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.

20241028

Rick “Doogie” Dutkiewicz 1953-2024

PSI Blog 20241028 Rick “Doogie” Dutkiewicz 1953-2024

Doogie on June 12, 2024

Sorry to report the loss of one of our smartest and most loyal of PSI members. He also was the talented leader of “Tricks,” a Rock and Roll band known throughout western Michigan. We had a wonderful lunch just last June, where he and his wife Krystal admitted to having memorized and played over 140 songs.

Here is his biography:

https://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2012/11/blog-20121107-meet-rick-dutkiewicz.html

We got in touch via email after he was “blown away” by reading "The Scientific Worldview." His comments about regressive theoretical physics and cosmogony were always right on and often humorous. Just search the PSI Blog site to see his contributions. I still get a kick out of his review of Krauss’s “A Universe from Nothing,” which was promoted as a “bestseller” by the NYT and a gazillion cosmogonists. Here I reprint his guest Blog Post of 20120620 for your physical entertainment:

Dutkiewicz Blasts Krauss Interview on “A Universe from Nothing”

[GB: Last week’s Blog highlighted an interview with “renowned cosmologist,” Lawrence Krauss, a professor at Arizona State, concerning his recent Big Bang book. My only comment was in the title of the Blog, where I suggested that it was a good example of mainstream confusion. Turns out that I am not the only critic disgusted with the media’s pandering to such claptrap. Here is an adamant man-in-the-street response from the leader of the Rock and Roll band, “Tricks,” from Michigan. I couldn’t have written it better myself:]

By Rick Dutkiewicz

“I think it is virtually certain that everything we see came from empty space,” Krauss exposited. “And all the physics I know is highly suggestive that our universe popped into existence as a quantum fluctuation.”

All of this because Einstein thought that light could travel through a "vacuum." Did they suck the air out of a flask and shine a light through that "vacuum" to prove this idea? All that proves is that light waves travel through a medium that is smaller than air molecules. Einstein admitted this later in his life.

No one had the balls to ask if maybe a laboratory "vacuum" is not the "empty space" envisioned in mathematical models? I guess a few did, but they were drummed out of the Good Ol' Boys club.

"…because of the laws of quantum mechanics and special relativity, empty space consisted of a bubbling brew of virtual particles spontaneously popping in and out of existence on timescales too small to notice."

There is no such thing as "empty space" except in mathematical equations. I figured that out in 5th grade.

I've been listening to a podcast dealing with the general history of mathematics. Some of the earliest mathematicians were very careful to point out that irrational numbers, negative numbers, and zeros do not exist in actuality. DESPITE their usefulness in equations that seem to accurately predict phenomena in the actual universe.

Science went off the rails when people stopped being careful about conflating the meal and the menu, the road and the map, the analogy and the actuality.

When mathematicians like Godel and Turing came up with proofs that showed the limits of mathematics as a logical model, the indeterminists in the scientific community seized upon that uncertainty to "prove" that if you look at the universe closely enough, you will find chaos and an "Uncaused Cause" (but modern indeterminists took away the capital letters and stopped calling it "God").

They aren't humble enough to say that this only proves that our measurements and models are limited and full of holes. No. They proclaim that this proves that the universe we observe as "reality" actually comes from a chaos that is causeless and empty, but filled with random fluctuations of being and non-being.

If that isn't equivalent to religious thinking, what is it? It pisses me off when I hear scientists asserting that religion and science are somehow compatible. It's the mirror image of religionists' claim that "if god didn't exist, we would have to invent him.”

Funny that so many educated people want their cake of indeterminism, but they don't want to call it "God.” So, they came up with a new flavor of indeterminism. They're only fooling themselves.

“I’m not interested in classical, logical descriptions of nothing, but rather what science tells us about nothing."

That shows how much confusion lives inside the mind of an indeterminist. Only mathematics and fantasy can tell us something about "nothing.” Science cannot tell us about nothing, because nothing does not exist. Science deals with existence. Only math and fantasy and religion deal with non-existence.

Science deals with reality, not with something that can become nothing, or nothing that can become something.

"purer form of nothing"

I'm in awe! Where do I light my votive candle to this "purer form" of "nothing.” A thing that is not a thing. What does he mean by "pure"? What does he mean by "form"? What does he mean by "nothing.” Doesn't "form" imply the opposite of "no thing"? How does one argue against such insanity?

"if ... quantum mechanics was applied to gravity, space and time would have become dynamical and so would have spontaneously appeared. So you wouldn’t have needed pre-existing space. Instead the space itself would have arisen.”

So, in this model we have empty space before space and time exist? Fluctuations occur before time occurs or matter exists? He keeps emphasizing how small and fast these fluctuations are. And all of this occurs in "empty space.”

What kind of reasoning leads one to insist that if something is small or fast enough, we should say it doesn't exist? I think his reasoning has random fluctuations of insanity.

"If you wait long enough, no matter how small the probability is, it must arise. If you have particle pairs with a gravitational attraction that is just right for their total energy to be zero, you’re guaranteed that something will arise from nothing."

But, but, ... how can you "wait" if we're talking about "before time existed.” Krauss is even blind to the internal contradictions of his model.

This is simple to point out. I think the block is not intellectual, but psychological. It has to do with lack of imagination and ability to think outside of the model. All the while they pretend to be radical thinkers, but they are rehashing the same old debate of "how many angels fit on the head of a pin.”

[GB: Our sympathies to Krystal and the whole Rock & Roll family in western Michigan. Doogie will be missed from 2,000 miles away.]

PSI Blog 20241028

Thanks for reading Infinite Universe Theory! On Medium.com you can subscribe for free to receive new posts and be part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution.” There you can support PSI financially by clapping 50 times and responding with your questions.

20241021

“No Sign of Ghostly Dark Photons in Afterglow of Big Bang”

PSI Blog 20241021 “No Sign of Ghostly Dark Photons in Afterglow of Big Bang”

Whether light or dark, Einstein’s magical photons do not exist.

“Scrutinizing the cosmic microwave background has enabled scientists to search for exotic particles too light to be found any other way. Planck Collaboration/European Space Agency.”

Astute readers know we have been poo-pooing Einstein’s false assumption light was a massless particle containing perfectly empty space traveling perpetually through perfectly empty space. Now we have the equally bogus “dark photon” hypothetically masquerading in place of the aether particles that all cosmogonists must deny in order to remain in the cult.

It is true that aether particles are sometimes mistaken for photons when they interact with matter. That makes some sense because aether particles have mass and the imaginary photons are massless. To measure an impact, a particle must have mass for it to satisfy the F=ma equation. Obviously, if the “m” in that equation was zero, there would be no force to measure.

No sign of ghostly dark photons in afterglow of Big Bang

“Using existing astronomical data, a team of cosmologists has searched for a hypothetical particle called the dark photon, a potential envoy from a whole new realm of undetected particles that could explain the universe’s mysterious dark matter. The researchers sought clues by comparing the afterglow of the Big Bang—the cosmic microwave background (CMB)—to the distribution of galaxies and came up empty”

[GB: That so-called “mysterious” dark matter is none other than the aether medium which cosmogonists will not discover until they give up Einstein’s “Untired Light Theory” and its progeny, the Big Bang Theory.

Now a bit about the Cosmic Microwave Background: The illustration above is supposed to confirm the Big Bang Theory. Actually, it does no such thing. Instead, it illustrates that “perfectly empty space” contains matter that yields a temperature of 2.7^oKelvin. It also has a cosmological redshift of z=1089. The largest cosmological redshift so far measured is z=13.27 for galaxy HD1.

Speculation: Values greater than that probably are from still more distant cosmological objects, as expected if the universe was infinite. In Infinite Universe Theory we assume the cosmological redshift is a straight-line function of distance. The 1089 value might indicate we are seeing evidence from objects up to 82 times what we can see so far, which is 13.463 billion light-years away. That would be 1,104 trillion light-years.]

PSI Blog 20241021

20241014

Tired Light Theory Supports Infinite Universe Theory

PSI Blog 20241014 Tired Light Theory Supports Infinite Universe Theory

Einstein’s Untired Light Theory messes up again with both Wikipedia and Neil deGrasse Tyson being fooled.

Intergalactic distance unchanged over time. Photo credit: Giles.[1]

Another great question from George Coyne:

“In case any of your readers are not familiar with Olbers' paradox (a.k.a. Olbers and Chseauz's paradox), it says that "the darkness of the night sky conflicts with the assumption of an infinite and eternal and static universe. In the hypothetical case that the universe is static, homogenous at a large scale, and populated by an infinite number of stars, any line of sight from Earth must end at the surface of a star and hence the night sky should be completely illuminated and very bright. This contradicts the observed darkness and non-uniformity of the night sky." (Wikipedia)

Neil deGrasse Tyson discusses the paradox in this video stating that if the universe is infinite then without expansion the sky would be bright at night:

https://www.facebook.com/watch?v=1000071988217197

Using your model of a non-expanding infinite universe, what is your solution to Olbers' paradox?”

[GB: First of all, I reject Wikipedia’s interjecting the word “static” in their explanation of Olbers’s Paradox. The Infinite Universe is not static. Every portion of it is in motion with respect to other portions. Second of all, the regressive interpretation of the so-called “Paradox” (which it is not) is based on an idealization. Idealizations often are useful, but they are not reality. In this case, Tyson, and others before him, use Einstein’s false assumption light was a massless particle containing perfectly empty space traveling perpetually through perfectly empty space. There is no evidence for perfectly empty space. Einstein’s Untired Light Theory is false and unprecedented. Nothing travels from point A to point B without losing energy.

There is no way for anything, including light waves or Einstein’s magical light particles, to travel an infinite distance without losing energy. We see this as a result of Zwicky’s Tired Light Theory[2], which is why the cosmological redshift increases with distance. Redshifted waves have less energy than when they were emitted from distant stars. By the time much of the light from the infinite number of stars in the Infinite Universe reaches us, it has an equilibrium redshift of z=1089, as mentioned in last week’s post.

Although this does not “prove” the universe is infinite any more than does the discovery of the 20 trillion galaxies estimated from the JWST photos. But it does get ever closer and those data are from real objects, and not dependent on an ideal particle traveling through ideal perfectly empty space. Rank idealist Tyson’s claim that Olbers proves the universe is expanding is just as moribund as it ever was. On top of that, the figure above shows no expansion between galaxies with time. This is an observation we consider to be one of the falsifications of the Big Bang Theory.

Here is another chance for readers to choose between fundamental assumptions that are rational (science) or irrational (religion).]

PSI Blog 20241014

[1] Giles, Douglas, 2023, What if the universe is NOT expanding? Inserting Philosophy, Medium.com, Accessed 20230616 [https://gborc.com/Giles].

[2] Zwicky, F., 1929, On the Redshift of Spectral Lines Through Interstellar Space: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, v. 15, no. 10, p. 773–779. [http://www.pnas.org/content/15/10/773.short].

20241007

Theoretical Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder Tells Us Why “Modern” Physics is Dying

PSI Blog 20241007 Theoretical Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder Tells Us Why “Modern” Physics is Dying

In other words: If you believe in String Theory and more than three dimensions, you are part of the problem.

Sabine Hossenfelder. Photo credit: https://sabinehossenfelder.com/

Thanks so much to Bill Wesley for this heads up on the exasperation shown by Sabine, who shows her disgust with regressive physics in a recent video:

https://youtu.be/cBIvSGLkwJY

According to Bill:

“She is calling out the elephant in the room making it more likely your work and the work of others such as my father and Eric Lerner will eventually be heard. It takes a lot of courage to do what she is doing, it’s exciting to see someone openly say what she is saying.”

[GB: Of course, like other reformists, she is criticizing only two especially egregious fabrications, which she knows extremely well. Like she says, the perpetrators have been repeating the same papers over and over with no evidentiary results. In addition to her YouTube videos, she has written some popular books, including this one on the mathemization of physics:

Hossenfelder, Sabine, 2018, Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray, Basic Books, 304 p.

And this one on the big questions:

Hossenfelder, Sabine, 2022, Existential physics: A scientist's guide to life's biggest questions, Penguin, 272 p.

She mentions physicist Lee Smolin who wrote these in a similar vein:

Smolin, Lee, 2007, The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next, Mariner Books; Reprint edition, 420 p.

Smolin, Lee, 2013, Time reborn: From the crisis in physics to the future of the universe, HMH

Going back a bit further, here is Eric Lerner’s revelation from 32 years ago:

Lerner, E.J., 1992, The Big Bang Never Happened: New York, Vintage Books, 440 p.

My prediction of 2050 for the demise of relativity and the Big Bang Theory still stands…]

PSI Blog 20241007