Monday, June 28, 2010

Physics: The Problem With Motion, Part I

[My original series on motion, which was first posted in September of last year, ruffled so many feathers that I decided to repost it over the next few days. Who knows? I may add something new at the end.]

Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV

Abstract

There are many things about mainstream physics that infuriate me, not the least of which is the physicist’s understanding of motion. In this multi-part article, I will argue that the physicist’s understanding of movement is fundamentally flawed, on a par with the flat earth hypothesis. I believe that having a correct foundational model of movement will unleash an age of free energy and extremely fast transportation. It will be an age where vehicles have no need of wheels, move silently at enormous speeds with no visible means of propulsion and negotiate right-angle turns without slowing down.

Physicists, Magic and Zatoichi

I know. The preceding paragraph sounds like crackpot nonsense but most of you who regularly read my blog know that I am not one to shy away from expressing my views even if they get me branded as a crackpot. In fact, I am a rebel at heart and I relish the satisfaction of rubbing the scientific community’s nose in their own excrement. But before you get too offended by my irreverent attitude (I love science, ok?), consider that physicists believe in magic. You don’t believe me? Go ask a physicist to explain why two objects in relative inertial motion remain in motion. You will get either one or both of the following answers.
  1. Nothing is needed to keep them in motion. Newton proved it already.
  2. Physics is not about the ‘why’ of things but the ‘how’.
Answer no. 1 is, of course, pure superstition (I'll explain why in my next post) while answer no. 2 is a sign of pride in (or a cheesy excuse for) one's admitted ignorance. It's strange, but every time I hear this crap, I get a vision of blind swordmaster Zatoichi, of Japanese cinema, calmly eating his enemies’ food in their presence, drinking their sake, taking their money, mocking them and then skillfully chopping them down in righteous anger. All right, it is just metaphorical fantasy and I am not advocating violence against physicists but I hope this article will convince a handful of you that at least one or two of the more famous physicists out there deserve to be dressed as chickens and paraded down NY Fifth Ave or the Champs-Élysées as an example to the others. My point is that something has got to be done.

In Part II, I will deconstruct the above answers and show that physicists are just as ignorant as the man in the street about the nature of motion. Heck, the man in the street may have a leg up on them; that's how bad I think the problem with motion is.

See Also:
More Nasty Little Truths About Physics

10 comments:

JV said...

more unsubstantiated statements. can you prove any of this? is anything you say scientific? of course not. all you do talk talk talk, then mock some straw man you've created in your mind.

Louis Savain said...

JV,

The causality of motion is simple logic. It is so trivial, it's no wonder it went over your head.

JV said...

can you create an experiment to prove even one of your assertions?

you make several bold statements. i'll just pick one...

Inertial motion is a macroscopic phenomenon that consists of a series of jumps of equal magnitude

ok. prove it. and by proving i don't mean tell me that i'm an idiot--me and the rest of the world that has somehow missed all of this that you're talking about. create an experiment to test your hypothesis and prove it.

Louis Savain said...

JV:

can you create an experiment to prove even one of your assertions?

There are not assertions. They are logical deductions, a time-honored tradition in science. Even clueless physicists know the value of logical deductions.

you make several bold statements. i'll just pick one...

Inertial motion is a macroscopic phenomenon that consists of a series of jumps of equal magnitude


I think I qualified this statement by saying that, since the universe is probabilistic, the jump intervals were not equal but average out to a specific value over the long run.

ok. prove it. and by proving i don't mean tell me that i'm an idiot--me and the rest of the world that has somehow missed all of this that you're talking about. create an experiment to test your hypothesis and prove it.

You mean the way that physicists never came up with an experiment to prove continuity? No thank you. Even one of the demigods of science, Albert Einstein, admitted that he considered it possible that continuity is crap.

The proof that continuity is hogwash and that, as a result, everything, including motion, is discrete is trivial because continuity leads to an infinite regress. That is, it depends on the existence of infinity.

Why is infinity a bogus concept? Simply because compared to the infinitely large, every finite quantity is infinitely small, a contradiction.

That's it. That's all the proof you're going to get from me, JV. I say this because, instead of thanking me for teaching you stuff that you did not know, you decide to attack me instead. You're getting on my nerves, whoever you are. So don't bother me again. I will reject your comments from now on. See you around.

dashxdr said...

I'm interested in exploring the assertion that we can't have a universe dependent on continuous fields.

Clearly continuous fields are non computable. Classical explanations of EM waves going through the EM fields require continuous fields, otherwise the waves would degrade, I'd think.

But maybe waves do degrade. There is the redshift with distance. Maybe it's not caused by the source receding, but because over time light waves traversing space over time in a computable universe demands that the waves must degrade over time. So perhaps the elongation is really an indication of roundoff errors.

I wonder whether a non-computable universe can even exist.

I have no problem with infinity being real, I'm not sure what you have against it. But I wonder whether a universe can exist if figuring out the next "state" requires an infinite amount of information to be brought to bear on an infinite number of points.

Current physical theories are not computable. I tend to think the universe itself must be computable. So I like to believe there is some underlying explanation that IS computable, we're just missing it.

Louis Savain said...

dashxdr:

[This is a two-part reply to your comment because blogspot keeps rejecting the full text of my comment.]

Clearly continuous fields are non computable.

Yes, of course. Not only are they non-computable by a digital computer, they are non-computable by any computer. Continuity is no more valid than the flat earth hypothesis.

Classical explanations of EM waves going through the EM fields require continuous fields, otherwise the waves would degrade, I'd think.

Classical EM waves are continuous by definition. I don't see how they can exist in non-continuous fields. Maybe you meant to say that macroscopic EM waves degrade in a discrete universe by virtue of the discreteness. If so, I disagree. So-called EM waves are really nothing but a stream of particles traveling side by side. The mainstream physics notion of a single particle having a wavelength and a frequency is, of course, nonsense.

But maybe waves do degrade. There is the redshift with distance. Maybe it's not caused by the source receding, but because over time light waves traversing space over time in a computable universe demands that the waves must degrade over time. So perhaps the elongation is really an indication of roundoff errors.

I agree that EM radiation degrades over distance and I agree that the reason given by astronomers (accelerated expansion of the universe) is bogus but I don't think it is because of rounding errors in a discrete universe. Errors do happen but they are corrected over the long run so as to obey conservation principles.

In my opinion, the cause of the red shift is the same as the cause of gravity. It has to do with nature correcting violations in energy conservation. Read my gravity hypothesis for more on this subject.

Louis Savain said...

[continued]

dashxdr:

I wonder whether a non-computable universe can even exist.

Of course not. If it exists, it is a computer of sorts. The universe is its own computer. I do agree, however, that the universe is not computable in the conventional Turing sense, i.e., by a sequential computer. The reason is that the universe is not just ultra parallel but every particle is, in a sense, aware of every other particle in an inverse square manner.

I have no problem with infinity being real, I'm not sure what you have against it. But I wonder whether a universe can exist if figuring out the next "state" requires an infinite amount of information to be brought to bear on an infinite number of points.

If infinity were a logical concept then so would continuity. Infinity is crap for the simple reasons that I have given elsewhere. Not only is it impossible to compare a finite number with an infinite number without getting into a contradiction, it is impossible to take a percentage of an infinite quantity, something that is required in a probabilistic universe.

dashxdr said...

So-called EM waves are really nothing but a stream of particles traveling side by side.

Personally I'm unclear as to what the prevailing mainstream belief is as regards light. Einstein says light is photons, Maxwell says light is EM waves. And college physics teaches Maxwell's equations first...

OK so the same mechanism that is used to explain dual slit electron interference (wave equation) is applied to the photons themselves I guess. Then there is the question of polarization, Maxwell's equations address that nicely.

But my point was if we have E/M fields that behave according to Maxwell's equations, those fields must be continuous, and as such are non-computable.

Infinity is crap for the simple reasons that I have given elsewhere.

I haven't studied all your papers. The infinity I'm interested in is a universe that stretches forever in all directions. I have no problem with this. I think the reality is you only need points in the universe to interact with neighboring points (locality). Distant points can only affect a point after whatever it is propagates through the intervening space.

As such the universe can just be an endless aether-like material with stuff in it just doing its thing. I reject Einstein's general relativity and I'm starting even to be disgusted with Special relativity.

In fact the more I delve into standard physics as is taught in colleges, the more I'm disgusted at how happily these so-called experts content themselves with math that describes what is observed but makes no attempt to uncover the underlying machinery. It's pathetic.

Louis Savain said...

dashxdr:

Unfortunately, your latest comment did not get posted because of a bug in the blog code. Sorry.

John said...

It seems a common routine for people who disagree with one another to bash each other and assume the other one is wrong.

1. To those of you college students out there who are looking at these posts in disgust: If you are to be an intelligent person, you must be able to consider the possibility that what you know is wrong. Question everything.

2. To you, the rebel of science, I also ask you to do the same. You must be willing to accept the possibility you are wrong.

3. To I, the mysterious poster, I must be willing to accept the possibility I am wrong.

Now, to the science.
No. Not to the science. See, attempting to disprove everything you say with excellent logic and equations will only result in you explaining how they are wrong. Similarly, if you try to disprove everything I would have said with excellent logic and equations, it would also result in a hateful stalemate.

So, instead, I will ask you a few simple questions, and I expect you to think about it carefully, question your own methods of thinking about it, and reply thoughtfully and intelligently.



Do you believe that you are smarter, more thoughtful and more careful then the thousands of Physicists, Chemists and scientists?

Do you believe that your careful logical pondering and experimentations are better and more logical than discovery than their logical pondering and experimentations?

If you answered No to either of the above questions:
I ask that you consider getting the education in Physics, so that, should you be right on all of these, you can prove it to them in a language they will understand.

If you answered Yes to both of the above questions:
You are arrogant, pretentious and are lying to yourself. Reconsider the questions and try again.