Rick Dutkiewicz Take on Paradigm Patching: Religion and Big Bang Theory

PSI Blog 20201228 Rick Dutkiewicz's Take on Paradigm Patching: Religion and Big Bang Theory

 

 

Guest Blog by Rock and Roll Star

 

Rick Dutkiewicz

 

Glenn,

 

Just to belabor the obvious;

 

The constant ad-hoc patching of the Big Bang Theory is reminiscent of the methods used over centuries by the churches. As their explanations of the way things work become more and more untenable, they need to come up with more lame-brained explanations for the pew-potatoes.

 

To explain away the creation story’s unscientific narrative:

“Each of the 6 days of God’s creation represented billions of years. After all, we all know that God is beyond time. Yeah, that’s the ticket”.

 

To explain away the acceptance of slavery:

“The Old Testament guidelines for slavery were not to advocate or allow slavery, but to temper the suffering caused by universal slavery at that time. After all, God couldn’t ask his chosen people to change their cultural traditions like slavery and female subjugation. God is willing to work with people where they are, not where they ought to be. He works within messy human cultures to move them towards redemption. Yeah, that’s the ticket”.

 

To explain away the slaughtering of entire cities by the chosen people (of a Loving God):

"God’s command for Israel to drive out the Canaanites was not race-based, but behavior-based, as the Canaanites engaged in acts that would be considered criminal in civilized societies. The Old Testament’s mention of many Canaanite survivors shows that its “total-kill” language is simply Ancient Near Eastern exaggeration or hyperbole. So, we were forced to kill every living thing in the city, it’s the victims' fault. That’s the ticket.”

 

You can find websites full of these apologetic patchwork quilts. Never mind that if you can call one part of the Bible story “hyperbole” or “exaggeration” to work around bad science or immorality, you’ve opened the door to calling the entire Bible “hyperbole” and “exaggeration”.

 

It’s one thing that religious folks fall for this crap without realizing the implications to their entire mythos, but how can “objective” and “peer-reviewed” scientists engage in the same type of apologetics as our religious friends?

 

The answer to that last question is discussed in this great new book: 

“Religious Roots of Relativity” by Glenn Borchardt.

 

Thanks for your work.

Rick Doogie

Allegan, Michigan

[GB: Thanks so much Rick. That reminds me of an old saying I just found on the Web: "Religion is blasphemy of science."]

 

Borchardt Interview on “Infinite Universe Theory” Now Online

PSI Blog 20201221 Borchardt Interview on “Infinite Universe Theory” Now Online

 

Here is Saturday’s 2-hour interview on Infinite Universe Theory:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUg4umeSwhA

 BTW: I am introduced at about 20 min.

 

 

Borchardt Interview on Infinite Universe Theory

PSI Blog 20201218 Borchardt Interview on Infinite Universe Theory

 

 

 

This Saturday, Dec. 19: Infinite Universe Theory   With Dr. Glenn Borchardt About the presentation:  Infinite Universe Theory presents the ultimate alternative to the Big Bang Theory and the common assumption that the universe had an origin. Author Glenn Borchardt starts with photos of the "elderly" galaxies at the observational edge of the universe. These contradict the current belief that the universe should have increasingly younger objects as we view greater distances. He restates the fundamental assumptions that must underlie the new paradigm. Notably, by assuming infinity he is able to adapt classical mechanics to "neomechanics" and its insistence that phenomena are strictly the result of matter in motion. He shows in detail how misinterpretations of relativity have aided current flights of fancy more in tune with religion than science. Borchardt demonstrates why only Infinite Universe Theory can provide answers to questions untouched by currently regressive physics and cosmogony. His new modification of gravitation theory gets us closer to its physical cause without calling upon attraction or curved spacetime or "immaterial fields. You can interact live with Dr. Borchardt via chat or video. Hope to see you there! How to Join In All you need is a desktop, smartphone or tablet and the following URLs to participate. PLEASE USE THESE LINKS FIRST: ·  http://youtube.naturalphilosophy.org ·  http://facebook.naturalphilosophy.org ONLY 10 VIDEO SPOTS AVAILABLE. PLEASE DON'T USE UNLESS INVITED: ·  http://live.naturalphilosophy.org Borchardt Interview on Infinite Universe Theory REMEMBER: You don't need to download any software

 

Cosmogonical Laugher—Imagined Aliens Might be able to Stop Imagined Expansion of the Universe

PSI Blog 20201214 Cosmogonical Laugher—Imagined Aliens Might be able to Stop Imagined Expansion of the Universe

 

Cheer up! Here is some cosmic comedy from MIT’s cellar. I can’t even imagine how anyone could get tax money to work on this latest absurdity:

 

“An Advanced Civilization Could Resist the Accelerating Expansion of the Universe

 

And Earth-bound astronomers should be able to tell if someone is out there doing it, a physicist says”

 

https://medium.com/mit-technology-review/an-advanced-civilization-could-resist-the-accelerating-expansion-of-the-universe-2145eee93751

 

The author comes up with a list of worries, including Covid, depression, and climate that might be of concern and writes:

 

“But one threat that is near the bottom of the list is the accelerating expansion of the universe. Indeed, it hasn’t been considered a clear threat at all until now.

 

Today that changes, at least a little, thanks to the work of Dan Hooper, a particle physicist at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Illinois… a new twist to the tale. His idea is [from old-time regressive Freeman Dyson] that an advanced civilization could build a sphere [around the Sun] that emits waste radiation in a specific direction. This radiation would accelerate the sphere — and the star it contains — in the opposite direction.

 

Over time, an advanced civilization could use this technique to gather stars as a source of energy and thereby keep them inside the cosmic horizon as the universe expands.”

 

So much for your cosmogonical sci-fi lesson for the day…

 

Big Bang Theory Fail—Imagined Universe Expanding Too Fast

PSI Blog 20201207 Big Bang Theory Fail—Imagined Universe Expanding Too Fast

 

“The universe is expanding too fast, and that could rewrite cosmology

Different measurements of the Hubble constant, the rate of space-time expansion, refuse to agree – meaning we may have to look beyond Einstein’s theories to explain the universe”

“Are we missing something about how galaxies and galaxy clusters shape the universe?"  NASA, ESA/Hubble, HST Frontier Fields

 

It is really too bad to have to see cosmogonists suffer so much. When cosmological redshifts at great distances indicated their imagined galactic recession was greater than the velocity of light, they had to claim that perfectly empty space was expanding. This resulted in Guth’s Inflationary Universe Theory, with its expansion rates fast enough to make your head spin at greater than the speed of light.

 

Now, the naïve cosmogonists have been working on solving the Hubble constant contradiction for a long time without success. Bet you won’t see any of the employed regressives going “beyond Einstein’s theories” any time soon.

https://go.glennborchardt.com/BBT-exp-too-fast

 

Here are some juicy quotes from Stuart Clark’s recent article in New Scientist illustrating the regressive nonsense:

 

“AT FIRST, it was a whisper. Now it has become a shout: there is something seriously wrong with our understanding of the cosmos. When we measure the rate at which the universe is expanding, we get different results depending on whether we extrapolate from the early universe or look at exploding stars in nearby galaxies. The discrepancy means that everything is speeding apart more quickly than we expect.”

 

“Cosmologists have been scrabbling for answers. They have played around with the properties of dark energy and dark matter, those two well-known, yet still mysterious, components of our standard model of cosmology. They have imagined all manner of new exotic ingredients – all to no avail.”

 

Note that dark energy is indeed mysterious, since it cannot possibly exist. Readers know that “energy” is neither a thing, nor an occurrence—it is a calculation. Cosmogonists: Better luck next time in imagining a proxy creator that propels your imagined explosion of your imagined finite universe out of nothing.

 

“The conclusion could hardly be starker. Our best model of the cosmos, a seemingly serenely sailing ship, might be holed beneath the water line. That has led some researchers to suggest taking the ultimate step: abandoning that ship and building a new standard model from the ground up, based on a revised understanding of gravity.”

 

Duh? Think so?

 

They did get one thing right:

 

“By this time, astronomers who observed the rotations of galaxies and clusters of galaxies had also noted that they are whirling around far faster than they should be for the amount of visible matter they contain. The astronomers' solution was to update the model yet again, incorporating a new, invisible dark matter that far outweighs the normal stuff we see.”

 

Could it be this dark matter is simply the decelerated aether responsible for the acceleration we observe as gravitation per Aether Deceleration Theory?

According to Cosmogonists Space Needs to Be Continuous, Not Discrete

PSI Blog 20201130 According to Cosmogonists Space Needs to Be Continuous, Not Discrete

 

That is according to Alan Siegel, author of a disturbing website aptly entitled “Starts with a Bang.” He subtitles his piece with:

 

“We might live in a quantum Universe, but we’ll violate the principle of relativity if space is discrete.”

 

https://go.glennborchardt.com/space-discrete

 

This quote is revealing—sort of like an unconscious admission of guilt. As shown in my recent book “Religious Roots of Relativity,” Einstein’s erroneous assumption that space is perfectly empty is the religious foundation of relativity. All creation theories, including the Big Bang Theory, start with that assumption. Religious folks, including Einstein and his regressive followers, cannot imagine the universe always existed and that there never was, nor ever will be, perfectly empty space. Einstein needed that idealistic ad hoc to assume light particles underwent perpetual motion. Otherwise, they would lose velocity over distance as they collided with other particles in the environment. Without that assumption, the cosmological redshift would have to be considered a simple tired light effect: what happens to everything and every motion traveling from one place to another in the universe. Today’s regressive physicists, of course, must hold fast to Einstein’s ridiculous Untired Light Theory despite their otherwise familiarity with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That law is what leads to the forthright rejection of claims of perpetual motion that might reach the patent office. The younger Einstein would have thrown out his own claim when he worked at the office in Bern.

 

Siegel says:

“Going to smaller and smaller distance scales reveals more fundamental views of nature, which means if we can understand and describe the smallest scales, we can build our way to an understanding of the largest ones. We do not know whether there is a lower limit to how small ‘chunks of space’ can be.”

 

Per infinity, we assume the universe to be infinitely subdividable—there is no limit to how small those “chunks of space” can be. There is no undividable fundamental particle. There can be no “continuous space,” which, by the way, is required for Einstein’s equally ridiculous immaterial field theory. All this is why quantum mechanics and relativity can never be reconciled. The bits of matter recognized by quantum mechanics destroy the perfectly empty space imagined by cosmogonists and regressives alike.

 

  

  

Borchardt Interview on “Big Bang or Big Bust” Now Online

 

PSI Blog 20201123 Borchardt Interview on “Big Bang or Big Bust” Now Online

 

Here is Saturday’s 2-hour interview on what is wrong with the Big Bang Theory:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMiBLn3e2dQ

 

 

Borchardt Interview Saturday on the "Big Bang or Big Bust"

 

PSI Blog 20201120 Borchardt Interview Saturday on the "Big Bang or Big Bust"

 

From the Chappell Natural Philosophy Society:

To get the reminder: https://youtu.be/PMiBLn3e2dQ

 

This Saturday, Nov. 21: Big Bang or Big Bust with Dr. Glenn Borchardt

..and His Alternative

Dr. Glenn Borchardt has spent decades revealing the contradictions and paradoxes of the big bang theory. 

Glenn will be going over a list of falsifying evidence to this problematic theory as well as what he sees as a better alternative. From the age of the universe, to new astronomical observations, to impossible paradoxes - it appears more and more like the big bang is a big bust. Join us as we discuss everything Big Bang with Dr. Glenn Borchardt.

You can interactive live with Dr. Borchardt via chat or video. Hope to see you there!

 

How to Join In

All you need is a desktop, smartphone or tablet and the following URLs to participate.

PLEASE USE THESE LINKS FIRST:

• http://youtube.naturalphilosophy.org
• http://facebook.naturalphilosophy.org

 

New book "Religious Roots of Relativity" just released

PSI Blog 20201116 New book "Religious Roots of Relativity" just released

Many of those seeking to reform relativity and cosmogony are shocked to have their papers rejected outright by mainstream publishers. This happened three times to my paper “The physical cause of gravitation.” The thesis of that paper was rather simple: If gravitation is an acceleration, then there must be a physical accelerator. These rejections were in spite of my having had hundreds of abstracts, reports, papers, chapters, and books having gone through peer review and getting published forthwith.

 

The pandemic got me to think more about this. It turns out that anti-Einstein papers are rejected because they are founded on fundamental assumptions contrary to the religious suppositions upon which relativity is founded. Acceptance would be as rare as an atheist getting the chance to give a sermon in your former church.

 

Here is the description of the book as it appears on Amazon:

“Religious Roots of Relativity shows that, unlike other scientific theories, relativity is founded on religious assumptions. Glenn Borchardt, author of The Ten Assumptions of Science, elaborates on the opposing indeterministic assumptions to present “The Ten Assumptions of Religion” as the framework for this new book. Each fundamental religious assumption is shown to have much in common with the fundamental assumptions Einstein subconsciously used in devising Special and General Relativity Theory. One theme runs through the entire book: Einstein’s erroneous assumption that space was perfectly empty. That was critical for his popular Untired Light Theory, as it has been for popular biblical creation stories, and for popular Big Bang Theory. There is no evidence, however, for perfectly empty space; it is only an idealization akin to the dreams and imaginings of religion. It cannot possibly exist. Nonexistence, nothingness, therefore is impossible. The universe exists everywhere and for all time. Without relativity and its foundation in religion, the book predicts Big Bang Theory will be victim to the Last Cosmological Revolution: Infinite Universe Theory.

 

This is the book for you if you have wondered why relativity has remained lucrative and popular despite its weird paradoxes, contradictions, and interpretations. This is the book showing the intimate, necessary connection between relativity and religion, which has led to relativity’s longevity and indubitable veracity among those who still hold fast to religious assumptions.

 

“Wow!  I finished reading your book in one day!  I just couldn’t stop scrolling the pages.  It was an enjoyable read and very well written.  You have a great writing style that is easy to read.  Nice final sentence too.” -Bill Howell

 

“Borchardt’s new book is ultimately a fast read, because (like all his books) once you start reading it, you can’t put it down. And, literally, you can’t put it down physically, and you can’t put it down argumentatively. Some may disagree with it. But that would only reveal the indeterminist within. Borchardt ends his masterpiece with a look forward to the inevitable paradigm shift, and how mankind will be better off for it.” -Fred Frees

 

“Glenn Borchardt’s book “Religious Roots of Relativity” is not just about relativity and religion, it’s not only about physics, it’s much more, about science which is under a siege by everything what is not science. If I had to review Borchardt’s book: “Religious Roots of Relativity” in only once sentence, I would say: We need more books like this one!” -Rudolf Vrnoga

 

“Impressive piece of work! Very much in line with Collingwood and my essay on the subject. I had never realized these assumptions were of religious origin, though, besides the priest's obvious motivations.” -Pierre Berrigan

 

Glenn Borchardt's book uses the hammer of Infinity to explain and destroy the junk theories that plague 'Official' physics today. This is a book that should be used in college courses, to give students a basic understanding of how physics is done. Physics has 'gone off the rails' for a century and it is books like Borchardt's that will return physics from its current unscientific and anti-materialist base and back on to a scientific and materialist road." -Mike Gimbel”

Thanks to all the reviewers and to those of you who are so inclined as well. Reviews are always appreciated, even if they are only a few words.

 

You can get the Kindle version for $3.99 at:

http://go.glennborchardt.com/RRR-ebk

 

There is a preview link at:

https://go.glennborchardt.com/RRR-preview

 

You could share that with colleagues and friends who might be interested.

 

There already are paperback versions available. $9.99 for b&w and $34.99 for color.

Update on links to Infinity Interview

This just in from David:

 Glenn

Neither of those links will work.

Here are the correct links:

https://youtu.be/tbSPoHTsMYk

https://youtu.be/1yQuStyurhc

David

Borchardt Interview on Infinity and "The Ten Assumptions of Science"

 PSI Blog 20201109 Borchardt Interview on Infinity and "The Ten Assumptions of Science"

 

I thought the interview with David de Hilster of the Chappell Natural Philosophy Society went especially well. Congrats to David, Bob, Ian, Nick, and others for the great questions!

 

You can see a recording of the 2-hour interview at:

 

https://streamyard.com/irtdywn8ti

or 

http://live.naturalphilosophy.org

 

They both go to the same place.

Borchardt Interview on Infinity

PSI Blog 20201104 Borchardt Interview on Infinity

 

Looks like the Chappell Natural Philosophy Society wants to interview me on Saturday:

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yQuStyurhc&feature=youtu.be

 

CNPS (https://naturalphilosophy.org/) is the organization that replaced the Natural Philosophy Alliance, which was started by Dr. John Chappell in 1994. Like the NPA, the society prides itself in airing all manner of dissident views on current theories. Like most folks, including most scientists, members of the group generally assume finity (The universe is finite in the microscopic and macroscopic directions). So, I am honored to be able to present the opposing assumption, which, as most of you know, is the foundation of Infinite Universe Theory, the obvious replacement for the Big Bang Theory.

 

Viewers can ask questions. The video will be recorded, so you can watch it anytime on YouTube, if you can’t make it up at 7:00 am Pacific Time.

Cosmogonists Admit Space is Not Empty

PSI Blog 20201102 Cosmogonists Admit Space is Not Empty

 

In this infrared image from NASA’s Spitzer Space Telescope, winds flowing out from a fast-moving star (Zeta Ophiuchi) are making ripples in the dust in interstellar space. Image via NASA. Credit EarthSky.

 

As readers know, Einstein’s Untired Light Theory requires perfectly empty space. Without that assumption, the regressive deduction that the universe is expanding becomes untenable. The cosmological redshift occurs because, like every thing and every motion, light must lose energy over distance. This article is a poke in the eye of the Big Bang Theory, reiterating and admitting that the perfect interstellar vacuum does not exist:

 

https://go.glennborchardt.com/spacefull

 

Interstellar space – the space between the stars – isn’t just empty space. There’s a lot of “stuff” out there, including hydrogen (70%) and helium (28%), formed in the Big Bang that set our universe into motion. The other 2% of “stuff” in interstellar space is heavier gases and dust, consisting of the other elements made inside stars and spewed into space by supernovae. The material in interstellar space is very spread out. It’s denser in some places than in others, but a typical density is about one atom per cubic centimeter.

 

Note the gratuitous bow to Big Bang Theory in which the helium found in interstellar space is supposed to have formed during that miraculous event. This flies in the face of the fact helium forms from the fusion of hydrogen in our own Sun. Fusion, of course, is the coming together of microcosms. That only occurs under special conditions (e.g., high pressure). Big Bang Theory hypothesizes a coming apart, not a coming together. The universe doesn’t need any “Big Bang” to form helium.

 

Regressives admit that:

 

stars themselves make increasingly more complex elements in their interiors. When the most massive stars grow old and die, they explode as supernovae, releasing their elements into interstellar space. Thus it has become possible for stars to form with planets and for at least one planet we know of, Earth, to harbor living things.

 

Except for hydrogen, all the stuff in interstellar space is recycled from previous manifestations of special high-pressure portions of a universe that is infinite and eternal. The Sun only has pressures high enough to produce iron. The heavier elements, like gold and uranium, need much more than that to push their constituents together. As these folks imply, without realizing it, if the universe was not infinite, we would not be here.

Untired Light Theory and Regressive Attempts to Support It

PSI Blog 20201026 Untired Light Theory and Regressive Attempts to Support It

 

The reason the Big Bang Theory is hanging on so long is not because of any data the regressives have accumulated. It is entirely how those data are interpreted. Thanks to Jesse Witwer for asking my opinion on this enduring use of Einstein’s Untired Light Theory:

 

"Tired-Light" Hypothesis Gets Re-Tired

 

Whether light was a particle, a wave, or an idiotic combination of both, it would be impossible for it to travel over cosmic distances without losing energy. The only way that could happen is for space to be perfectly empty, as assumed by Einstein and his idealistic followers.

 

They claim: “For the tired-light theory to be correct, young galaxies would have to be dimmer, rather than brighter, than old ones.” Ask yourself: How much sense does that make? Furthermore, how much sense does perfectly empty space make?

 

As usual, regressives hold fast to their religiously based assumptions and are wont to emit borderline insults to nonbelievers: ‘Even so, "I don't think it's possible to convince people who are holding on to tired light," says Ned Wright, an astrophysicist at the University of California, Los Angeles. "I would say it is more a problem for a psychological journal than for Science."’

 

Maybe they should publish their Untired Light Theory stuff in religious journals.

 

Imperfect Transmission of Waves

 PSI Blog 20201019 Imperfect Transmission of Waves

 

[GB: Another great question from faithful reader Abhishek Chakravartty:]

 

“On page 55 of IUT, you wrote the following sentences:

 

"Each wave involves a convergence and divergence that produces the next wave. The next wave is similar to the last one, but it is never identical. What does change is the slight decrease in the ability of a wave to produce the next wave. Eventually, waves spread out from the source, being reproduced in a form not quite as true as the last."

 

In the above sentences, when you use the words "next wave", it would mean that after a wave is formed around it and so on. But that is not the fact. The fact is that each and every wave is emitted from the source and continues to move away from the source. Then why do you use the words "next wave" instead of the words "same wave at the next position”? Can you please explain this to me in detail?”

 

[GB: Abhi: There are two different processes occurring here:

1.  Production

2.  Transmission

Waves are produced by the source and transmitted by the medium. Thus, if I drop a pebble into still water, a single T-wave[1] will be produced. The water under the pebble will be displaced, with the surrounding water being pushed back into the hole thus created. This distortion of the surface of the medium affects the surface of the water in all directions, producing peaks and valleys we call waves. However, as this disturbance spreads away from the source the production of each subsequent peak and valley never can be perfect, as mentioned in “Infinite Universe Theory”.[2] This is because the reproduction of any thing or the motion of an thing cannot be perfect, in tune with the Ninth Assumption of Science, relativism (All things have characteristics that make them similar to all other things as well as characteristics that make them dissimilar to all other things).

 

But what about the second part of your question, which involves a source that continually produces new waves? That would be like the light waves continually produced by the sun. It also would be like the waves I would produce by continually dropping a series of pebbles into still water. Each wave, like the one produced by the single pebble, would produce similar imperfect replication of the next.

 

Why is any of this important? It is extremely important because there is no perfection in Infinite Universe Theory. There is no perfectly empty space, just as there is no perfect reproduction of the waves occurring within the medium making up what, instead, is assumed by Einstein and his regressive followers to be empty space. Waves occur via the multitude of particulate collisions within what constitutes the medium. Per neomechanics,[3] none of these collisions can occur without energy (motion of matter) losses to the macrocosm (aether-2 particles in this case). In wave motion, these losses appear as increases in wavelength (i.e., a redshift). There are many types of redshift, but only one, the cosmological redshift is a direct function of cosmological distance as would be expected for this “imperfect transmission theory.”

 

So, by tossing out the idea of perfection rampant among cosmogonists we have a logical explanation of the cosmological redshift. We no longer can use the doppler effect or the ridiculous expanding empty space to support the equally ridiculous expanding universe theory. The Big Bang Theory and all its supposed mathematical perfection is destroyed by the imperfections necessary for the Infinite Universe to exist.]

   

 

 

---

[1] Remember, T-waves are transverse waves. The particles in the medium move up and down, always returning to their previous positions. The disturbance, however, moves in all directions, forming peaks and valleys as it does so. T-waves also are sometimes called shear waves, particularly in seismology. L-waves, on the other hand, are a result of oscillating particle movement in the direction of the disturbance. These are also called longitudinal waves or pressure waves, as in seismology in which they travel faster than T-waves and arrive before the T-waves produced by earthquakes.  

[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 337 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].

 [3] Chapter 11 in Infinite Universe Theory.

Nonsense about Space and Time as Illusions

 PSI Blog 20201012 Nonsense about Space and Time as Illusions

 

One primary characteristic of regressive physicists is the inability to know what time is. The same, it seems, goes for space.

 

Here is another one by Dr. Tim Andersen, regressive physicist, from Georgia Tech. This time it is the old “time is an illusion” trope. As readers know, time is the motion of matter.[1]

 

Space and time may be illusions

 

Of course, this discussion amounts to a contradiction of the First Assumption of Science, materialism (The external world exists after the observer does not). It illustrates once again how far regressive physics has strayed from reality.

 

  Tim writes:

 

“One of the deepest philosophical questions is: why is there something rather than nothing? A more tractable question is: why is there space and time even when there is no matter?”

 

These are “deep philosophical questions” only for naïve idealists. As readers know, perfectly empty space is an idealization. There can be no such thing. Empty space has never been and will never be found. It is impossible for “nothing” to exist. After assuming just the opposite, Tim goes on to ask his second dumb question, proving once again that regressive physicists have no idea what time is. This is a paradox for him only because his beginning assumption (immaterialism) is incorrect.

 

 

 

---

[1] This from George Coyne: “Glenn, Ever since Einstein decoupled motion from matter in his relativity, physicists have accepted that motion can occur in the absence of matter. You and I know this is nonsensical, but the mainstream physicists do not question this dogma. Thus, your phrase "time is motion" needs to always be stated in full as "Time is the motion of matter." The last 2 words may appear unnecessary for a reason that is obvious to you and I, but they are needed. In your comparison of the BBT and IUT you do use the full phrase.”  [GB: I agree.]

 

Nonsense in Five Dimensions

 

PSI Blog 20201005 Nonsense in Five Dimensions

 

Regressives and reformists are always at work trying to demolish contradictions with untoward imagination. Here is one by Dr. Tim Andersen from Georgia Tech:

 

A 5th dimension may explain quantum theory

 

“String theorists claim that the universe has many dimensions: 10, 11, or 26, but that all but the four are curled up so small that we can’t detect them.

That’s not what I’m talking about here. I’m talking about a real 5th dimension, one that is as big and uncurled as the other four.”

 

Tim goes on to give all the details to this loony idea. Like many reform attempts, this one may be attractive to Newtonians and Einsteinians who simply cannot give up the indeterministic assumption of finity (The universe is finite in the microscopic and macroscopic directions). Because there are an infinite number of causes for any effect, all measurements have a plus or minus. Readers know the Copenhagen crowd handled nature’s reluctance to conform to finity by considering probability as a cause in itself. Einstein objected because, like the old-fashioned Newtonians (and Copenhageners), he could not give up the finity assumption. Here is how Tim goes about getting rid of that nasty old infinity:

 

“If this is true, it would mean that rather than being random, quantum mechanics is simply the result of classical motion in a largely invisible dimension.”

 

What he means by “classical motion” is the Newtonian assumption that causality is finite. Here he substitutes probability as a singular cause with the imagined 5^th dimension as a singular cause. Voila! This would satisfy Einstein’s dislike of probability, possibly achieving the holy grail of reformists: the impossible unification of relativity and quantum mechanics.

 

https://go.glennborchardt.com/5th-dimension

 

Note: This is part of a website Tim calls “The Infinite Universe

First Principles in Science, Philosophy, and Religion.” I don’t think so.