HOME

Frequently Asked Questions

Here we list frequently asked questions and answers about scientific philosophy as interpreted by Dr. Borchardt.

  1. Why do you use the term "scientific philosophy" instead of "philosophy of science?"
  2. Your philosophy seems too one-sided to me. Why don't you have a more balanced viewpoint?
  3. How do you tell the difference between correct ideas and incorrect ideas?
  4. Is time in the microcosmic world faster than time in the macrocosmic world?
  5. Are "matter" and "space" opposites?
  6. Can the universe grow?
  7. Is gravity produced by curved space-time?
  8. What produces gravity?
  9. Does the Second Law of Thermodynamics imply the eventual "heat death" of the universe?
  10. How does your theory differ from the luminous ether theory?
  11. You say that no two things are identical, but aren't quanta identical?
  12. What happens in particle accelerators?
  13. Is magnetism analogous to gravity?
 

Why do you use the term "scientific philosophy" instead of  "philosophy of science"?

Traditionally, the philosophy of science is studied and taught by philosophers, not working scientists. I know hundreds of scientists, but few admit to having studied the philosophy of science. Although mistaken, some of them claim to have no philosophy at all. All of them recognize that science can advance only by interacting with the external world through observation and experiment. They seem to view philosophy as too mixed up with religion and thus irrelevant for their work.

However, in view of the numerous silly so-called "scientific" hypotheses we suffer today (time as a dimension, banging universes, etc.), it is obvious that working scientists need to improve their theoretical foundations. Today's philosophy of science is a mishmash of conflicting presuppositions that have been of little help in cleaning up the theoretical mess left over from the 20th century. Perhaps by using the less popular term "scientific philosophy" we can at least put science first literally if not actually.

Back to Top

Your philosophy seems too one-sided to me. Why don't you have a more balanced viewpoint?

To obtain public funds, philosophy departments must spend valuable time presenting all sides of each issue. As a private entity we are not required to do that (yet). In my opinion, strictly scientific philosophy must espouse determinism (the assumption that all effects have material causes) and avoid indeterminism (the assumption that some effects may not have material causes). If you find that I have overtly included elements of indeterminism or have "balanced my scale with the religious," then I will have failed in presenting  scientific philosophy. Let's face it, there is a constant struggle between science and religion. Because religion is still overwhelmingly powerful, most philosophy attempts some kind of compromise or "peace process" that mixes elements to satisfy the prejudices of both. However, as a scientist, my goal is truth, not eternal life. From the scientific perspective the only thing that can be eternal is the infinite universe itself even though each of its separate parts has a beginning and an end. There are ways to have a truly balanced viewpoint within the confines of determinism.

Back to Top

How do you tell the difference between correct ideas and incorrect ideas?

Test them in the external world through observation and experiment. Other claims of truth or falsehood are logical deductions from acknowledged assumptions or hidden presuppositions. Until they are tested, such claims are no more likely to be true than the assumptions on which they are based. 

Back to Top

Is time in the microcosmic world faster than time in the macrocosmic world?

Time is motion. The motion of matter in various parts of the universe varies from imperceptibly slow to imperceptibly fast. I don't know of any reason for the fastest and slowest motions to be fundamentally different within the microcosmic and macrocosmic domains. It is true that many high-speed particles in "empty" space cannot be observed until they have been slowed by collision with still other matter. They are like bullets, which we may not observe enroute, but may be all too real on impact. An infinite universe will always have tinier and tinier particles feeding what we experience as reality. These particles don't necessarily have to be traveling fast--they might just be too tiny for us to detect.

Back to Top

Are "matter" and "space" opposites?

Not in reality. They are idealizations. Matter was once thought to be solid, without space. Space was once thought to be empty, without matter. The reality, we have learned, is that all matter contains space (e.g., the atom); all space contains matter (e.g., no absolute vacuum is possible). Reality is always something in between solid matter and empty space. Our idea of nothingness is just that, an idea. No part of the infinite universe could be devoid of matter: nonexistence is impossible.

 

Back to Top

Can the universe grow?

No. The universe and its material constituents are everywhere. There is nowhere for the universe to grow into because the required empty space is an idealization, not a reality. The universe cannot expand and, by definition, there can be only one universe. Any portion of the universe might come into perceptible existence via convergence of its separate parts from elsewhere in the universe; any portion of the universe might go out of perceptible existence via divergence of its separate parts to elsewhere in the universe.
Back to Top

Is gravity produced by curved space-time?

No. Space, like all other forms of matter, is 3-dimensional. Time is motion and has no dimensions.

Back to Top

What produces gravity?

The most likely cause of gravity was predicted long ago by Le Sage (http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/PushingGravity.htm#Preface), who theorized that it was a push, not a pull. Bodies tend to be pushed toward each other through mutual shielding from high-velocity particles that collide with atomic nuclei. The "pull" of gravity that we observe is akin to the "suction" produced by a vacuum cleaner--both are really pushes and mathematics is no help in distinguishing between them. Each thing in the universe requires its "pushers" to keep it together. This is why the universe must be microcosmically as well as macrocosmically infinite. Presumably, even the pushers require pushers, and nothing could survive in a universe devoid of them. Of course, Le Sage's theory, or some variant of it, will not be accepted until the current finite universe theory is discarded.

Back to Top

Does the Second Law of Thermodynamics imply the eventual "heat death" of the universe?

The question of the eventual "heat death" of the universe is just as relevant as it was when the Big Bang Theory was deduced by the Abbe Lemaître in 1950. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the overall entropy or disorder of a perfectly isolated system can only increase. This law would apply to an isolated, finite universe expanding into an infinite empty space. If the universe was truly expanding, its overall entropy would continually increase. It would become more and more disordered as its constituents diverged from one another. But with COMPLEMENTARITY I assume that the second law is really a law describing divergence, and that a complementary law describing convergence is required. Thus any portion of the universe is subject to the divergence of its separate parts. A house “falls apart” if left unattended. The complement to the Second Law states its antithesis: The overall entropy or disorder of a perfectly nonisolated system can only decrease. A house "comes together" when the surrounding building materials receive the proper attention. Of course, neither perfect isolation nor perfect nonisolation exist—they are idealizations. All real things have a degree of isolation and a degree of nonisolation. In an infinite universe divergence and convergence are equal. Things come apart in one place to form other things in another place. The constituents of galaxies eventually diverge from one another only to form new galaxies in the intergalactic space. Every birth eventually results in death. The death of one organism provides the constituents for the birth of another. It is quite simply a reflectance of the great “cosmic dance” of matter in motion. A complement to the Second Law of Thermodynamics will not be accepted, however, until the assumption of finity is discarded along with the Big Bang Theory and the systems philosophy that engendered it. For further details, you can download the paper "Resolution of the SLT-order paradox," presented at the 2008 Natural Philosophy Alliance-AAAS meeting in Albuquerque.
Back to Top

How does your theory differ from the luminous ether theory? 

The general idea remains similar, except that I don't believe that the ether is fixed. The ether consists of minute particles that are constantly in motion. It is a medium for light transmittance just like constantly moving air molecules provide a medium for the transmittance of sound. This interpretation follows from my assumption of INTERCONNECTION, which states that between any two things in the universe, there must be still another thing. This is in accord with INFINITY, which assumes that the universe is infinite in both the microcosmic and the macrocosmic directions. Thus, there is ample matter to allow the transmittance of electromagnetic as well as other kinds of motion. Long ago, Dayton Miller’s experimental work showed that Einstein's interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment as proof of the nonexistence of the ether was questionable (see http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm). Einstein's philosophical confusion is well illustrated by his views on this question. In 1907 he considered the ether unnecessary. In 1922 he considered it necessary. In 1938 he once again considered it  unnecessary, and finally, in 1961 he considered it immaterial.

Back to Top
 

You say that no two things are identical, but aren't quanta identical? 

According to the assumption of RELATIVITY, identities do not exist in nature. Nevertheless, like Plato, we can imagine perfect objects and perfect motions even though it is impossible to find them without ignoring the imperfections produced by INFINITY. Mathematics, necessarily based on finity, assumes identities all the time. For example, we can imagine that any two seconds of time are identical. But when we use a real clock to measure time, we find that no two seconds are exactly alike. All clocks, existing in the real world,  have real variations in accuracy and precision. Quantum theory still regards all quanta as being identical despite David Bohm's thoughtfully considered counter-arguments. In this regard, quantum mechanics and classical mechanics are similar. Both are based on the now obsolete assumption of finite universal causality.

Back to Top
 

What happens in particle accelerators? 

Infinity assumes that there are no partless parts (a partless part would require “solid” matter, which has never been found). So, smashing particles with other particles yields still other particles. At velocities near the speed of light, particles actually undergo increases in mass. Any such changes would have to occur according to neomechanics, which I described in Ch. 5 of TSW. Neomechanics simply is classical mechanics in light of the assumption of infinity. Thus E = mc2 does not describe the conversion of matter into pure energy construed as matterless motion, but the conversion of one kind of matter in motion to another kind of matter in motion. The conversion requires a macrocosm filled with particles and would not occur in a macrocosm filled with nothing at all, ala Einstein. There must be a physical reason for mass increase; equations only describe it. I am currently working on a short chapter entitled "The Physical Meaning of E = mc2"  for my next book. P.S. You might want to take the quiz in the back of "The Scientific Worldview" before and after you read it.

Back to Top
 

Is magnetism analogous to gravity? 

1.       Not having studied it much, I don’t have any similar “out of the box” ideas on this subject, but I also don’t see why magnetism wouldn’t be somewhat analogous to gravitation. Also, I can’t imagine it involving an “immaterial field,” which makes no sense to me but often is mentioned in some accounts. Actually, all moving charges generate magnetic forces, which are about a billion billion (i.e., 1018) times greater than gravitation. Because Newton’s First Law of Motion (the law of the universe, if there ever was one) describes only a push. Any apparent “pull” actually must be a push, as in a vacuum cleaner.

 

Back to Top

ASK THE DOC

YOUR QUESTION COULD BE NEXT. CLICK HERE TO GET IN ON THE ACTION.

Progressive Science Institute
gborchardt@gmail.com
P.O. Box 5335, Berkeley, California, 94705-0335, US
phone:  510-654-1619  fax:  530-655-0018

Privacy Policy
Copyright © 2005-2007 Glenn Borchardt. All rights reserved.
Revised: April 09, 2015.

HOME