3] Note this hypothesis would be confirmed if half the distant redshifts decreased and half increased over time.

[4] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 349 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].

Next-generation Particle Accelerator in Doubt

PSI Blog 20190403 Next-generation Particle Accelerator in Doubt

The last collider only found some equivocal evidence for the bogus Higgs boson. Now, the Japanese are starting to doubt the necessity for the regressive boondoggle:

Maybe they have doubts about the whole enterprize. Seemingly, after all the billions wasted, all they could find was a nebulous magical particle with a half-life of only 10^-22 s and having too much mass (126 times that of the proton). At that mass, it could not be contained inside other less-fundamental particles. So, these aether deniers uncharacteristically went to the theoretical outside for their mass-giving particle. Molasses anyone? That was like saying your vehicle weighs more when stuck in a snowbank. One does not need a Nobel to suggest these folks give up the search for a fundamental particle:

Unzicker, Alexander, 2013, The Higgs fake : how particle physicists fooled the Nobel Committee, CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform (October 9, 2013), 152 p. [ https://www.amazon.com/dp/1492176249/ref=rdr_ext_tmb ].

This is a nice summary:

Unzicker, Alexander, and Jones, Sheilla, 2012, The Discovery of What? Ten Questions About the Higgs to the Particle Physics Community: http://vixra.org/pdf/1212.0100v1.pdf

And this sums up what is going on throughout Regressive Physics with your tax dollars:

Unzicker, Alexander, and Jones, Sheilla, 2013, Bankrupting Physics - How Today's Top Scientists Are Gambling Away Their Credibility.

Here is the abstract:

“In this fascinating and eye-opening account, theoretical physicist Alexander Unzicker and science writer Sheilla Jones offer a polemic. They question whether the large-scale, multinational enterprises actually lead us to the promised land of understanding the universe. The two scientists take us on a tour of contemporary physics and show how a series of highly publicized theories met a dead end. Unzicker and Jones systematically unpack the recent hot theories such as "parallel universes," "string theory," and "inflationary cosmology," and provide an accessible explanation of each. They argue that physics has abandoned its evidence-based roots and shifted to untestable mathematical theories, and they issue a clarion call for the science to return to its experimental foundation.”