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].