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.

20240401

What Experiment Would Prove Einstein Wrong?

PSI Blog 20240401 What Experiment Would Prove Einstein Wrong?

Or: Why is Einstein always right?

Figure 42 Interferometer measurements of Earth’s velocity around the Sun as determined at various altitudes above mean sea level. The three data points in red at high altitude are projections and are yet to be performed. The other data are from Galaev^{^[1]}, who seems to be the first to show this relationship (Borchardt, 2017^{^[2]}).

Thanks to Joachim Mika for his response to my post on the Michelson-Morley Experiment:

“Fair enough. So here's the acid test: can you make an experimentally observable prediction which will differentiate between your theories and those commonly accepted today. Ultimately, that's the only way new theories get accepted, supported by experiment, as Einstein's have multiple times over the past century.”

Joachim, each of the experimental results given in the above figure is a test of Einstein’s claim aether did not exist. In each case, he was wrong. As Galaev wrote somewhat clumsily:

“The work results can be considered as experimental hypothesis confirmation about the ether existence in nature, i.e. material medium, responsible for electromagnetic waves propagation.”[3]

In the absence of aether, each of those values would have been zero. As mentioned, the three projections at high altitude that I proposed in Figure 42 have not been performed. What do you think the results would be? Know any regressive physicists or cosmogonists who would like to support such an effort, destroying their life’s work in the redundancy?

The Gravity Test

Suppose solipsists (i.e., immaterialists) said they could survive after jumping off a building without a parachute? That might work for a one-storey building. But would it work for a five-storey building or a one hundred-storey building?

Einstein has been proven wrong more often than he has been proven right. Were you aware of any of those experiments? Even the supposed evidence for relativity that I have studied simply were misinterpretations. For instance, Eddington’s 1919 eclipse observation showed light to be bent around the Sun. He claimed this was a result of Einstein’s “curved space-time,” with the newspaper headlines anointing Einstein as the greatest genius of all time. It actually was the result of simple refraction in the Sun’s atmosphere just like the apparent bending of your fishing pole when you stick it in the water.

As a professional scientist I had two primary obligations:

1. Perform experiments and observations.

2. Publish the results.

Of course, there is publishing, and there is PUBLISHING! Like everything else in the universe, a particular publication is a microcosm existing in a unique macrocosm. Each is subject to the universal mechanism of evolution: univironmental determinism, the interactions between the within and without. How far and wide your experimental results are spread depends on the assumptions and desires of your audience. In this, Eddington and Einstein were especially lucky as I explained in detail in "Religious Roots of Relativity."[4] In short, the time was ripe for a reaction against the ravages of materialism of the 19^th Century.

There are over 10,000 of us opposed to relativity and the Big Bang Theory. Many have performed experiments like you suggest. Why have you not heard of any of them even if the work is excellent, such as Sagnac’s experiments proving the existence of aether?[5] That was published a mere eight years after Einstein’s ballyhooed introduction of Special Relativity Theory in 1905. That single falsification should have been the end of relativity, but it was not. Soon-to-be regressive physicists ate it up, seldom acknowledging the surreptitious ad hocs to push the idea light was a particle instead of a wave in a sea of particles:

Einstein's Eight Magical Ad Hocs He Needed to Convert Light Waves into Particles

1. Unlike other particles, his light particle always traveled at the same velocity - it never slowed down.

2. Unlike other particles, it attained this velocity instantaneously when emitted from a source.

3. Unlike other particles, it would not take on the velocity of its source.

4. Unlike other particles, it was massless.

5. Unlike other particles, it did not lose motion when it collided with other things.

6. Unlike other particles, any measurement indicating light speed was not constant had to be attributed to "time dilation" - another especially egregious ad hoc.

7. Time had to be considered something other than motion, for motion cannot dilate.

8. He had to ignore the fact that constant velocity is only possible for wave motion.

The result was his “Untired Light Theory (ULT),” based on the false assumption light was a massless particle containing perfectly empty space traveling perpetually through perfectly empty space. That is the foundation of the Big Bang Theory, which like all creation theories, must assume “nothing” (i.e., perfectly empty space). There is so-called “evidence” for Einstein’s magical light particle, since renamed a “photon.” Per ULT, the photon is assumed to travel from galaxy to eyeball. It does no such thing. The particulate nature of light is due to local aether particles colliding with your eye in the same way the particulate nature of sound is due to local nitrogen molecules colliding with your ear drum. The “Einstein is always right” trope is what believers want to believe and has nothing to do with reality.

The Prayer Test

Again, you may wonder why you have not read or heard of any of this before. Again, that is because PUBLICATION, promotion, and advertising must focus upon a particular audience that will welcome and respond to the information. That is why the null results of the well-documented “prayer test”[6] are unknown or ignored by over 6 billion practitioners. It is not what believers want to know. Do you really think today’s regressive physics and cosmogony is any different?

PSI Blog 20240401

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.

[1] Galaev, Y.M., 2002, The measuring of ether-drift velocity and kinematic ether viscosity within optical waves band (English translation): Space-time & Substance, v. 3, no. 5, p. 207-224. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/Galaevaether].

[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 337 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].

[3] Galaev, The measuring of ether-drift, p. 223b.

[4] Borchardt, Glenn, 2020, Religious Roots of Relativity: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 160 p. [https://go.glennborchardt.com/RRR-ebk]

[5] 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].

[6] Masters, K.S., Spielmans, G.I., and Goodson, J.T., 2006, Are there demonstrable effects of distant intercessory prayer? A meta-analytic review: Annals of Behavioral Medicine, v. 32, no. 1, p. 21-26. [https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324796abm3201_3]; Soubihe Junior, N.V., and others, 2023, The remote intercessory prayer, during the clinical evolution of patients with COVID -19, randomized double-blind clinical trial: Heliyon, v. 9, no. 11, p. e22411. [10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e22411].

[Those references might be obscure, but this certainly is not: Stein, Rob, 2006, Prayer doesn't aid recovery, study finds: Effect on healing of strangers at distance after heart-bypass surgery examined: Washington Post.]

20240325

Latest False Big Bang Theory Ad Hoc

PSI Blog 20240325 Latest False Big Bang Theory Ad Hoc

Rare cosmogonist proposes universe is 27 billion years old and without “Dark Matter.”

Photo Credit: Eric Ralls.

Study: Dark matter does not exist and the universe is 27 billion years old

Thanks to George Coyne and Jesse Witwer for pointing out this controversial study from Adjunct Professor Rajendra Gupta of the Physics Department at the University of Ottawa. You can read the open access report here. It is filled with the usual complicated math that is required for publication in physics and cosmology. Instead, I will critique a few quotes from Eric Ralls who wrote the highlighted review of Gupta’s theory:

“Gupta’s innovative approach involves the integration of two theoretical models: the covarying coupling constants (CCC) and “tired light” (TL), known together as the CCC+TL model. This model explores the notion that the forces of nature diminish over cosmic time…”

[GB: Sorry, but the “forces of nature” do not diminish over time. That generalization only would apply to a finite universe. While each portion of the Infinite Universe evolves, the Infinite Universe itself does not evolve as I explained here.]

“‘The study’s findings confirm our previous work, which suggested that the universe is 26.7 billion years old, negating the necessity for dark matter’s existence,’ Gupta explains.”

[GB: The 26.7 Ga value simply is about twice the 13.8 Ga promoted by mainstream cosmogonists. This reform makes sense because telescope views in opposite directions assume 13.8 is correct. If so, the distance E-W or S-N must be 27.6 billion light years. Sorry, but a change in age has nothing to do with whether or not “Dark Matter” exists. It is quite naïve to assume everything in the Infinite Universe must be luminous.]

“‘Contrary to standard cosmological theories where the accelerated expansion of the universe is attributed to dark energy, our findings indicate that this expansion is due to the weakening forces of nature, not dark energy,’ he continued.”

[GB: As I have pointed out many times, energy, whether “dark” or “light,” does not exist—it is simply a calculation of matter in motion. The dark energy that supposedly drives the expansion of the universe has no matter associated with it—least of all dark matter. The evidence for dark matter is well established as reporter Ralls mentions and is explained for rotating galaxies in this nice review by Vera Rubin.[1]]

“‘Tired Light’ (TL) Model

On the other hand, the “Tired Light” model offers a radical explanation for the redshift observed in light from distant galaxies. Instead of attributing this redshift to the expansion of the universe, as the Big Bang theory does, the TL model suggests that light loses energy — and thus shifts towards the red end of the spectrum — as it travels through space. This energy loss could be due to interactions with particles or fields, causing light to ‘tire’ over vast distances.”

[GB: Another important aspect of Gupta’s reform attempt is his inclusion of Tired Light Theory as explained above by Ralls and supported by Hubble himself. Remember that the whole expanding universe misinterpretation is based on Einstein’s false assumption light was a massless particle containing perfectly empty space traveling perpetually through perfectly empty space.[2] None of that exists, and one has to be philosophically naïve to believe it does. Eventually, the exact mechanism by which light waves lose energy over distance will be known. My own view is that perfect reproduction of subsequent waves is impossible, even for the highly elastic aether particles that exist in the aether medium. You only have to drop a pebble in calm water to prove this for yourself.]

“In summary, the CCC+TL model represents a bold crossroads between two unconventional theories, offering a fresh perspective on the workings of the cosmos.”

[GB: I don’t think so!]

PSI Blog 20240325

[1] Rubin, V.C., 2000, One hundred years of rotating galaxies: Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, v. 112, p. 747-750. [10.1086/316573].

[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 2020, Religious Roots of Relativity: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 160 p. [https://go.glennborchardt.com/RRR-ebk]

20240318

PSI Blog 20240318 Big Bang Theory and the “Bandwagon Fallacy”

Cosmogony is afflicted with a logical disease formally known in philosophy as Argumentum ad Populum.

Photo Credit: Dr. Douglas Giles, Philosopher

Just because an idea is popular does not mean it is correct. In science, we are supposed to determine truth through observation and experimentation on the external world—not by the popularity of the conclusions. Prof. Giles has this excellent short bit on truth (which may not be popular) and lies (which might make us feel socially acceptable):

The Most Pernicious Logical Fallacy

Humanity has jumped from one myth to another throughout history. Even those who believe in acausality, still seek answers, the causes for events, such as: Why did I get a stomach ache? Could it have been something I ate? Any popular myth must build on a previous myth. As I explained in my book, "Religious Roots of Relativity,[1]" Einstein was a genius at doing so, suggesting light was a massless particle containing perfectly empty space traveling perpetually through perfectly empty space. Without the magical photon and the four dimensions of General Relativity Theory, the expanding universe misinterpretation would have been impossible. There would have been no “Last Creation Theory” that became ever popular and supremely durable.

Paradigm Shift

The Argumentum ad Populum is especially important for understanding paradigms. It was not until the 20^th Century that the word “paradigm” “began to be used in the more specific philosophical sense of ‘logical or conceptual structure serving as a form of thought within a given area of experience,’ especially in Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" (1962).[2]” Kuhn famously pointed out that the popularity of a paradigm prevents its practitioners and promoters from making revolutionary changes to it. They are ipso facto inevitably unqualified to do so.

Again, scientific conclusions are not supposed to be based on popularity. Unfortunately, that is not always true. For instance, the testimony of expert witnesses can be disregarded if it flies in the face of “scientific consensus.” New forensic techniques need confirmation by other scientists before they can be accepted in court. The “scientific consensus” is that the universe is expanding. Unfortunately, that is not true even though it is extremely popular.

Being on the outside looking into the cosmogonical paradigm does not generate much popularity. The incessant propaganda in favor of relativity and the Big Bang Theory makes the 10,000 of us who question the dogma highly unwelcome. None of that is a conspiracy or some kind of nefarious plot. It is simply a result of traditional choices favoring certain unprovable fundamental assumptions that always have opposites according to Collingwood.[3]

Neither Kuhn nor Collingwood said what those assumptive choices were. As a curious scientist, I got busy discovering them and found all were centered on the choice between infinity and finity.[4] That went right to the heart of cosmogony, with its surreptitious, unacknowledged assumption the universe was finite and had a beginning. Some have demurred, saying that if neither of opposed assumptions are completely provable, then it does not matter which one you choose. But that is definitely not the case. It makes all the difference on whether you assume the universe exploded out of nothing and had a beginning or you assume the Infinite Universe is everywhere and has existed forever.

The ultimate paradigm shift from the Big Bang Theory to Infinite Universe Theory is a really big deal—the biggest humanity will ever undergo. In view of the current popularity of religious Dreams and Imaginings™ I predict it will be at least another three decades before theoretical physics and cosmology questions and acknowledges the underlying assumptions that are becoming more clear by the day. Falsifications of the BBT continue to be ignored by regressive physicists and cosmogonists even as the James Webb Space Telescope shows no evidence for a beginning. Great shifts in science and philosophy like this one depend on a global crisis. You can see that coming with the rise of fascism and the desperation with which so-called “traditional values” are being promoted—even violently. The struggle over the world’s resources will intensify as global population growth slows and its associated economic growth declines. My guess is that the old assumptions and traditional ways of thinking, including the ones that brought us the Big Bang nonsense, will be replaced by those concordant with Infinite Universe Theory.

PSI Blog 20240318

[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2020, Religious Roots of Relativity: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 160 p. [https://go.glennborchardt.com/RRR-ebk]

[2] https://www.etymonline.com/word/paradigm [See especially: Kuhn, T.S., 1962, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 210 p.]

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

[4] Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The Ten Assumptions of Science: Toward a New Scientific Worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p. [https://gborc.com/TTAOS; https://gborc.com/TTAOSpdf].

20240314

Pi Day and the Infinite Universe Theory

PSI Blog 20240314 Pi Day and Infinite Universe Theory

What does 3.14159… have to do with infinity?

Today’s celebration of math was invented by Larry Shaw, a physicist employed at San Francisco’s Exploratorium, which was founded by Frank Oppenheimer (J. Robert’s brother). It is a good illustration of infinity, as pointed out by Soumya Karlamangla of the New York Times:

“Pi has fascinated mathematicians for thousands of years, not least because it is an irrational number — its digits seem to go on forever without falling into a repeating pattern, a tantalizing glimpse of infinity. It is the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter, and circles themselves tend to hold some mystery, as perfect shapes with no beginning or end, according to Samuel Sharkland, senior program director at the Exploratorium.”

Pi has been calculated to over 62.8 trillion digits with no end in sight. This is akin to what we get when we attempt to perform precise measurements in the real world. Per the Third Assumption of Science, uncertainty, it is impossible to know everything about anything. The infinite nature of the universe is why no two measurements are ever identical and why every scientific measurement has a plus or minus. It is why no two snowflakes are alike. It is why the counterpart to uncertainty is the Second Assumption of Science, causality (All effects have an infinite number of material causes). It is why Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle overthrew the finite universal causality assumed in classical mechanics and relativity.

Pi attests to the “irrational” messiness necessary for the universe to exist. A universe filled with Plato’s ideal spheres and Democritus’s ideal finite identical “atoms” could not exist. Events occur as the result of collisions. But the imagined collisions between perfectly and necessarily identical spheres would produce nothing at all. There would be no reason for identical aether particles to produce the complexes we see all around us as ordinary matter in our Infinite Universe. Today is the day to raise a toast to 3.14159… at precisely (sort of) 1:59 pm like they do in San Francisco!

Also, you will love this Pi, Pi, Pi parody of NSYNC’s rock song “Bye, Bye, Bye”:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvW5uqzHDAo

PSI Blog 20240314

20240311

Why the 1887 Michelson-Morley Experiment did not Disprove Aether

PSI Blog 20240311 Why the 1887 Michelson-Morley Experiment did not Disprove Aether

They only proved “ether” was not fixed.

Figure 42 Interferometer measurements of Earth’s velocity around the Sun as determined at various altitudes above mean sea level. The three data points in red at high altitude are projections and are yet to be performed. The other data are from Galaev[1], who seems to be the first to show this relationship (Borchardt, 2017[2]).

Many thanks to Prof. Steve Ruis for this comment:

“I suspect that most people, as I did, believe that the experiment disproved the existence of an aether. If you are looking for a topic to write on, explaining why that isn't so and the follow-up experiments would help people understand. Thanks for all you do!”

Through a series of notable missteps, this celebrated experiment, also known as MMX, led to the Big Bang Theory. This clever, yet naïve attempt to measure Earth’s motion around the Sun has been called the “most famous null experiment of all time.”

MMX was clever because it attempted to detect the velocity of light in two different directions:

1. In the same direction of Earth’s travel.

2. Perpendicular to Earth’s travel

It was naïve because Michelson and Morley based the experiment on four erroneous assumptions:

1. Ether[3] is fixed and Earth simply moves through it. They expected to observe an “ether wind” similar to the wind in your face when you run down the street.

2. The above was ironic since Lucretius, Galileo, Einstein, and many others assumed all things in the universe were in motion with respect to other things: An assumption otherwise known as “relativity.”

3. Not being in motion, fixed ether particles could not accelerate ordinary matter. Newton's Second Law of Motion (F=ma) would not apply to them.

4. The ubiquitous ether permeated everything, with ordinary matter moving through it. This assumption became especially clear in their selection of where to perform the experiment: the basement of a campus dormitory.

In reality, this would be like trying to measure the jet stream in your backyard at sea level. They did not imagine aether might form an “aetherosphere” that surrounded the Earth and was attached to Earth just like our atmosphere. Then there could be no differential motion between Earth and the aether that was moving along with it.

Nonetheless, their apparatus was cleverly designed to observe the fringe (fuzziness) when the two perpendicularly intersecting beams of light met after traveling identical distances. The assumed light “corpuscles” would have recorded an “ether wind” of 30 km/s—the velocity of Earth around the Sun. Light traveling perpendicular to the direction of Earth’s motion would be unaffected. There actually was a fringe, but it was tiny and generally ignored by budding regressive physicists as experimental error. The final interpretation: a null result. MMX proved there was no fixed ether.

But was there a more reasonable aether[4] that was not fixed? Why should aether particles be unlike other portions of the universe, being in motion with respect to other things? Why wouldn’t aether particles interact with ordinary matter by colliding with it, undergoing acceleration and deceleration per Newton's Second Law of Motion? The truth is that real aether particles have all those properties and then some. Most of the research on aether is in dissident literature where it is ignored by regressive physicists, who are, after all, are defined by “aether denial,” which appears necessary for graduation.

After MMX, subsequent measurements that used improved technology showed they were a function of altitude (Figure 42 above). The MMX measurements were at low attitude (about 210 m at Cleveland, Ohio). They only made 36 crude measurements, but thousands have been performed and interpreted by numerous investigators at various altitudes. None have been especially simple because Earth rotates as it revolves around the Sun. The results change minute-by-minute and the complete width of the fringes have not always been included in the measurements, especially by MMX. In addition, the solar system’s rotation around the center of the Milky Way at about 230 km/s may or may not be a factor.

I think Figure 42 is evidence for an “aetherosphere,” which, like our atmosphere, surrounds Earth and moves along with it. I also have concluded it is a result of the accumulation of aether particles that were decelerated after colliding with Earth during the acceleration we call gravitation. Consequently, the density of the aether medium is greatest near Earth, becoming less dense though more active and less sluggish with distance from Earth. Thus, the full 30-km/s motion Michelson and Morley were trying to detect only can be measured at a great distance from Earth—probably beyond the troposphere.

The readoption of the aether medium results in data interpretations that are more logical than the “anti-common sense” we were taught. Among these are:

1. Abandonment of the perfectly empty space idealization and the false assumption that nonexistence is possible.

2. Abandonment of Einstein’s false assumption light was a massless particle containing perfectly empty space traveling perpetually through perfectly empty space.

3. Its source does not contribute velocity to light because light is not a particle.

4. Light velocity is constant because light is a wave whose velocity is, like all waves, controlled by the medium as long as the properties of the medium remain unchanged.

5. The so-called “gravitational redshift” is a result of slight changes in the medium as a function of altitude. Distal increases in aether pressure cause light waves to speed up, lengthening the distance between waves.

6. Both clock speed and mass increase due to increases in aether pressure with increases in altitude.

7. Einstein’s “gravitational waves” are shock waves that travel through the aether medium at the same velocity as light waves. They have nothing to do with gravitation.

8. The acceleration of gravitation is produced by high-velocity local aether particles that become decelerated upon colliding with ordinary matter.

9. The “Dark Matter” contributing to the mass of rotational galaxies probably is decelerated aether like the aetherosphere surrounding Earth.

PSI Blog 20240311

[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 337 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].

[3] I use “ether” as the proper spelling for fixed ether and for the class of organic chemicals. The “aether” spelling has precedent with Descartes (1844) who suggested it was the ubiquitous medium responsible for light transmission, gravitation, and the formation of ordinary matter.

[4] See above.

20240304

Recovering from the Loss of Free Will

PSI Blog 20240304 Recovering from the Loss of Free Will

Belief in free will: One reason regressive physics and cosmogony has been so durable.

Photo by Mohamed Nohassi on Unsplash

In "Religious Roots of Relativity" I pointed out why Einstein and the Big Bang Theory became so popular. You were born without religion, but it is unlikely you were raised without believing in free will. Most of the 4000+ religions have taken advantage of this, emphasizing that you are entirely responsible for all your decisions. Even in a secular society, we must hold people responsible for their behavior. Intelligence involves the response to the environment. Society has the means to handle inappropriate responses regardless of anyone’s belief or nonbelief in “free will.”

None of this becomes much of a problem unless you take physics and the rest of science seriously. It really comes to the fore in the advent of Infinite Universe Theory and the coming demise of the “Last Creation Myth.” Mere acknowledgement that univironmental determinism is the universal mechanism of evolution is enough to push one into what I call “deterministic realization” and the rejection of free will. This strikes folks in varying ways ranging from an epiphany, shock, depression, or elation.

In this regard, I just received this pertinent question from Jesse, who obviously is a deep thinker and understands my scientific philosophy:

Did the realization that you do not have free will bother you at all? The contemplation that ultimately your decisions aren't really decisions but simply predictable outcomes from your biological machinery when facing the exact forms of motion that you face?

It bothered me at first. Gave me that sinking feeling in my stomach like I was in free fall.

But then, like many things, I accepted it with this philosophy. "If I act and live my life like I believe in free will, does it really matter if I actually believe in it or not?"

Another take would be that free will is what we call the emergent phenomenon of infinity vs our brains and bodies. This phenomenon clearly occurs, the physical mechanism being microscopic infinity instead of divine spirit is frankly not important?

Jesse:

Nice to hear from you. With regard to free will, I had this to say in the Preface to "The Scientific Worldview":

The univironmental idea had an intense personal impact. In my experiments I had always considered myself outside the reactions I was observing. Now I was a crucial, historical part of them. My physicochemical model of the world ran wild. For more than a week I was in a fatalistic daze as I thought, still somewhat narrowly, but certainly not conventionally, “We are all chemicals and all our behaviors are chemical reactions.” This was a giant, if somewhat clumsy, step outside systems philosophy. In this new way of thinking, whether we consider ourselves chemicals, systems, microcosms, or just plain folks made little difference—all are influenced by both the within and the without. Behavior was simply the motion of one portion of the universe with respect to other portions. This simple yet profound conception was radically different from anything I had known. The dictionary didn’t even have a word for it. I gradually recovered by savoring the newfound perceptiveness. I would never look at anything in the same way again.[1]

Looks like the “deterministic realization” had a similar effect on you. Folks have said that The Scientific Worldview “blew their minds,” etc. It turns out that most people never think that deeply about anything and therefore can never know what the Infinite Universe is really all about. Of course, us newly edified, eventually get over it like you did and continue to act mostly as if we actually had free will.

It is impossible to consider the trillions of causes involved in your next decision. On the other hand, you might want to know about a few of them, as I demonstrate below.

I remember displaying a cursory rejection of free will as a freshman in college in my debates with liberal arts students. By then I had a little bit of science, but the major reason I was a believer in “there are causes for all effects” stemmed from my hands-on farm background. That probably was why I could not accept Einstein’s massless particles, time dilation, and 4-D spacetime, getting a C in Physics 1a for my trouble. Despite all that, I did not get the “deterministic realization” until I began "The Scientific Worldview" from the standpoint of the determinism-indeterminism philosophical struggle. By then, I had witnessed some vehement arguments among scientists who espoused opposing views over the interpretation of data. I found out soon that these always occurred at the frontier of science—no one needed to debate or get excited about stuff that was already settled.

In the ‘70s we studied a lot of dialectics and the meaning of contradictions. That helped me to focus on the frontier. I read New Scientist magazine, which was pushing a lot of Big Bang Theory stuff that seemed silly to me. After all, there was no cause ever given for the effect that supposedly resulted in the explosion of the entire universe out of nothing.

So now that we have surpassed the “deterministic realization,” what do we do? As a scientist, it is relatively easy. I am particularly interested in what causes what effects. Unless you are a regressive physicist, you will want to know what is colliding with what. That also implies the overall importance of history in producing the present. That is why even otherwise naïve scientists document their work by citing those who came before. It is why I have accumulated over 9,000 literature references in the last six decades. I want to know where my ideas came from so I can get more of them and avoid the ones that fail observation and experiment.

Human progress has accumulated a hugh database containing evidence that should not be ignored or contradicted, along with false, self-serving claims that should be pointed out, challenged, and forgotten. It is fun being part of that and knowing we all get to “change the world” even though we know also that each event follows from the infinite nexus of previous events.

Be reminded, however, that the determinism-free will debate always will be with us, commencing with the birth of each child. Most folks, particularly theologians, philosophers, regressive physicists, and cosmogonists cling to the free will assumption as if their life depended on it. They are probably right, especially with regard to their continued employment. Remnants of our religious birthright remain to produce the stickiness that is evident in the popularity of the Big Bang Theory. Even scientists who have given up the assumption of free will, such as evolutionist Jerry Coyne, still cling to the BBT. “Compatibilists,” such as philosopher Daniel Dennett, have moderated the contradiction by accepting a passé form of causality in tune with the fundamental assumption of finity.

Causality

It turns out my own youthful assumption that “there are causes for all effects” was insufficient. I subsequently discovered there were two types of causality:

1. Finite universal causality

2. Infinite universal causality

Number one assumes a finite number of causes can produce an effect. Mathematics tends to require that and it was the basis of Newton’s classical mechanics. The best demonstration of it was “Laplace’s Demon," a theoretically omniscient being that could predict and postdict effects without error. That was destroyed by Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, although he and his compatriots failed to recognize its grand significance.

Number two is founded on my Second Assumption of Science, causality (All effects have an infinite number of material causes). That may be hard to understand until you assume, with infinity, that matter is infinitely subdividable. The proof of this is the fact all repeat measurements have a plus or minus error associated with them. It is the basis for my “neomechanics,” which simply is classical mechanics with the inclusion of infinity.

Next, I had to discover exactly what was a cause. The hint was Newton's Second Law of Motion in which the motion of the collider decreases as the motion of the collidee increases. In other words, all causes involve collisions. This demand went by the wayside with the arrival of regressive physics. Thus, for instance, regressive physicists were allowed to promote the centuries' old and worthless assumption of “attraction” and Einstein was able to promote his mysterious 4-D “spacetime” assumption as the causes of gravitation. Actually, I found out the physical cause of gravitation is as simple as Newton’s Second Law. It is obvious that gravitation is an acceleration. What has always been missing is the accelerant, which like the air we breathe, is invisible to us. I was able to revive Einstein’s rejected aether in devising my “Aether Deceleration Theory of Gravitation.”[2] I was impressed by all the evidence for aether, which was necessarily being summarily rejected by regressive theoretical physics. It turns out that the “free will” trope and Einstein’s perfectly empty space trope were birds of a feather. Both led the march toward the “Last Creation Theory.”

In conclusion, “deterministic realization” will strike many of us as we dismantle those silly theories. Everything that happens is part of an infinite univironmental chain of events, with the abandonment of free will being part of humanity’s growth. Despite the unyielding demands of physics, we still can have the necessary “feeling of freedom,” while rejecting any notion of free will itself.

PSI Blog 20240304

[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2007, The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 411 p. [https://go.glennborchardt.com/TSW].

[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 2018, The Physical Cause of Gravitation: viXra:1806.0165.

The Scientific Worldview

20240401

What Experiment Would Prove Einstein Wrong?