Progressive Physics

 PSI Blog 20230626 Progressive Physics

 

The demise of the Big Bang Theory and its religiously flavored foundation will return theoretical physics to reality.

 

Theoretical Physics Needs a Proper Foundation.

Modified from photo by davide ragusa on Unsplash

 

Why is theoretical physics so important to humanity? Who cares? You do. It turns out that theoretical physics is the foundation for all of science. It tells us how our world works. It teaches us what is possible and what is impossible. It forms the battleground for the great struggle between science and religion, between determinism and indeterminism, between reality and fantasy.

 

But as natural products of our environment, we cannot escape our history—all that came before. Any idea we may have about how the world works had to come from somewhere. This is as true of theoretical physics as any other realm of thought. Even after the weening that took place during many of the struggles with traditional beliefs, extremely important remnants remain to haunt the scientific endeavor. As we have seen, the regression that began in 1905 was sponsored by powerful political and theological forces that, as always, found it necessary to instill and enforce the loyalty necessary for survival in a contentious world.

 

As absurd as theoretical physics has become during the last century, even 10,000 reformists have not phased the great behemoth. The Teflon-coated paradigm is still standing just like the politics and theology that promoted it. What is to be done? How does a major overhaul occur? How does the “Last Creation Myth” succumb?

 

Fundamental Assumptions

 

Correct thinking is based on a correct foundation. So, what should the proper foundation be? Kuhn gave us some hints. Just like a tower about to fall, we must examine its foundation. That is not the job of the person who built the tower. The examiner must be someone who has no emotional or financial interests in whether the tower survives or not. The folks who engineered the foundation of the Big Bang tower will not be hired to fix it.

 

Collingwood showed us the way. In the past, staunch empiricists, like the younger Newton, claimed to need “no stinking assumptions.” But that is all Newton and his followers in the theoretical half of physics ever did—surreptitiously. They used subconscious traditional presuppositions all the time, just like today’s cosmologists who invariably fail to admit they really are cosmogonists (those who assume the universe had a beginning). Collingwood’s answer was that we must bring assumptions, especially the fundamental ones, into the light of day. Regressives and reformists often make a point of doing just that for ordinary assumptions, but you will search high and low to find many who touch upon the fundamentals.

 

That is because fundamental assumptions are “metaphysical” and controversial. They go “beyond physics,” where we are admonished by the empiricists to never venture. Their motto is: if I cannot see, hear, touch, smell, or taste the external evidence, it does not exist. Who could in any way sense whether the universe is finite or infinite? If 13.8-billion-light-years distance, 20 trillion galaxies, and an infinite number of unique snowflakes are not enough to assume infinity, then what is? The answer is: nothing. According to Collingwood, fundamental assumptions never can be completely proven and they always have opposites. Infinity and finity have that status. Logically, if one of these is correct, then the other is false. Once you fully realize this, once you assume infinity, you have arrived at the door of progressive physics.

 

Behind that door are some additional fundamental assumptions that fulfil Collingwood’s criteria. Over 40 years ago, I used my then half-vast experience in science to come up with 10 assumptions that qualified. These were all consupponible, that is, if you can assume one, you can assume all the others without significant contradiction. That was Collingwood’s third criteria for fundamental assumptions. This “constellation” was just what was needed to right the ship of theoretical physics and to dispose of its most embarrassing offspring the “Big Bang Theory.”

 

I chose those ten assumptions for pedagogical reasons. You may be able to think of others that fit the criteria, but I doubt it. In any case, I have no doubt these are the ones that will take down the Big Bang Theory and most of relativity with it. They form the “proper” foundation for a complete revamp of theoretical physics. They underlie all I have done in “scientific philosophy” since. I call it that, because it is prescriptive, not descriptive like the “philosophy of science” I have been observing for decades. That discipline is mostly about the history of what scientists have believed in the past. It was totally ineffective in preventing the ravages of relativity and cosmogony.

 

Now for a word of caution. If, after thoroughly understanding each of the ten assumptions, and you still have trouble assuming one of them, I suggest you do some rereading. Also, things might appear clearer if you understand the opposing assumptions better by reading “The Ten Assumptions of Religion” in my recent book “Religious Roots of Relativity.” As with all foundations, we need to get things settled before proceeding. The time for debate expires once the cement is poured. We must regard the Assumptions of Science as we do axioms in modern logic and math: As premises or starting points for reasoning. Progressive physics then follows logically from the ten assumptions as deductions no longer up for debate. 

 

You get the flavor of progressive physics by reading the books mentioned on scientificphilosophy.org. Ch. 16 in “Infinite Universe Theory” has quite a few details. Then, of course, the whole deal is in "The Scientific Worldview," my magnum opus on univironmental determinism, which is both the scientific worldview and the universal mechanism of evolution.

 

If you are really, really serious about getting on the progressive bandwagon you might want to start by reading and understanding "The Ten Assumptions of Science." The free pdf has been downloaded almost 8,000 times. BTW: I found it helpful to memorize and repeat this 20-second pandemic mantra:

 

“1. Materialism 2. Causality 3. Uncertainty 4. Inseparability 5. Conservation 6. Complementarity 7. Irreversibility 8. Infinity 9. Relativism 10. Interconnection.”

 

As my grandmother from Hamburg used to say: “And don’t you ever forget it!”

 

Here is the complete listing of The Ten Assumptions of Science:

 

The First Assumption of Science, materialism (The external world exists after the observer does not)

 The Second Assumption of Science, causality (All effects have an infinite number of material causes)

 The Third Assumption of Science, uncertainty (It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is possible to know more about anything)

 The Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion)

 The Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed)

 The Sixth Assumption of Science, complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things)

The Seventh Assumption of Science, irreversibility (All processes are irreversible)

 The Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions)

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)

The Tenth Assumption of Science, interconnection (All things are interconnected, that is, between any two objects exist other objects that transmit matter and motion)

 

In formal logic, if axioms, postulates, premises, and assumptions are assumed to be correct, then the deductions formed from them also must be correct. Such is the beauty of axiomisation.

 

Of course, there isn’t room here for much of an explanation of what “progressive physics” amounts to. The details are in our books, papers, Blog posts, and essays. I only can summarize a few of the highlights and important deductions:

 

Philosophy

 

My philosophy is called “univironmental determinism” (UD) (what happens to a portion of the universe depends on the infinite matter within and without). In addition, it also happens to be the universal mechanism of evolution. The first mechanism of evolution was Darwinism, natural selection, which is what we call a “macrocosmic mistake” because of its overemphasis on the environment. The second was “Neo-Darwinism,” which included genes. That was somewhat more balanced, but only suited to biology and even then, did not include the rest of the organism.

 

Method

 

My methodology is called univironmental analysis. That is performed by considering XYZ portions of the universe as “microcosms.” All microcosms contain what are called “submicrocosms” and all microcosms are surrounded by a “macrocosm” containing “supermicrocosms.” Supermicrocosms can be infinitely small to infinitely large, with the most important generally being nearby. Unlike the current scientific world view, systems philosophy, I consider the outsides of things to be just as important as the insides of things. You can see why this method begs a conception of the universe as infinite. We deduce from materialism that a microcosm or macrocosm filled with nothing at all is impossible. The required perfectly empty space is imaginary, an idealism assumed possible by religion, but not by science. Especially, if one assumes interconnection, nonexistence is impossible.

 

Here are a few more deductions, with the most pertinent assumptions in bold italics:

 

1.    The universe consists of only two basic phenomena: matter and the motion of matter. (materialism + inseparability + infinity)

2.    Causes result from things colliding with things per Newton's Second Law of Motion. (causality + infinity) In other words, if you have identified an effect, you better look for the thing that did the colliding that produced that effect. If you cannot find one, you better hypothesize one anyway. Unlike regressive physics, which is philosophically sloppy, we call that a theoretical necessity.

3.    Anything that exists is a portion of the Infinite Universe and therefore has XYZ dimensions. (infinity)

4.    There are only three dimensions. There is no empirical evidence for extra-Euclidean dimensions. (infinity)

5.    The motion of matter does not exist; it occurs. (inseparability)

6.    Time is motion; time does not exist; it occurs. (inseparability)

7.    What makes this constellation of fundamental assumptions different from all others is the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). [The infinite divisibility of the universe implies no XYZ portion of it is without matter.] (inseparability)

8.    Infinity implies the Second Assumption of Science, causality (All effects have an infinite number of material causes). With the universe being infinitely subdividable, no two collisions can be identical. That is why repetitions of any experiment are never identical. It is the reason for the plus or minus we must include for any set of similar measurements.

9.    Because causality is infinite there always will be contributing collisions that produce effects unknown to us. This is why neither classical mechanics nor quantum mechanics never can produce perfect accuracy and perfect precision

10.     Causality is the correlative of uncertainty (It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is possible to know more about anything). Measurement variations and statistical probability are indications of our ignorance of collisions unseen. It is not an indication of some magical “chance” as portrayed by the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Neither is it a sign of acausality, miracle, or of the involvement of some imaginary being.

11.     Matter-motion terms represent calculations. For instance, momentum (P=mv), force (F=ma), and energy (E=mc² or ½ mv²) do not exist or occur. What does exist is the matter (represented by m) and what does occur is the motion (represented by v). Thus, dark energy, the assumed “cause” of the Big Bang does not exist or occur. It is just one of the 20 ad hocs used to save the Big Bang Theory. (inseparability + materialism)

12.     Gravitation is an acceleration. Therefore, it must involve collisions caused by unseen particles. Because gravitation is unaffected by aberration, the colliding particles must be local, becoming decelerated and entrained around baryonic (ordinary) matter in the process. (causality + interconnection)

13.     Aether is responsible for the formation of baryonic matter, the transmission of light, and gravitation as suggested in 1644 by Descartes. (infinity + interconnection + causality)

14.     The opposite of creation is conservation, not evolution.

15.     The cosmological redshift is a distance effect due to the imperfect reproduction of light waves. (relativism)

16.     Einstein’s “Untired Light Theory” assumes light is a massless particle filled with perfectly empty space traveling perpetually through perfectly empty space. None of these requirements is possible. (inseparability + interconnection)

17.     Wave velocity is controlled by the medium through which it travels. Particle velocity decreases over distance. Light velocity does not; therefore, light is a wave, not a particle. (inseparability)

18.     Aether pressure increases with distance from Earth, causing light velocity to increase. With frequency remaining unchanged, wavelength increases distally, producing the misnamed “gravitational redshift.” Proximal aether pressure decreases due to aether deceleration during collisions with baryonic matter that produce gravitation. (causality)

19.     Einstein’s “gravitational waves” are shockwaves traveling through the aether at the same velocity as light. They have nothing to do with gravitation or his imaginary “space-time.” (interconnection + infinity)

20.     There is no such thing as “gravitational or magnet attraction.” No true pulls occur in nature; all events are the result of pushes per causality.  

 

Thanks for reading Infinite Universe Theory! Please subscribe for free to receive new posts and be part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution.”

Reformist Physics

 PSI Blog 20230619 Reformist Physics

 

Almost 10,000 scientists have been trying to reform regressive physics for over a century with little to show for their efforts.

 

Credit: Dr. Dan Brasoveanu, a former NASA physicist, who said “Modern physics has degenerated into mythology.”[1]

 

I define reformist physics as any attempt to resolve the paradoxes and contradictions of modern, regressive physics by modifying relativity without discarding its indeterministic assumptions entirely. Ever since relativity became popular after 1905, thousands of skeptics have voiced objections and proposed modest alternatives. Its overthrow is the grand prize among those who view regressive physics as ripe for the picking.

 

In 2012, Jean de Climont of France developed a list of scientists and others with some presence on the Internet who objected to various aspects of modern physics. The scientists of the directory are only those involved in physics. In 2021 there were more than 2500 authors of such theories, “all amazingly very different from one another” as de Climont says. His 2023 edition includes 9671 dissidents.[2] At one time he said there were over 550 alternate theories that use aether alone. Bet you never heard of any of these.

 

Can you see why the media tends to shy away from any one of them? Of course, reporters with even a smidgeon of knowledge about physics and cosmology are rare. The knowledgeable ones need to defend mainstream theories they have already promoted. Also, in the interest of sales, reporters must confirm the views of their audience. Efforts to destroy those views will not be met with open arms. In any case, reporters do not have the time or interest to sort through hundreds of alternatives opposing what they must firmly believe anyway.

 

Reform, of course, is not up to the media, although, make no mistake about it: They are part of the "publishing" half of science (getting the word out). In physics and cosmology, the switch from one paradigm to another is the job of scientists who are not physicists and cosmologists. Nonetheless, as in the free will debate, the reform discussions of relativity currently are interminable. One wag even summed it up with something akin to the Second Law of Thermodynamics: “Discussions about Special Relativity naturally and quickly degrade into disorder and nonsense.”

 

Nonetheless, folks continue to seek compromises that might leave enough of relativity and cosmogony to be acceptable to the mainstream. Above all, one must be able to understand the numerous einsteinisms in which relativity got the right answers for the wrong reasons. In other cases, Einstein’s interpretations, such as the Untired Light Theory,[3] are just plain wrong.

Except for the dissident press, manuscripts unfavorable to relativity or the Big Bang Theory normally get the circular file. Partly this is because much dissident work is dreadful; not amounting to much more than the kind of silly modifications suggested by funded practitioners.

 

Some of it is overtly religious or entertains other outrageous propositions. I have attended dissident talks proclaiming that the biblical flood covered most of the western US and formed the Grand Canyon. A few still insist the Sun revolves around the Earth. Common complaints about the dissident community are that the members seldom cite one another, there is little co-authorship, and that fundamental assumptions are rarely stated. Nonetheless, there has been much fine work done by a select few dissidents, Sagnac,[4] for instance.

 

It seems Einstein has been proven wrong more often than he has been “proven right.” These instances receive little publicity from a popular press more interested in fantasy than reality. As always, the main problem with reform is that it does not go far enough. As with agnosticism generally, mixing progressive elements with regressive elements will not remove the contradictions in interpretation.

 

As both Kuhn[5] and Collingwood[6] implied, paradigms are underlain by fundamental assumptions, which must be changed for any reform to be successful. After nearly 10,000 failures, it is clear we have not done that. Tinkering with the math and finding yet another falsification is mere whack-a-molery. The needed change is as simple and as difficult as rejecting finity in favor of infinity. 

 

To read this and its updates on Medium, just click here.

 

On Medium.com you can read more than three essays monthly by joining for $5/month.

 

Half of your membership fee supports the endowment of the Progressive Science Foundation, which will continue advancing Infinite Universe Theory as the ultimate replacement of the Big Bang Theory. You’ll also get full access to every story on Medium. Just click  here.

 

When on Medium, you can clap 50 times to aid the foundation, follow me, and subscribe to get these weekly essays directly in your inbox. 

---

[1] Brasoveanu, Dan, 2008, Modern Mythology and Science: Crysis in Modern Physics, iUniverse, 94 p. [https://gborc.com/Brasoveanu].

[2] de Climont, Jean, 2023, The Worldwide List of Alternative Theories and Critics, Editions d' Assailly, 2350 p. [https://gborc.com/Climont23]. 

[3]Einstein’s “Untired Light Theory” assumes light is a massless particle filled with perfectly empty space traveling perpetually through perfectly empty space.

[4] Sagnac, Georges, 1913a, The demonstration of the luminiferous aether by an interferometer in uniform rotation: Comptes Rendus, v. 157, p. 708–710. [https://gborc.com/Sagnac13a]; Sagnac, Georges, 1913b, On the proof of the reality of the luminiferous aether by the experiment with a rotating interferometer: Comptes Rendus, v. 157, p. 1410–1413. [https://gborc.com/Sagnac13b].

[5] Kuhn, T.S., 1970, The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.): Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 222 p. [https://gborc.com/Kuhn1970].

[6] Collingwood, R.G., 1940, An Essay on Metaphysics: Oxford, Clarendon Press, 354 p. [https://gborc.com/Collingwood].

 

 

Regressive Physics

PSI Blog 20230612 Regressive Physics

 

How so-called “modern physics” took theoretical physics backward and brought forth the Big Bang Theory.

 

Photo by Markus Winkler on Unsplash

 Regressive physics is what I define as the indeterministic version of physics otherwise known as “modern physics.” It stems from the radical 20th-century departure from determinism that became popular after Einstein’s invention of Special Relativity Theory in 1905 which still has a solid grip on the discipline despite being plagued by numerous paradoxes and contradictions in the interpretation. Practitioners are heavily financed and allowed to publish outlandish deductions and wild speculations as long as they do not contradict relativity and cosmogony. Among these are the absurdities of massless particles, immaterial fields, wormholes, multiverses, space-time, and fabrications such as string theory that claim anywhere between one and 26 dimensions. Regressive physicists generally do not know what time is and that time cannot dilate. They believe that momentum, force, energy, and space-time actually exist, and that aether does not. Most do not know the proper interpretation of Maxwell’s E=mc² equation. Regressives unthinkingly accept Einstein's Untired Light Theory and the resulting interpretation that the universe is expanding and had a beginning via explosion from nothing.

 

Today, almost all gainfully employed physicists appear to be regressive, with dissenters having been forced out long ago through various forms of scientific censorship. The regression began in response to the deterministic ravages of classical mechanism and dialectical materialism during the late 19^th century (Darwin, Marx, etc.). In particular, Lenin’s “Materialism” and the rise of communism put the fear of god into the west. Relativity’s immaterialistic assumptions and paradoxes fit in with the religious dreams and imaginings of the day. Einstein prepared the way for the belief in universal expansion, with the good priest Lemaître suggesting Hubble’s redshifts meant that the entire universe exploded from a “cosmic egg” in tune with Genesis. To get popular, all ideas, theories, papers, and books must fit the macrocosm in which they exist. Each theory acts as a weapon in the philosophical struggle between determinism and indeterminism, which continually involves spiralic progress through education and regress through miseducation.

 

When first introduced, the absurdities in Special Relativity Theory and General Relativity Theory brought forth numerous complaints, but these were dismissed in favor of the financial rewards available to supporters of Einstein’s theories. When viewed with indeterministic eyes, falsifications of relativity were ignored, while so-called confirmations were revered. Opponents usually were dismissed as “cranks” or “crackpots” no matter how logical their arguments may have been. What makes relativity so tenacious is its preponderance of einsteinisms. That is what we now call predictions that are correct, but for the wrong reasons. For instance, how could starlight pass through Sun’s atmosphere without being refracted and thus bent toward the sun? Is refraction really proof for curved space-time?

 

All this amounts to the “crisis in physics” evident to those able to rub two neurons together since 1905. It is time to give up the magical thinking and insist on including actual “physics” in our interpretations. Despite all the imaginary hocus-pocus, the reality still is that the universe works via matter colliding with matter as put forth in Newton's Second Law of Motion.

 

To read this and its updates on Medium, just click here.

 

On Medium.com you can read more than three essays monthly by joining for $5/month.

 

Half of your membership fee supports the endowment of the Progressive Science Foundation, which will continue advancing Infinite Universe Theory as the ultimate replacement of the Big Bang Theory. You’ll also get full access to every story on Medium. Just click  here.

 

When on Medium, you can clap 50 times to aid the foundation, follow me, and subscribe to get these weekly essays directly in your inbox. 

Einstein’s Errors: Objectification of Motion

 PSI Blog 20230605 Einstein’s Errors: Objectification of Motion

 

Without this error the Big Bang Theory would have been dead in the water.

 

Photo by Collab Media on Unsplash

In theoretical physics objectification is the consideration of motion as an object. Humans have objectified motion throughout history. Today, objectification is one of the primary roadblocks to understanding Infinite Universe Theory. Of the two fundamental phenomena, matter often comes to mind before motion. You can see matter, but you cannot see motion as a thing apart from matter. As we have seen, Einstein’s relativity reeks with this old-fashioned tendency to objectify motion.^[1] His “particle” theory of light has a historic parallel with the “caloric fluid” theory of heat. Antoine Lavoisier (1743-1794),^[2] the father of chemistry, imagined that “caloric fluid” traveled from object-to-object as a material entity. When you touched a burning ember, the caloric fluid supposedly flowed into your finger. Of course, what was once considered a “thing” is now correctly considered “motion,” the vibration of things. In other words, heat is motion, not matter. If you wait too long to remove your finger the vibrations in the ember stimulate vibration in your finger, causing your discomfort and serious chemical transformations in your skin. Strictly speaking, heat does not exist; it occurs. In this case, the only thing that exists is the vibrating molecule. The molecule takes up three dimensions, while its motion does not.

 

Physicists have long abandoned the notion that heat is matter, although they have not done so for light. Today, few would ask whether heat had mass, since even today’s most regressive physicists must regard heat as motion. Likewise, waves do not have mass, although the medium through which they travel does.

 

Even when Einstein made odious mistakes in math, indeterminists looked the other way. In evaluating his derivation of Special Relativity Theory, we traced his objectification of time to a Type mistake.^[3] Essentially, he did a little mathematical somersault in which he first properly derived l (length) from ct (velocity multiplied by time is always distance). Unfortunately, by a little sleight of hand, he then used l, length, as a replacement for t, time—two different Types forbidden in proper mathematics. That is how time got to be a dimension. In a way, this has been sanctified in our conventional use of the term “light year,” which is the distance light travels in a year. This is an extremely valuable “distance” measurement, but it does not make time a distance.

 

The General Theory of Relativity reflects this tendency to objectify motion on the grand scale. Time is motion. Time has no dimensions and is not “part” of the universe, although time occurs within the universe. Of course, the concept of “space-time” purports to “combine” space and time. However, only things can be “combined.” “Time,” having neither three dimensions nor existence, cannot be combined with anything. True, in our heads we can combine concepts, ideas, stories, and equations about real things and real motions, but that does not give them dimensions.

 

“Space” exists, but “space-time” does not. Nonetheless, cosmogonists assume 4-dimensional space-time actually exists. As mentioned previously, this belief is required for the expanding universe hypothesis. They misinterpret the cosmological redshift as indication galaxies are receding from us. With the currently estimated 20 trillion galaxies in the observed universe it would be highly unlikely we would be at the center of the expansion of a finite, 3-dimensional universe. So, we must believe in Einstein’s four dimensions even though that is impossible to imagine. Without the mathematical fabrication of space-time, the Big Bang Theory would no longer exist.

 

Why has Einstein’s objectification of motion been so popular and enduring? I hinted at the reasons for that in my explanation of the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion). That is what makes physics “physical.” Still, the belief in motion without matter has been well-established ever since the first humans tried to understand the wind in the willows. That must have been rather frightening. They could not have known that air consisted of unseen particles now called nitrogen and oxygen. Here was a “thing” that was not a thing, like the proverbial ghost that was a thing, but not a thing. The ghost was capable of traveling through walls. It supposedly had three dimensions and location, but certainly was not material. The unseen, unseeable causes of matterless motions were given names—with a god for this and a god for that.

 

The indeterministic vestiges of the idea of matterless motion are nearly as dominant now as they were in 1905 when relativity took the stage.[4] Matterless motion always has been a mainstay of religion, from holy ghosts, to souls, to gods. Most folks talk about such “things” as if they existed. Thus, it was not surprising that Einstein and many others would objectify time to great applause. Modern physics is founded, not on the assumption of inseparability, but on its indeterministic opposite. Einstein and followers never understood this. Make no mistake about it. Time cannot dilate and space-time does not exist. Many of the paradoxes and absurdities in modern physics and cosmogony are traceable to this single most critical philosophical error. We can do better, but only if we give up the idea of matterless motion.

 

To read this and its updates on Medium, just click here.

 

On Medium.com you can read more than three essays monthly by joining for $5/month.

 

Half of your membership fee supports the endowment of the Progressive Science Foundation, which will continue advancing Infinite Universe Theory as the ultimate replacement of the Big Bang Theory. You’ll also get full access to every story on Medium. Just click  here.

 

When on Medium, you can clap 50 times to aid the foundation, follow me, and subscribe to get these weekly essays directly in your inbox. 

 

 

 

 

---

[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Einstein's most important philosophical error, in Volk, Greg, Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 18th Conference of the NPA, 6-9 July, 2011: College Park, MD, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, v. 8, p. 64-68 [10.13140/RG.2.1.3436.0407].

[2] Note that Newton thought light to be a particle as well.

^[3] Bryant, Steven, and Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Failure of the relativistic hypercone derivation, in Volk, Greg, Proceedings of the 18th Conference of the NPA, 6-9 July: College Park, MD, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, v. 8, p. 99-101 [10.13140/RG.2.1.1404.8406].

 [4] Borchardt, Glenn, 2020, Religious Roots of Relativity: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 151 p. [https://gborc.com/RRR]