PSI Blog 20241028 Rick “Doogie”
Dutkiewicz 1953-2024
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.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment