The Scientific Worldview

This is a blog that takes the name of my magnum opus on scientific philosophy called "The Scientific Worldview." Reviewers have called it “revolutionary,” “exhilarating,” “magnificent,” “fascinating,” and even “a breathtaking synthesis of all understanding.” There is very little math in it, no religion, no politics, no psycho-babble, and no BS. It provides the first outline of the philosophical perspective that will develop during the last half of the Industrial-Social Revolution.

20210628

Cause of the motion of aether particles

PSI Blog 20210628 Cause of the motion of aether particles

This week’s book prize goes once again to Abhishek Chakravartty for another good question:

“You wrote that per the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the entropy of each wave would be less than the previous. Some of the motion of the particles would be lost to the environment which, in the case of light, must consist of progenitor aether-2 particles magnitudes smaller than the aether-1 particles directly responsible for light transmission. Can you explain how the motion of aether-1 particles consists of aether-2 particles?”

[GB: Abhi, in Infinite Universe Theory all things are assumed to consist of other things ad infinitum. For this assumption to work, scale is irrelevant. In “Universal Cycle Theory”[1] Steve and I speculated that, while baryonic (ordinary) matter is formed from aether particles, the hierarchical nature of the Infinite Universe requires even smaller microcosms to form the constituents of aether. Aether would be a benefactor of an infinite series. For that discussion we renamed “aether” as aether-1, with it having formed from aether-2, which had to be formed from aether-3, and so on… That is a corollary from the Tenth Assumption of Science, interconnection (All things are interconnected, that is, between any two objects exist other objects that transmit matter and motion). Note that aether-2, like all the other intervening microcosms, provides little resistance to the motion of larger microcosms in the infinite hierarchy, often giving “support” to the perfectly empty space assumption of Einstein’s Untired Light Theory and the Big Bang Theory.

Later,[2] I realized that aether particles probably were vortices because: 1) the formation of matter requires vortex motion, which develops when constituents vary in size per relativism (Figure), 2) vortices are common throughout the Infinite Universe at all scales, 3) vortex structure would result in the T-waves that dominate light motion.

“Hypothetical aether particles showing the effects of vortex morphology” (Borchardt, 2017, figure 49).

Not shown in the figure are the aether-2 particles, which like the aether-1 particles, cannot be seen by us baryonically formed microcosms. I imagine the aether-2 particles form from aether-3 particles in the same way baryonic matter forms from aether-1 particles. Each of these vortices accretes their constituents in the same way the solar system and the Milky Way does. Per the Sixth Assumption of Science, complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things) these eventually will dissipate like all other microcosms, to be replaced by new ones formed in similar ways. Note that no one has proposed a “structure” for Einstein’s imaginary photons aside from the wave-particle oxymoron. Photons are massless and thus can have no constituents. Remember that the impacts attributed to photons (e.g., the photoelectric effect) must be due to local aether particles in the same way local nitrogen molecules impact your ear drums.

The motions of the submicrocosms (constituents) within a microcosm serve to preserve its structure. For instance, without the impacts of the helium atoms on the insides of the balloon it could not exist as an inflated balloon.

In Infinite Universe Theory the motion of aether-1particles does not result from its containing aether-2 particles. The motion of a particular microcosm is primarily the result of impacts from other microcosms per “univironmental determinism” (what happens to a portion of the universe depends on the infinite matter within and without). For instance, the motion of a helium balloon depends on the macrocosm (environment) in which it exists. In the atmosphere, the pressure beneath it is greater than above it. The impacts from nitrogen molecules beneath it are more numerous and more active than those above it. Note there is no religious “first cause” because there is always yet another microcosm in the Infinite Universe to do the job. The opposing finity assumption is the religious foundation of the ever-popular Big Bang Theory, which is the last gasp of creationism.]

[1] Puetz, S.J., and Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe: Denver, Outskirts Press, 626 p. [https://go.glennborchardt.com/UCT].

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

20210621

Waving light lattice: Another reformist fail

PSI Blog 20210621 Waving light lattice: Another reformist fail

This week’s book prize goes, once again, to George Coyne, our most prolific questioner:

“Hi Glenn,

What do you think of this explanation from Laszlo Petruska regarding the question "if light is a wave, what is waving?

He answers: 'In the 1950’s QFT introduced another model. The fundamental electromagnetic field permeates space everywhere, not just between objects, but all the way down to the subatomic domains of matter. According to one interpretation, the fundamental electromagnetic field is the three-dimensional lattice structure of its quanta, the photons.

Electromagnetic energy/radiation propagates in this field as the up and down oscillation of the field values in a wave pattern as the photons of the field transfer the electromagnetic energy to one another in the direction of propagation.

As far as the wave-particle duality of light: the photons of the field act like particles, but the field values change like a wave. That’s it.’”

[GB: Thanks George. This is a good example of what I like to call a “reformist fail.” What are the criteria for such? Firstly, the theoretician must include some part of regressive physics or cosmogony that clearly violates at least one of “The Ten Assumptions of Science.” Secondly, it must be an honest attempt to resolve at least one of the numerous contradictions engendered by relativity. Here, Petruska is trying to resolve the wave-particle paradox by accepting Einstein’s ad hoc that light consists of photons. As I have mentioned many times, photons do not and cannot exist. According to relativity, photons are massless “particles” containing nothing and traveling perpetually through perfectly empty space containing nothing. In other words, they are purely imaginary.

In his answer to “what is waving,” Petruska cites the 3-D lattice structure idea, which has been around for some time. That is a typical reformist attempt to resolve the T-wave problem while rejecting the wave-particle paradox. Of course, waves only occur in media and T-waves (transverse waves, i.e., waves that move up and down and side to side instead of back and forth like L-waves) mostly occur in solids (and at the surface of the ocean). Light clearly occurs as a T-wave, with polarization being the evidence for that. Media having high degrees of freedom (limited or no connections between microcosms) normally have L-waves, while those media with inter-particle connections can have T-waves.

The particles in gases (such as the atmosphere) have much freedom and tend to be roundish, and so they exhibit L-waves; the particles in solids (such as steel) have restricted freedom, and so they exhibit T-waves. Now, aether, the medium for light, generally has been modeled after the atmosphere as a gas filled with round particles. So how could it have T-waves? Some reformists have suggested aether actually is a solid. That doesn’t make much sense because the vacuum supposedly containing the ubiquitous aether is transparent and offers little resistance to movement unlike any solid we know of. The proposed lattice structure is an attempt to give solidity to the light medium in support of the T-wave evidence. Others have tried that with aether particles taking the place of the photons in the figure. Why photons or aether particles would form a lattice like this is not explained. Petruska emphasizes the up and down movement typical of T-waves, but does not explain why his lattice also could not have back and forth movement typical of L-waves. Light has few L-waves, so that falsifies his lattice theory.

As readers know, my speculation resolves the T-wave problem by suggesting aether particles are tiny vortices.[1] Unlike photons, which supposedly travel from galaxy to eyeball, these are ubiquitous and constantly in motion similar to the nitrogen and oxygen molecules in air. But because of their odd shape, few of their interactions would be like those of ideal gases, which contain ideal spherical particles whose collisions produce longitudinal motion.]

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

20210614

Velocity of light versus wavelength

PSI Blog 20210614 Velocity of light versus wavelength

Abhishek Chakravartty just won this week’s book prize for asking:

“In the blog, you also wrote that while the velocity of wave motion through a medium does not change, the distance between the waves tends to increase over distance. How is this possible? I am asking this question because velocity is equal to distance divided by time. So, if distance increases, velocity must also increase?”

[GB: The statement “the velocity of wave motion through a medium does not change” is a generalization assuming an ideal medium having properties that do not change. However, the velocity of a wave changes when the medium changes. For instance, light in air travels at 300 million m/s, while it travels at 225 million m/s in water (75% as fast). Red light in air has a 650 nm wavelength but only 488 nm in water (75% as long). In “Universal Cycle Theory” and “Infinite Universe Theory” we used this relationship to explain the Pound/Rebka experiment without using the Einsteinian trope calling for nonsensical “time dilation” as salvation for Einstein’s assumed constancy of light velocity. We speculated that the redshift they observed for EM traveling away from Earth actually was due to slight increases in aetherial pressure that caused a speedup in light velocity. This speedup resulted in increases in wavelength similar to the increase that occurs when light travels from water into air.

Now, redshifts like the misnamed “gravitational redshift” mentioned above can occur in an ideal medium for other reasons as well. The well-known Doppler shift produces a redshift when the source is moving away. Cyclic beats of constant frequency contact the medium at different distances within the medium. These wave-producing contacts then become increasingly farther apart when the source speeds up.

My own speculation concerning the cause of the cosmological redshift is based on the impossibility of any two waves being exactly alike. Think about what must happen for a wave to reproduce itself. All media are made up of trillions of particles, with each of them colliding with other particles in response to a disturbance. Per 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) no two of those particles can be identical. Neither the precise direction nor the precise character of each particle and its collisions could be reproduced exactly within a second wave. Per the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the entropy of each wave would be less than the previous. Some of the motion of the particles would be lost to the environment which, in the case of light, must consist of progenitor aether-2 particles magnitudes smaller than the aether-1 particles directly responsible for light transmission.[1]

Abhi, the upshot is that the velocity of wave motion still is determined by the nature of the medium through which it travels. Again, wave velocity only increases when the medium changes, as in the change from water to air or low pressure proximal aether to high pressure distal aether. An increase in wavelength is then correlated with the increase in velocity. However, as mentioned, there are other means by which wavelength can increase, such as those due to the entropic energy (i.e., motion) losses that inevitably must occur over distance. When the medium does not change there is no way for the velocity of its wave motion to increase without some magical energy inputs which, of course, would be impossible.]

[1] Puetz, S.J., and Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe: Denver, Outskirts Press, 626 p. [https://go.glennborchardt.com/UCT].

20210607

Decelerated aether as the cause of gravitation

PSI Blog 20210607 Decelerated aether as the cause of gravitation

Bill Howell just won this week’s book prize for this question:

“Thanks for responding to my question about GPS time adjustments being indicative of an aether gradient (blog 20210322). I like your aether-based concept of gravity being a manifestation of the motion of matter, but I’m having difficulty visualizing a conceptual model based solely on aether pressure. In response to George Coyne’s question (blog 20210329), you wrote that aether deceleration and the resulting distal [proximal (GB)] pressure decrease is the cause of gravitation (analogous to how a vacuum cleaner works). In your 2018 paper: The Physical Cause of Gravitation you write that gravitation is caused by accelerations of baryonic matter by locally active aether particles exhibiting high velocity short-range motion. My mind sees nuance and it confuses me.

My first confusion is that IF the aether pressure within our solar system is relatively homogeneous, isotropic, and ubiquitous, then it seems like the decelerated aether particles surrounding the Moon would result in its gravity being somewhat similar to Earth’s. Since it’s not, it would seem that the quantity of baryonic matter mass available to interact with the aether particles (as your 2018 paper suggests) is also a component of the gravitational field that results. If gravity is the result of a combination of both aether pressure and complexed aether-baryonic matter interactions, then it gives me a new perspective on Newton’s 2nd Law that F=MA. But is that what you mean?”

[GB: Thanks again Bill. You got that right. Without those F=ma decelerations there would be no gravitation. Things would just float around in perfectly empty space. In particular, life on Earth would have been impossible, because our progenitors would not have even stuck to Earth. You also are correct in surmising that the amount of decelerated aether surrounding a body is a direct function of the mass of that body (and the distance from it), just as Newton’s equation implied.

This necessary connection was the star of my chapter in “Infinite Universe Theory” on the formation of baryonic matter from previously existing aetherial matter in the Infinite Universe:

Figure 47 Microcosms in motion. Note that large microcosm A in the center shelters microcosm B from impacts from the left. Consequently, B will be pushed toward A, with the likelihood it might even end up rotating around A.

Figure 47 essentially shows the early stage of the formation of aether complexes via the collisions of small aether particles with large ones. The resulting vortices are seen throughout the universe, from the smallest atom to the largest spiral galaxy. As far as I know, this speculation is the first tying matter formation, aether deceleration, and gravitation. I also speculate that the resulting entrained aether is the dark matter regressives are searching for but will never find until they give up aether denial.]

Bill: “My next confusion involves the Lagrange Points. If the Earth’s aether halo extends beyond the Moon then I can understand the L1 and L2 points. Similarly, I can understand how an extension of an aether halo around the Sun could explain the L3 point. But I don’t understand the stable Lagrange Points at L4 and L5 given that they don’t lie near baryonic matter that can decelerate the aether pressure wind or interact with baryonic matter. Can you help clear up my confusion?”

[GB: The size of aether halos due to entrained aether is essentially infinite, as suggested by Newton’s inverse R² law for the effect of gravity on baryonic matter. As with all entrainment, think of the decelerated aether as being part of the body that was involved in the initial collisions. Our baryonic atmosphere is a good analogy. It is as if the rotating body was the center of a record, CD, or other platter. As an aside, remember that the outside edge of that CD travels great distances at much higher velocity than the center. That is why Vera Rubin was able to detect dark matter in rotating galaxies.[1] Neither Newton’s nor Einstein’s gravity theories could explain what was happening. Perfectly empty space just would not cut it. Also note that Rubin’s method requires rotation. It doesn’t work for elliptical galaxies—a fact sometimes misinterpreted by reformists as evidence falsifying the dark matter explanation of her data.

Now that you brought it up, let’s look at Lagrange Points L4 and L5:

Lagrange Points. Credit: NASA.

Note that L4 and L5 are always at the same distance from both the Sun and Earth as Earth revolves around the Sun. This usually is explained as a result of opposing centrifugal and centripetal “forces.” But even many regressives realize no such forces exist or occur. Those are simply the precise points at which the two aetherial halos overlap, with aetherial pressure (e.g., “gravitational potential”) being equal on both sides.]

[1] Rubin, Vera C., 2000, One Hundred Years of Rotating Galaxies: Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, v. 112, p. 747-750. [10.1086/316573].