PSI Blog 20210208 Finite Laws in an Infinite Universe
Thanks to my most dedicated reviewer of Infinite Universe Theory, Abhishek Chakravartty, who did the math and concluded:
"So, when acceleration is not constant, Newton’s second law is not applicable."
Right. Each law of nature is applicable to an assumed finite number of conditions. In this case, F=ma of Newton's Second Law of Motion only applies to one collision. That single collision is what we call a "cause." In the Infinite Universe this never really applies completely (as with all laws in physics). Any colliding microcosm[1] must do so within a macrocosm[2] containing an infinity of supermicrocosms (the microcosms within the environment).
Newton’s First Law of Motion is similarly idealistic. The microcosm stays in motion only if space is perfectly empty (Newton’s agnostical “unless”). Because space is not empty, the law fails as it travels through the macrocosm filled with an infinity of supermicrocosms. Nonetheless, it has been called the "law of the universe." It is good enough for us to see how the universe works.
The beauty of Infinite Universe Theory is that a "first cause" is unnecessary, in tune with the Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed). With our assumed infinity, there is always yet another microcosm around to accelerate any sluggish microcosm. Thus, everything in the universe is always in motion. While each event requires collisions, the universe "itself" does not. That is yet another reason any finite universe theory, like the Big Bang, eventually will fail. It also is why the Big Bang Theory is presently so popular among religious folks who tend to believe in an imagined "first cause" and in Einstein's "perfectly empty space" (i.e., "nonexistence").[3] For that reason Infinite Universe Theory will receive only grudging acceptance. The switch from finity to infinity has global philosophical as well as cosmological implications. Once established, there will be no turning back. That is why we call it the “Last Cosmological Revolution.”
[1] MICROCOSM. An xyz portion of the universe surrounded by an equally important environment called a macrocosm. Note that in conventional science microcosms are referred to as systems, which generally are considered more important than the environments in which they exist. In Infinite Universe Theory, microcosms cannot exist without their equally important macrocosms. Regardless of the immensity of a microcosm, in an Infinite Universe an infinitely large macrocosm still surrounds it. The boundaries of a system sometimes are obvious: An apple, for instance, has a skin that roughly distinguishes it from its surroundings. At other times, the boundaries are not so obvious: A bee colony, for instance, has rather obscure boundaries when many of its members are far afield gathering nectar. Boundary selection is often difficult, always important, and frequently arbitrary. As scientists, we try to reduce arbitrariness by recording the location of boundaries with as much accuracy as possible. Our designation of a particular xyz portion of the universe as a microcosm faces the same problems, although in that instance, we treat its environment (the associated macrocosm) as equally important. Also, by attempting to treat the microcosm and the macrocosm equally, we are not as likely to miss important factors, as we would if we were biased toward one or the other (Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, p. 319 [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook]).
[2] MACROCOSM. The environment of a microcosm. Strictly speaking, the macrocosm contains the rest of the infinite universe. Practically speaking, only the nearby portions of the universe generally have much influence on a particular microcosm (Ibid, p. 317).
[3] Borchardt, Glenn, 2020, Religious Roots of Relativity: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 160 p. [https://go.glennborchardt.com/RRR-ebk].
Posts
7 comments:
Abhishek asks:
“You wrote that the microcosm stays in motion only if space is perfectly empty. Can you explain why?”
That’s an easy one. In the Infinite Universe, the environment of the microcosm (the macrocosm) always contains supermicrocosms (e.g., aether and its multitude of baryonic complexes). Newton was agnostic on this point. That is why he used the term “unless” in his First Law of Motion. Infinite Universe Theory uses “until” instead. Since Newton, we have never found perfectly empty space anywhere. A microcosm in motion therefore will become decelerated when it collides with supermicrocosms per Newton's Second Law of Motion.
Abhishek asks:
“In "comments", you wrote that a microcosm in motion therefore will become decelerated when it collides with super microcosms per Newton's Second Law of Motion. Does this mean that it is possible for the microcosms to reach zero velocity and be at rest?”
No. All microcosms in the Infinite Universe are always in motion. Supermicrocosms, such as aether particles, continually impact all microcosms at all times. That is why absolute zero cannot be achieved and why the temperature (i.e., motion of matter) of intergalactic regions is 2.7 degrees Kelvin. That is clearly stated by the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion).
Abhi asks:
“In the blog, you wrote that the microcosm stays in motion only if space is perfectly empty. But this is exactly the opposite of the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion).”
[GB: No. Space is never perfectly empty. The assumption of perfectly empty space is a violation of 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). It would be a manifestation of the religious assumption of absolutism, which posits perfectly empty space and perfectly solid matter. With the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions), we assume space is matter and infinitely subdividable.]
Abhi asks:
“Can you explain why the assumption of perfectly empty space is a violation of 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)?”
[GB: We define “things” as XYZ portions of the universe. According to infinity, each portion (a microcosm) must contain other things (submicrocosms) ad infinitum. Relativism then applies because the contents of no two microcosms can be identical. The opposing assumption is absolutism, which, in the extreme, posits a continuum from perfectly empty space to perfectly solid matter. These later extremes are idealizations, which like all idealizations, cannot possibly exist. Reality, on the other hand, consists of microcosms containing what appears to be both space and matter. The only difference is that “space” is matter of so little mass that it provides little resistance to the motion of matter of greater mass. Subdivision of any microcosm always produces what appears to be both “space” and “matter.”]
Abhi writes:
“You claim that each portion (a microcosm) must contain other things (submicrocosms) ad infinitum. Then what are the submicrocosms of any single aether particle?”
[GB: Infinite subdivision was covered in our book "Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe." We assumed aether particles consisted of aether-2 particles, which consisted of aether-3 particles…ad infinitum. Thus, there are no finite particles or “god particles,” which would all have to be identical as incorrectly assumed by the atomists and today’s Finite Particle Theory. In other words, Finite Particle Theory is a violation of 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). As mentioned before, this is consupponible with the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions).]
Glenn
Abhi writes:
“Can you explain why Finite Particle Theory is a violation of 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)?”
[GB: The imagined particle of the Finite Particle Theorists cannot possibly exist. It would have to be completely spherical and filled with “solid matter,” which is the imagined endpoint of the space-matter continuum. To be the ultimate, final particle, each particle would have to be exactly the same as all such particles per the opposing indeterministic assumption of absolutism. As such, they would have no reason to join together to form complexes. That was the greatest mistake of the atomists. Their identical atoms would simply bounce off each other, producing nothing new. On the other hand, nonidentical microcosms may receive mutual benefit when smaller microcosms are pushed toward and around larger ones forming vortices in which there are fewer macrocosmic impacts in the intervening spaces. That is the origination of matter from aether as I explained in more detail in Infinite Universe Theory and a bit in Aether Deceleration Theory.]
Glenn
Abhi writes:
“Can you explain why identical atoms would simply bounce off each other, producing nothing new?”
[GB: Why would they? Did you ever try making something by crashing billiard balls together? Reread Infinite Universe Theory Sections 16.1 and 16.4.]
Glenn
Post a Comment