20230327

What is Energy?

 PSI Blog 20230327 What is Energy?

 

For relativity and the Big Bang Theory to survive, the nature of energy must remain a mystery.

 

Baseball displaying motion (velocity) that we use in calculating kinetic energy (i.e.: KE=1/2mv^2) — no fields required (except maybe a baseball field). Credit: Chris Chow in Unsplash.com.


Another great question from George Coyne:

 

“Glenn,

 

In your papers and books. you define "energy" as a calculation used in describing matter and its motion, In Universal Cycle theory, you refer to it as "a matter-motion term concerning the exchange of matter's motion representing a calculated result from a number for mass times the square of a velocity number."

 

In this video, physicist Don Lincoln talks about what physicists mean when using the word energy. He states:

 

"At the deepest level of reality potential energy is force fields and objects that interact with them. Kinetic energy is the motion of fields. Kinetic and potential energy of all kinds slosh back and forth into one another in an endless dance, changing identity but never changing the amount; forced to be the same by the mathematical structure of the laws of motion."

 

As Lincoln does not define energy in the same way as you do, then perhaps he is talking about something else. In your model, if he is not referring to what you call energy, then what would you call what he is defining?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u36H4Uo3rPM

 

[GB: Thanks George for the question, which keeps coming up because of the confusion necessary in supporting the Big Bang Theory. It is obvious that, like most regressive physicists, Don Lincoln doesn’t really know what energy is. Nothing has changed in that regard since Feynman's famous quote:

 

"It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. It is not that way." (p. 4-2)

 

I think the best way to answer your question is to deconstruct your Don Lincoln quote:

 

 

"At the deepest level of reality potential energy is force fields and objects that interact with them.”

 

The term “force field” here is just as ambiguous as “energy.” Force is another matter-motion term for calculating the motion of matter (F=ma) per Newton's Second Law of Motion. Contrary to Einstein, a force field cannot be “immaterial” and it cannot contain any magical “force.” To be legitimate, a force field must contain matter in motion, like the aether particles that become decelerated during the acceleration we call gravitation.[1] Thus, a book lying on your table is imagined to have potential energy because we know it is continually being bombarded by aether particles. You can demonstrate this was the case by removing the table and allowing the book to be pushed to the floor, by aether particles, exhibiting what Don would call kinetic energy.

 

 

“Kinetic energy is the motion of fields.”

 

This is false. Kinetic energy is a calculation describing the motion of things. It does not necessarily require a causative field. For example, a baseball exhibits motion when hit by the bat. From that motion (velocity) and its mass (m) we can calculate the kinetic energy of the ball (KE=1/2mv2). That is useful for comparisons with other things having a different mass and/or velocity. Would you rather be hit by a 145 g baseball or a 400 g American football thrown by the best player who ever threw one?

 

 

“Kinetic and potential energy of all kinds slosh back and forth into one another in an endless dance, changing identity but never changing the amount; forced to be the same by the mathematical structure of the laws of motion."

 

This is only partly true. This is the classical description of the motions of a pendulum. Like all Newtonian statements, it assumes finity, which is inappropriate for the Infinite Universe. There is no pendulum that does not exhibit some resistance, however small. The “endless dance,” like Einstein’s photonic perpetual motion that got us the Big Bang Theory, cannot occur despite the idealism engendered by mathematics.]

 



[1] Here is what causes the acceleration called gravitation:


Borchardt, Glenn, 2018, The physical cause of gravitation: viXra:1806.0165

 

20230320

Popular Mechanics Panders to Absurd Big Bang Theory

 PSI Blog 20230320 Popular Mechanics Panders to Absurd Big Bang Theory

 

Another “heat death of the universe” misprediction fits our doom and gloom era.

 

Lights out for the whole universe. Photo Discredit: Popular Mechanics.

 

If you aren’t depressed enough by current events, here is your chance to go full scale. It seems one can get any kind of nonsense published if you follow the party line provided by today’s cosmogonists (those who assume the universe had a beginning). I have critiqued the universal heat death trope in some detail many times.

 

Whenever you read about universal heat death, you know that the Eighth Assumption of Religion, finity (The universe is finite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions) still holds sway. I use such popular claims to monitor the overall health of the Big Bang Theory. It appears to be doing just fine despite the James Webb Space Telescope revelations and the 20 falsifications I listed here so far.

 

Normally, New Scientist (“the most popular weekly science and technology magazine in the world”) is the premier propagandist for the Big Bang Theory. Looks like Popular Mechanics is desperate for an increase in circulation.

 

I don’t recommend reading this latest Donny Downer unless you are still a believer in finity. The paralogistics go like this: Everything in the universe has a beginning and an ending, so the finite universe must follow that too. Of course, this non sequitur is removed once you assume infinity.

 

 Your Handbook For the End of the Universe

 

Here is a bit about the author who, like Neil deGrasse Tyson, appears especially well-qualified for spreading the last cosmogony:

 

“PAUL M. SUTTER

Paul M. Sutter is a science educator and a theoretical cosmologist at the Institute for Advanced Computational Science at Stony Brook University and the author of How to Die in Space: A Journey Through Dangerous Astrophysical Phenomena and Your Place in the Universe: Understanding Our Big, Messy Existence. Sutter is also the host of various science programs, and he’s on social media. Check out his Ask a Spaceman podcast and his YouTube page.


Sutter’s awful conclusion is:

 

“If dark energy continues to dominate the universe and the expansion of the cosmos continues, we now encounter what’s known as the heat death of the universe. The present epoch of our cosmos features vast energy and heat differences, but the iron laws of thermodynamics dictate that eventually those differences will vanish.

 

The universe—what’s left of it—will reach thermal equilibrium, with no significant heat differences remaining. And that temperature will continue to drop, slowly approaching, but never quite reaching, absolute zero. With that death of heat comes the death of any form of life, no matter how exotic and alien.”


Egads!

20230313

Falsification No. 20 of the Big Bang Theory: Intergalactic Distance Unchanged Over Time

PSI Blog 20230313 Falsification No. 20 of the Big Bang Theory: Intergalactic Distance Unchanged Over Time

 

Galaxies are supposed to be receding from each other: They are not.

 


“Deep space mapping shows that densities of galaxy distribution is the same across space and time. If anything, we see greater density nearer to us, the opposite of what the expanding universe theory predicts.” (Giles, 2023).

 

Thanks to Douglas Giles for his wonderful essay entitled:

 

What if the Universe Is NOT Expanding?

 

Dr. Giles is a philosophy professor who obviously understands the absurdity of the current cosmogony. Normally, anyone teaching philosophy in the US has to present both sides of controversial issues, generally confusing students with a mishmash of religion and science. Not so, apparently, for Dr. Giles, who’s most recent book has this intriguing title: “How We Are and How We Got Here: A Practical History of Western Philosophy.”

 

Intergalactic distances have been measured during the last two decades by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, among others. None have found evidence for universal expansion, which is a primary foundation of the Big Bang Theory. In spite of that, Wikipedia parrots the party line by proclaiming “All these results are in agreement with the measurements of other experiments, notably those of WMAP. They confirm the standard cosmological model.” The standard model is, of course, the Big Bang Theory.

 

Here is the gist of Dr. Giles’s Medium essay in which he gets it right:

 

“The observations of galaxies show that when we plot every observed galaxy by its distance from us we get an even distribution. If we compare an incredibly huge section of space centered on a point 2 billion light years away with a same incredibly huge section 8 billion light years away, we see roughly the same density of galaxies 2 billion lights years distant from us as 2, 3, 4, and so on billion light years distant.”

 

 

 

 

 

20230306

Lifetime Achievement Award in Natural Philosophy

 PSI Blog 20230306 Lifetime Achievement Award in Natural Philosophy

 

Thanks to the Chappell Natural Philosophy Society for recognizing the importance of Infinite Universe Theory.

 

“Dr. Glenn Borchardt is one of the most influential scientists outside of mainstream science with his Ten Assumptions of Science, Neomechanics, and the Infinite Universe Theory. Many modern critical thinkers have based their own models and theories on Borchardt’s ground-breaking work. An earth scientist by trade, Borchardt has been a staunch opponent of the Big Bang and relativity for many decades and is known as one of the premier scientific philosophers of our time.”

 

[GB: Here is the link to the 2-hour presentation, complete with a few much-appreciated accolades and a chance for me to discuss Infinite Universe Theory once again:

 

https://naturalphilosophy.org/dr-glenn-borchardt-receives-a-lifetime-achievement-award-from-the-cnps/

 

I am truly humbled by this honor. Many great scientists have received this award. I especially remember when John Chappell, the founder of dissidence in the US, introduced me to Halton Arp in San Francisco. Halton gave a talk on data he obtained questioning the Big Bang Theory. His opposition cost him telescope time in the US, so he moved to Germany to continue his work. He was especially famous for his “Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies,” showing galaxy collisions that defied the popular universal expansion interpretation. His courage in the face of cosmogonical oppression is encouragement for all who followed in his footsteps.

 

Thanks again to the Chappell Natural Philosophy Society for the award. This is a great step on the way to finally replacing the paralogistical Big Bang Theory with the more logical Infinite Universe Theory.]