The switch from finity to infinity

PSI Blog 20210726 The switch from finity to infinity

 

Two questions from George Coyne win the prize for this week:

 

“Glenn,

 

Do you recall when you discovered that there was no finite universe?

 

In my own case, I do not remember what age I was. I am just glad I came up with the realization that there is a notfinity process of matter-in-motion— which led to the title of my book, Notfinity Process— in place of a concept of the universe as an object.”

 

[GB: Thanks George. I have been asked that many times. I keep half-way decent notes, so it seems to have occurred before May 29, 1978. Before that, I was a “Big Banger” like almost all scientists were at the time. Of course, I got a “C” in Physics 1a in 1962 when I had so much difficulty in believing there were 4 dimensions as taught by our regressive physics prof at UW. Madison. Summer semester I took Physics 1b from an 83-yr old prof who taught us the last half of Sears and Zemansky, which was mostly Newtonian. I got an A. The lesson for me was: It is extremely difficult to learn much of anything if you don’t agree with the basic assumptions being espoused.

 

Later, in a soil science course taught by my Quaker prof, I was assigned to read Whitehead’s “Science and the Modern World.” This I pretty much could not make heads or tails of, thinking I was too dumb to understand philosophy. Much later, my reread showed how much of a mess it was, being an adoration of regressive physics and its religious assumptions.

 

I never could get the hang of the universe exploding out of nothing. In early 1978 I remember my reformist attempt to imagine photons leaving the edge of the universe to combine to form matter once again—anything to handle the supposed universal expansion into the perfectly empty space that surrounded the supposed finite universe. That attempt used my belief in Euclidean dimensions even though it also used Einstein’s magical massless photon concept I was yet to examine.

 

To see more about my conversion be sure to read the details, particularly about the discovery of univironmental determinism, in:

 

PSI Blog 20190501 The Discovery of Infinity ]

   

“What effect do you think this way of viewing reality will have on scientific progress once it is adopted by the majority of scientists?”

 

[GB: The neat thing about science is that it is univironmental: Whatever we think about the universe continually must be adjusted by our experiences with it. Collectively, these experiences only can increase in number and intensity. That is why science is progressive. Sure, there are regressive periods like the one engendered by relativity, but that was only one century—nothing like the 10 centuries comprising the Dark Ages.

 

True, most scientists, like most folks, get to experiment with and observe only tiny bits of the universe. To consider all of the observable portion is a hugh task, as I reiterated in "The Scientific Worldview." Undergoing the Last Cosmological Revolution will be a momentous turning point for humanity. Imagine: No Big Bang, no beginning, no ending, no heaven, no hell. The contradictions resulting from the philosophy underlying those dreams and imaginings continue to pileup. But, as always, the truth will prevail. The removal of contradictions is as inexorable as their production.]

 

The impossibility of infinite density

PSI Blog 20210719 The impossibility of infinite density

 

Another great question from Abhishek Chakravartty, winner of this week’s book prize:

 

“On page 262 of UCT[1], you wrote the following:

 

‘For every region of the universe, total-mass always approaches infinity. As a consequence of interconnection, within a fixed region of the universe, something must exist between every microcosm found in that region. This interconnection never stops. Because interconnection continues into infinity, total-mass increases with each iteration deeper into the hierarchy. Therefore, the calculations never end. Total-mass becomes ever-larger with the iterations, and it approaches infinity in the process.’

 

Then how is it possible for any person to have a finite mass? I am asking this question because the physical body of any person also occupies a fixed region of the universe.”

 

[GB: Good question. Unfortunately, I didn't agree with Steve on this, but no changing his mind and he was the first author. One could just as easily say the total mass of the universe was zero. Mass is the resistance to acceleration. The Infinite Universe cannot be accelerated because there is nothing outside it to do the accelerating. By that definition, the universe would have no mass.

 

Like much of mathematics, this subject is plagued by the Ninth Assumption of Religion, absolutism (Identities exist, that is, any two things may have identical characteristics). Absolutists typically are idealists who think perfectly solid matter and perfectly empty space exist. As astute readers know, these two concepts are the ideal endmembers of the matter-space continuum. Although they cannot possibly exist, they are useful for understanding the properties of real things. Similarly, no portion of the universe can have infinite mass. For instance, the so-called “black holes” certainly are very dense, but they are not, and cannot be infinitely dense (even Hawking agreed they were gray, not black). Similarly, electrons (and possibly aether particles) have a density of 10¹⁰ g/cm³ (Borchardt, 2017),[2] but they don’t have infinite density.

 

What absolutists forget is that the subdivision of portions of the universe always results in what we think of as two properties: solid matter and empty space. With the Tenth Assumption of Science, interconnection (All things are interconnected, that is, between any two objects exist other objects that transmit matter and motion), we always get both properties. The universe does not produce only perfectly solid matter or perfectly empty space. Again, whatever we get is always both “solid matter” and “empty space.”

 

Now to your question about your own mass…  Remember that we are all microcosms containing submicrocosms confined within a more or less definite boundary. All those constituents follow the solid matter-empty space continuum I described above. Like black holes, electrons, and aether particles, there is no possibility you or any other portion of the universe could contain only perfectly solid matter or perfectly empty space.]

 

 

---

[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].

Cause of the cosmological redshift

PSI Blog 20210712 Cause of the cosmological redshift

 

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

 

“In PSI Blog 20210614, you have explained that when neither the medium in which the wave is travelling changes nor the pressure within the medium in which the wave is travelling increases, it is impossible for the velocity of the wave motion to increase although in such cases, it is still possible for the wavelength of the wave to increase due to other reasons. So in such cases, if the wavelength of the wave increases due to other reasons, does it mean that the frequency of the wave decreases? I am asking this question because velocity of wave motion is equal to wavelength multiplied by frequency.”

 

[GB: The wave velocity is a property of the medium and remains constant as long as the properties of the medium remain constant. The frequency is given at the source and remains constant. Thus, the change from water to air changes light velocity from 225Mm/s to 300Mm/s while the wavelength of light increases by 1/3. The frequency remains the same.

 

The Imperfect Wave

 

Once again, because the medium controls velocity and is constant and the source controls frequency and is constant, the only thing left to change is the wavelength: the reason for the cosmological redshift. The relationship you cite: velocity (cm/s) = frequency (cycles/s) X wavelength (cm) is a mathematical idealization that fails to consider entropic changes that must occur over time during wave reproduction. In other words, no two waves can be perfectly identical 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). Here, we are treating a wave as a thing (a microcosm consisting of many particles).

 

A wave, then, is an agglomeration of submicrocosms colliding with each other in response to some impact that occurred within the medium they compose. To produce a second wave form exactly like the first, those submicrocosms must collide in exactly the same way as they did in the preceding wave. This is impossible, of course—there are no identities in the Infinite Universe. Thus, all waves are subject to “entropic changes” as mentioned above. Once formed by a disturbance at the source, the constituents of each wave are subject to divergence per the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It takes time for each of those interparticle collisions to occur. That lag appears as an increase in wavelength—a “redshift” if you will.

 

Unlike the usual “redshift” produced by the doppler effect, this “entropic redshift” is not a result of measurement due to source or observer motion. It is simply a function of distance. With light, the effect is miniscule and only can be observed after light has traveled cosmological distances. Remember that what is generally considered the “cosmological redshift” also includes the doppler effect due to the divergence and convergence of cosmological bodies. For nearby galaxies, such as Andromeda, the motion toward us easily overwhelms the entropic redshift, resulting in the well-known blueshift of Andromeda.

 

I am not too sure with regard to your last question about the possibility that an entropic redshift could result in a decrease in frequency. You are correct that the equation v=fλ (where v=velocity, f=frequency, λ=wavelength) normally describes the situation. Therefore, we would expect entropic redshifts to result in decreases in frequency. But frequency is produced at the source and normally remains unchanged. As an example, I could paddle my boat at one paddle per second. Once the wave produced by each paddle is underway, nothing will change that 1 cycle/s frequency. The waves will diminish and disappear, but they will never have an increase in frequency. Whether they could have a decrease in frequency is problematic. I suppose that an entropic increase in wavelength could be accompanied by an entropic decrease in frequency, thus satisfying the above equation.]

 

 

 

 

 

George Coyne’s “Notfinity Process” is published

PSI Blog 20210705 George Coyne’s “Notfinity Process” is published

By George Coyne:

The 2nd edition of Notfinity Process is subtitled Matter-In-Motion. It challenges orthodox models in cosmology, consciousness, relativity physics. and most interpretations of quantum mechanics. In presenting alternatives to the standard theories of how the Universe functions, it synthesizes rational ideas in theoretical physics. It has 59 pages on the brain and consciousness.

 

The abstraction of the notfinity process is an infinity of relationships, structures, and processes that persist while transient objects vary. In mathematics, infinite was first used in the 15th century to mean not finite. But now it is conceived too concretely as a representation of reality, rather than a negation of the finite. Therefore, Coyne suggests the word notfinity be used instead.

 

The book's univironmental, deterministic worldview has aspects of classical mechanics, systems philosophy, and David Bohm’s causal interpretation of quantum mechanics. It discusses invalid abstractions in physics, such as motion without matter, wave-particle duality, probability waves, cosmological expansion, Schrödinger's cat, and the idea that the Universe can't exist without observers. Relativity is shown to violate scientific assumptions, and to contain math errors.

 

Notfinity Process reveals absurdities in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, and problems with Relativity and the Big Bang Theory, which is falsified in 66 different ways. It asserts that quantum mechanics and relativity can't be unified due to their deep flaws. Glenn Borchardt's Infinite Universe Theory, Universal Cycle Theory, and Neomechanical Gravitational Theory co-written with Stephen Puetz are described. Included are Duncan Shaw’s aether papers on a new model for gravitation, his accounting for quantum entanglement, and his September 2020 paper On Maxwell’s 1865 theory of Aether: A Step Toward Unity.

 

Other topics are an explanation for the double-slit experiment, Maxwell's aether, energy, dark matter candidates, the cosmological principle, alternatives to the galactic redshift interpretation, Modern Mechanics Theory, and an aether gravity model. A chapter on the Bohm and Hiley approach explains causality and chance, pilot waves and the undivided universe. The book has several relevant letters sent to the author by physicists David Peat, and Basil Hiley who won the Majorana Prize Best Person in Physics. Both were friends of David Bohm and co-wrote books with him.

 

The chapter on the brain, mind, self, and consciousness offers an interesting perspective on being human. Coyne proposes that the fully functioning brain equates with consciousness. The hard problem of subjective experience is examined. Coyne contends that matter in motion generates perceptions, which the brain interprets based on the mind's neuronal patterns. The difference between awareness and consciousness, the cause of dualistic confusion, and a description of the Global Workplace Theory is discussed. Logical answers are given to questions on consciousness. Also covered is self-awareness, Antonio Damasio's model, negative implications from brain studies on free will, the evolutionary benefit of advanced mental processes, neuroscience discoveries, higher-order thought theory, and other topics.

 

George S. Coyne is a Canadian philosopher, science communicator, author, educator and counselor. He heads the Vancouver office of the Progressive Science Institute and is on the Board of Directors of John Chappell Natural Philosophy Society. He agrees with philosopher Nicholas Maxwell's position that science and philosophy need to be reunited into a modern version of natural philosophy. Duncan W. Shaw wrote about the author: “George Coyne is an original thinker who engages his readers with remarkable clarity and insight."

Coyne writes for Beyond Mainstream Science and contributes blogs to thecientificworldviewblogspot.com.

He will be interviewed by David de Hilster on problems with the Big Bang Theory on July 10, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. EST on his YouTube Dissident Science channel. His interview on consciousness with David de Hilster is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLPpeCyNkEU.

 

This edition of Notfinity Process with the subtitle Matter-In-Motion is available at https://www.amazon.com/s?k=Notfinity+Process&i=stripbooks-intl-ship&ref=nb_sb_noss_2