Did time come first or did matter come first?

PSI Blog 20210531 Did time come first or did matter come first?

 

Anon got this week's book prize for this question:

 

“Glenn, did you know that: "Time is different from space and space is about relationships vs. time being about disconnected moments…”?:

 

https://aeon.co/videos/time-is-fundamental-space-is-emergent-why-physicists-are-rethinking-reality

 

Just more serious theoretical gaseous crepitations than there should be.”

 

[GB: Thanks Anon for the video interview with Lee Smolin, who is famous for his book (Smolin, Lee, 2006, The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next). One would think that skeptic Lee (the fellow with the full beard on the right) might come up with something sensible. But it ain’t here. Despite his doubts about regressive physics and cosmogony, he goes ahead and presents the tropes that define it.

 

For instance, read this from the abstract of the interview “Smolin discusses how developments in quantum mechanics have left physicists with questions that special relativity can’t seem to accommodate, and why the solution might be a conception of reality in which time is fundamental, and space emergent.” In other words, motion can occur without matter in violation of the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion). He does not know that time is the motion of matter and that space is matter, as implied by the Tenth Assumption of Science, interconnection (All things are interconnected, that is, between any two objects exist other objects that transmit matter and motion). Help yourself to the gibberish that still is considered oh so “intellectual.”

 

Here is a bit I wrote in "Religious Roots of Relativity":

 

“Relativity-Quantum Mechanics Paradox

 

As mentioned, a paradox always has at least one incorrect assumption. In this case, it is the religious assumption of finity as alluded to above. As we will see, Einstein’s belief in perfectly empty space required his unconsciously assuming all Ten Assumptions of Religion. Without empty space, his Untired Light Theory, based on his eight ad hocs[1], never would have resulted in Special or General Relativity Theory. The quantum mechanists assumed finity as well, but they resolved their problem with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle by inventing the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, which treats probability as a singular cause. By lumping the infinity of causal factors not discovered in any experiment, regressives kept their belief in the religious assumption of finity intact. By doing so they had no conflict with Einstein’s empty space hypothesis. Without aether, however, any wave motion discovered had to be attributed to the objects themselves. That is how the “particles are made up of waves” trope got started.

 

The upshot is that in the battle between relativity and quantum mechanics, only quantum mechanics can survive. Aether denial and empty space is critical for relativity, but only an embarrassing nuisance for quantum mechanics. Both the Copenhagen Interpretation and wave-particle duality finally will be discarded when finity is replaced by infinity. Quantum mechanics would be greatly improved with the application of univironmental determinism. As with all microcosms, the study of the infinite matter in motion in the environment is just as important as the infinite matter in motion within. That is not possible for relativity, with its massless-perfectly empty particle existing within a massless-perfectly empty environment. Einstein’s attempt to turn wave motion into particle motion is revealed to be completely vacuous.”]

 

---

[1] Table 3. Einstein’s eight ad hocs. (From "Religious Roots of Relativity")

1 Unlike other particles, Einstein’s 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 had 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.

 

Sixty-year paradigm shift in epidemiology exposes the aerosol screwup

PSI Blog 20210524 Sixty-year paradigm shift in epidemiology exposes the aerosol screwup

 

Sixty-year paradigm shift in epidemiology exposes the aerosol screwup

 

I know this is a bit off-topic, but not by much. Remember that right after George Floyd was murdered, I wrote PSI Blog 20200601 entitled:

 

“Coronavirus Hates the Outdoors”

 

From a few news reports, it had seemed obvious to me that Covid-19 was spread mostly via bad breath, which is only a problem when ventilation is bad and a room is crowded. Subsequent political demonstrations and gatherings resulted in very few Covid cases, with less than 0.1% of the infections from outdoor activity. On the contrary, cases escalated when bars, restaurants, and churches prematurely opened to crowds eager to test the power of prayer and jubilation.

 

Unfortunately, epidemiologists in the USA at first recommended that we not wear masks and that air purifiers with HEPA filters were unneeded in crowded rooms. Then they finally recommended we wear masks of any type, which might be nice for preventing transmission of droplets, but not so nice for preventing reception. For that, you probably would need N95 masks, which were in short supply. They work best because, unlike surgical masks, they can screen out particles as small as 0.3 microns.

 

Below I have a link to a wonderful article that nicely tells the story of another nonsensical mainstream paradigm not unlike the Big Bang Theory I normally rant against. It is worth your time reading. It starts with a fellow named Wells who studied measles in the ‘40s, finding its transmission to be aerosolic. He was heavily criticized because the mainstream down-played aerosol transmission just as it did until recently when Linsey Marr and colleagues unearthed Wells’ seminal work. The cutoff was thought to be 5 microns, and those would drop out of the air quickly. That is where the 6-ft trope came from. That, of course, does no good if the air is filled with <5 micron-particles, which settle according to Stokes Law and tend to float around under Brownian motion for hours and hours.

 

Megan Morteni’s fascinating story is much like the one we are now faced with in our campaign to get rid of the Big Bang Theory. It is not quite as absurd as the explosion of the entire universe out of nothing, but it shows how stubborn otherwise supposedly intelligent folks can be in the face of clear evidence. Science is supposed to reverse its tune when incontrovertible evidence shows up—but don’t count on it. Happily, WHO and CDC, after 60+ years and 16+ months of Covid, has finally and quietly adopted the aerosolic theory. Bet you didn’t hear any grand announcements in the press. I also bet Einstein adoration will diminish similarly when relativity and the BBT fade away. Read now about the mighty, deadly crash of a paradigm that has now met its deserved end:

 

“Screwup That Helped Covid Kill

All pandemic long, scientists brawled over how the virus spreads. Droplets! No, aerosols! At the heart of the fight was a teensy error with huge consequences.”

 

A staider article signed on by 39 authors, no less, in the mainstream journal Science put the coup de grâce on the no aerosol trope:

 

A paradigm shift to combat indoor respiratory infection

Building ventilation systems must get much better

 

Lastly, remember this from Healthline:

 

“Surgical masks do not provide the wearer with a reliable level of protection from inhaling smaller airborne particles. N95s filter out at least 95 percent of airborne particles.

 

Surgical masks leak around the edge of the mask when the user inhales. When properly worn, N95s have minimal leakage.”

 

In other words, all masks tend to protect others, but only N95s protect the wearer. KN95s are not yet approved by NIOSH. Their quality depends on the manufacturer. Unfortunately, some KN95s really should be labeled N70s.

Distinguishing between matter and the motion of matter

PSI Blog 20210517 Distinguishing between matter and the motion of matter

 

Abhishek Chakravartty has this question:

 

“In Figure 12 of IUT [“Infinite Universe Theory”], you have shown that ripple wavelength increases with distance. But if an object as a whole moves at a single velocity, it means that each and every point of that object is moving at that velocity. So, if an object as a whole moves at a single velocity, it's length cannot change. Besides, if the length of an object changes while the object is in motion, it would mean that the object as a whole is not moving at a single velocity. It would mean that different points of the object are moving at different velocities. So, if the wavelength of a ripple increases with distance, does it mean that the ripple as a whole is not moving at a single velocity, but different points of the ripple are moving at different velocities?”

 

[GB: Thanks, Abhi for this rather sophisticated question. It puts our discussion of the difference between matter and the motion of matter on the ground (or on the water in this case). While we assume matter and motion are inseparable per the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion), we must think of them as two different phenomena. For instance, time is the motion of all things (matter) in the Infinite Universe. Consciousness, like time, does not exist; it occurs. Sound and light do not exist; they occur. My way of deciding: If I can put it figuratively in my back pocket, it is matter; if I cannot, it is motion.

 

Similarly, waves do not exist; they occur. In this case, what does exist are the trillions of water molecules whose interactions constitute a particular temporary shape induced by an impact on that medium at the source. The characteristics of the medium control the velocity of the waves traveling through it. Thus, the velocity of light in air is about 300 million m/s, while it is 225 million m/s in water. Thus, while the velocity of wave motion through a medium does not change, the distance between the waves tends to increase over distance (e.g., the cosmological redshift). This delay in reconstituting wave shape is an entropic effect reflecting the fact that it is impossible for the Infinite Universe to produce perfection. A second wave shape is never exactly the same as the first.

 

Now to the change in the length of things and the relation to velocity… You correctly imply that the trailing edge of an object does not always travel at the same velocity as the leading edge. This is because all microcosms (XYZ portions of the universe) contain submicrocosms (other XYZ portions ad infinitum). Each submicrocosm is semi-independent from all the others. This effect happens during acceleration, as when a train is pushed from the rear, decreasing its total length as the individual cars collide with one another. An increase in length occurs when the engine pulls the train. The length does not change, however, when the train reaches a constant velocity. Subsequent changes in length depend on the macrocosm through which a microcosm is traveling. For instance, under inertial motion per Newton’s First Law of Motion, length will decrease as collisions occur with the supermicrocosms inevitable in space that is invariably not perfectly empty. That is why satellites lose velocity over time.]

 

You wrote:

 

“Besides, if the length of an object changes while the object is in motion, it would mean that the object as a whole is not moving at a single velocity. It would mean that different points of the object are moving at different velocities.”

 

[GB: Right, but that only occurs during acceleration or deceleration of objects, not waves. At relatively constant velocity each submicrocosm moves at a relative velocity similar to all the others. In other words, the front of a moving object has the same relative velocity as the rear.]

 

You then wrote:

 

“So, if the wavelength of a ripple increases with distance, does it mean that the ripple as a whole is not moving at a single velocity, but different points of the ripple are moving at different velocities?”

 

[GB: Remember that the various submicrocosms within the ripple simply move back and forth or side to side, always returning to the same spot. Thus, the short answer is NO. This is difficult for most folks to understand. It is only the motion that is transmitted from one place to another, not the matter. After all, that is why wave motion only occurs in a medium, which necessarily consists of numerous submicrocosms.

 

Now, what does this all have to do with Infinite Universe Theory? A lot! Light is wave motion and therefore requires a medium, which, like all media, must contain relatively stationary submicrocosms (particles) we call aether. In other words, light is motion, not matter. The matter that transmits light is not that different from the matter in water waves. You can get knocked down by a water wave and a light wave can produce the photoelectric effect. Evidence “confirming” Einstein’s photon theory invariably involves short-range motion of aether particles. The wave-particle theory of regressive physics is both an oxymoron and an einsteinism.]

 

Which came first, inflation or Big Bang?

PSI Blog 20210510 Which came first, inflation or Big Bang?

 

Question from George Coyne:

 

“Hi Glenn,

 

I found it shocking that those who believe in the Big Bang/inflation model do not agree on which came first, the Big Bang or inflation. I have read scientific articles that take completely different positions.  A question about this is posed at The Physics Stack exchange:

 

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/132794/is-the-big-bang-defined-as-before-or-after-inflation

 

How can a model be taken seriously when there is no agreement on whether inflation came before or after the Big bang?”

 

[GB: George, as you know, the Big Bang Theory is taken very seriously by regressive physicists and cosmogonists. I normally don’t concern myself with such problems. It is their theory, not mine. I considered it nonsensical. Just think about how the explosion of everything out of nothing could have happened? Totally nuts.

 

Remember that the inflation idea also is totally nuts. It came about because the z values (redshifts) of distant galaxies eventually got so great that they implied galaxies were receding from us at greater than the speed of light! Of course, this was verboten by Einstein’s claim that nothing could travel faster than c. No cosmogonist or regressive physicist could contradict Einstein, so an ad hoc had to be prepared to save the BBT and relativity. “Inflation” was the answer, and the guys who promoted that (Guth and his pals)[1] are awaiting the Nobel prize to be bestowed by their fiduciary friends. The hesitancy by the Committee is a good sign—just like their reluctance to give such to Einstein for his bogus relativity theory.

 

Obviously, the choice between what came first, inflation or Big Bang is a non sequitur. I suppose it is no more idiotic than the perfectly empty space the whole thing is based on.[2]

 

That assumption led to Einstein’s ridiculous particle theory of light in which a massless photon containing nothing whatsoever travels perpetually through perfectly empty space containing nothing whatsoever, for which there is no evidence whatsoever. The resulting misinterpretation of the cosmological redshift is what led to the expanding universe theory. To come up with that, cosmogonists had to violate known laws of physics. Individual particles do not display doppler effects. That is a property only given to media, which, in this case, is the aether that regressives have dismissed out of hand since Michelson and Morley’s misguided experiment.[3] There are many mechanisms that can produce a red shift, which simply is the lengthening of waves as they travel through particulate media. Longer waves have less energy than shorter ones. Only the most naïve idealist could believe waves could travel the immense distances so far observed without losing energy. In other words, cosmogonists are expecting us to believe each wave will achieve perfection in producing the next. This perfection is supposed to show no diminishment for 13.8 billion light years. Wow, another ramification of Einstein’s Untired Light Theory!

 

The failure of the doppler effect explanation for recessional velocities greater than light c led to an even more ridiculous excuse for the cosmological redshift: the assumed expansion of perfectly empty space. You read that right. The magical “expansion” of space itself, containing nothing at all, is now the ad hoc used to explain “inflation.” The Big Bang Theory has been given yet another reprieve!]

---

[1] Guth, A.H., 1998, The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins, Basic Books, 384 p.

Guth, A.H., and Steinhardt, P.J., 1984, The inflationary universe: Scientific American, v. 250, no. 5, p. 116-128, 154.

[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 2020, Religious Roots of Relativity: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 160 p. [ https://go.glennborchardt.com/RRR-ebk ]

 

[3] They failed to realize that aether was entrained, just like our atmosphere. There was no way they could have measured Earth’s 30 km/s velocity around the Sun at Cleveland’s low elevation. That would have been like measuring the velocity of the jet stream in your backyard at sea level. 

Living after dying in the Infinite Universe?

PSI Blog 20210503 Living after dying in the Infinite Universe?

 

Roger asks:

 

“Could I develop an argument in my memoir that the theory of infinity means that we live forever? It requires no god, only that our particles exist. As Sagan said, we are all star dust and we return to stardust.”

 

[GB: Microcosms come into being through convergence and go out of being through divergence.  Consciousness is the motion within the brain. You can have a brain without a mind, but you can't have a mind without a brain. There is no living after dying. Everything afterwards will be the same as before you were born. Last I checked, particles didn't have minds, and even they don't last forever. They break down into smaller particles, and like the carbon of the dinosaurs, sometimes combine in new life forms. The only "thing" that lasts forever is the infinite universe, with its various parts occasionally producing and destroying the consciousness that allows parts of it to be aware of some of the other parts. Sagan’s metaphor is poetic but, like all metaphors, not exactly accurate.]