Muon desperation

 PSI Blog 20210426 Muon desperation

 

Thanks to Marilyn, Mike, and others who wondered about this latest ground-breaking news on the muon, which is just an extra heavy electron:

 

Here is the most reasonable explanation:

 

https://go.glennborchardt.com/Muon-Fodor

 

And another:

 

https://medium.com/predict/the-groundbreaking-new-physics-experiment-694797b3f4c8

 

And a skeptic:

 

https://go.glennborchardt.com/Muon-skeptic

 

Why be a skeptic? [GB: Because no theory can be “complete” in an Infinite Universe. There may be some hope for regressive physicists yet]:

 

“Since it was first put together in the 1970s, the standard model has passed all tests and has survived almost unchanged. But physicists are convinced that it must be incomplete, and some hope that muons will reveal its first failure.”

(https://go.glennborchardt.com/Muon-incomplete).

 

 

Assumptions and “Confirmations” of Relativity

PSI Blog 20210419 Assumptions and “Confirmations” of Relativity

 

Thanks to Boris, who recently left these related questions on the comment section of our “Time is Motion” Blog post:

 

“And this brings me to my question. You write in your paper that ‘If there is any consistency in SRT and GRT, it is the objectification of motion, Einstein’s most important philosophical error’. Essentially that the problem of Einstein’s theories is that they are theoretical models without any basis in empirical evidence. I think you write something akin to this even more clearly elsewhere but I can't find it right now.

 

Wouldn't the solution to this be to simply find (if possible) or construct one or several mathematical models that is an alternative that can then be used to aid the same applications or tested through the same experiments that is based on empirical science and that can be tied to natural phenomena that we can observe?

 

Indeed, this is what I regret almost every week if not sometimes every day of my life, that I didn't become a physicist to disprove Einstein.

 

But I know that I'm not exceptionally smart compared to some people, so why has no one else broken through the academic shroud yet?”

 

[GB: As I have mentioned previously, de Climont[1] lists 10,000 dissidents born since 1905 with a presence on the Internet. He remarks that there are over 2,500 theories opposed to relativity and the Big Bang Theory. Most of these reformists use mathematics in proposing alternatives, as you suggest, but to no avail. So, there must be something else going on. Otherwise, we would have to accept the absurdities forever (perfectly empty space, the explosion of the universe out of nothing, time dilation, 4 dimensions, etc.). In my latest book, "Religious Roots of Relativity," I unveil the culprit, and it is a hard nut to crack. Most folks are religious or have had religious backgrounds in which they still unknowingly accept many fundamental religious assumptions that underlie their attempts at a mathematical panacea. The result is GIGO (Garbage In; Garbage Out). That is why we have to scrutinize the foundations of our thinking. That is why "The Ten Assumptions of Science" have made such a great contribution.

 

Remember that the so-called “confirmations” of relativity require interpretations based on thinly veiled religious assumptions. For instance, in religions, the Creation idea starts with perfectly empty space, which was incidentally an ad hoc required for Einstein’s massless photon to travel perpetually through massless space. This is accepted today by regressive physicists and cosmogonists despite there being no evidence of perfectly empty space.

 

The bending of light as it passes the Sun was considered by Eddington as proof of Einstein’s “curved space-time” theory. The correct interpretation is that light is bent by simple refraction in the Sun’s atmosphere. Such paralogistical mistakes are rampant in today’s religiously tinted regressive physics. There are no “confirmations” of relativity that pass scrutiny of the assumptions underlying such interpretations. The whole of relativity theory must be discarded along with the religious assumptions on which its popularity is based. Good luck with that!]

 

 

---

[1]de Climont, Jean, 2021, The Worldwide List of Alternative Theories and Critics, Editions d' Assailly, 2510 p. [https://go.glennborchardt.com/Climont-21].

 

Paralogists and Immaterialism

PSI Blog 20210412 Paralogists and Immaterialism

  

Here is a question from someone who understandably wishes to remain anonymous due to religious persecution:

 

“Hi, Glenn.  I just purchased your latest book, Religious Roots of Relativity.   I’ve been confused about the concept of Immateriality and religious beliefs for some time.  Every religious person whom I’ve ever spoken with has conveyed that they think the earth will still exist after they are dead.  They think that they have a soul that is going to be hanging-out in an invisible realm somewhere in the Ether (“another dimension”).  However, the concept of Immateriality suggests that everything for a person ceases to exist after they cease to exist, as if reality itself were just a dream that has come to an end.  What am I not understanding?”

 

[GB: Thanks for the question. Unfortunately, you are supposed to be confused. That is the nature of the determinism-indeterminism (science vs. religion) struggle.  The religious side is based on paralogistics, a word that I just came across on the AAAS website. To be paralogical means to have the opposite of a logical train of thought—fallacious reasoning, which generally is based on erroneous assumptions and the misinterpretation of data, should there be any. Thus, a paralogist is one whose thinking is outside of logic. This is how you pronounce that word: per ral' agist. Some would call that type of thinking “illogical,” but what would you call the perpetrator? “Illogist: is not in the dictionary, so I like paralogist. My new motto is: “Always debate a paralogist any chance you get—someone logical might be listening.”

 

So much for the paralogical lecture…

 

Immaterialism may be the preeminent paralogism. The universe obviously consists of material things. As infants, we gradually learn that after we take the proverbial blanket off our heads and inevitably discover object permanence. The solipsistic tendency usually disappears as we age, become educated, and discover we are not the only things in the universe. Immaterialism is the religious opposite of the First Assumption of Science, materialism (The external world exists after the observer does not). Because immaterialism and materialism are fundamental assumptions, I have stated them in their most extreme forms. The most extreme proponent of immaterialism was Bishop Berkeley, who claimed that when he left the room, the chair he was sitting on disappeared merely because he could no longer see it. Gladly, your friends have left that stage of development. Unfortunately, most folks are still religious and retain vestiges of immaterialism in hypothesizing some future immaterial existence in an immaterial realm for which there is no material evidence. This is typical of paralogists, who tend to replace logic with emotion. They might even realize their logic is fallacious, but they still want to believe it. Who doesn’t want to live forever?

 

As I showed in "Religious Roots of Relativity," we all have trouble distinguishing between what is material and what is immaterial. Material things are XYZ portions of the universe, while their motions are not. We can dream of things that cannot possibly exist and of things that do exist. The brain is material, but thinking is motion. Time does not exist—it occurs.

 

Finally, your puzzlement is nicely expressed when you wrote: “…the concept of Immateriality suggests that everything for a person ceases to exist after they cease to exist, as if reality itself were just a dream that has come to an end.” Of course, that is true for materialism as well. Many is the time I have been amazed by the existence of the universe and even more so by its infinite nature.

 

Also of course, while we are alive, reality is not a dream, just as it is not a dream when we are dead. For now, we must make a choice between that reality supported by the scientific assumption of materialism and the dreams and imaginings supported by the religious assumption of immaterialism. If we want to understand the universe, we must choose materialism. That is not merely the scientific way, it is the logical way.

 

Again, logical thinking requires an understanding of our most fundamental assumptions. Because the universe is infinite, we cannot provide a complete proof of any of them. Each has an opposite, which is correct if the first is incorrect. When we hold more than one fundamental assumption, all the others must be consupponible, that is, they must not contradict one another. Regressive physicists, having made their fiduciary compromise with religion, dare not follow their paralogic to its roots therein. That is why "The Ten Assumptions of Science" is a landmark in scientific philosophy.

 

The recent decline of the US has exposed the paralogistics that was there all along. Fundamental defects in our thinking have come to the fore. Once again, we must make life and death choices, not merely choices between some hair-brained “physical” theories. Anon, it is extremely important that we discard immaterialism, assume materialism, and get back to work forthwith.]

 

 

 

 

 

If Einstein is wrong, how come Perseverance made it to Mars?

PSI Blog 20210405 If Einstein is wrong, how come Perseverance made it to Mars?

 

Thanks to Mike Dwyer for this question:

 

“How can Einstein’s theories be so wrong if so many technical advances based upon them seem to have worked so well. The most dramatic advance being the recent and sophisticated of the Mars Landers, Perseverance, being able to most successfully touchdown and now rove the surface of the red planet sending back new information from millions of miles distant.  Have you thrown all or part of poor baby Albert out with the anti-relativity wash water?”

 

[GB: Mike, we must remember there is at present a huge divide between theoretical and experimental physics. Landing instruments on other cosmic bodies is an engineering feat, which does not require relativity. The calculations for that are based simply on Newtonian mechanics. Even the most ardent regressive physicist will have to admit that our rockets don’t come close to moving at the speed of light. Engineers do not deal with c except in their communications and in electrical engineering. At least, I have never heard of any rocket scientist having to deal with four dimensions, wormholes, or any of the other nonsense perpetrated by Einstein’s descendants.  In fact, some of the best folks seeking to reform or demolish relativity are electrical engineers. Those who have their feet on the ground tend to snicker at the “pin in the sky” stuff being pushed by the current batch of physics evangelists. They know that nothing happens unless one thing hits another thing—curved empty space be dammed.

 

As I explained in "Religious Roots of Relativity," Einstein’s relativity became popular because it was based on religious assumptions (e.g., perfectly empty space implying a supernatural creator was necessary for anything to exist). Any so-called “proofs” of relativity invariably are einsteinisms: predictions that were right for the wrong reasons. About the best example of that is the bending of light around the Sun. That occurs because the Sun has an atmosphere that produces simple refraction. There are many other einsteinisms, some of which I explained in “Infinite Universe Theory.” See PSI Blog 20210322 for an explanation of the GPS trope that we would be lost without Einstein. Any time you start thinking Einstein might be right about something, dig into it with the “The Ten Assumptions of Science” in your back pocket. You might be surprised.]