Wednesday, August 14, 2013

The Top Quark

The religion of Quantum Mechanics has this particle called the top quark.  Top quarks are supposed to be building blocks for everything in the universe and yet back in the 90s a team of 440 scientists 'discovered' that the top quark has the mass of a gold atom.  This is probably one of the more outlandish claims of Quantum Mechanics but I am learning there are plenty more.  There is enough B.S. in Quantum Mechanics to fill several lifetimes.  They do not know what they are doing or even talking about.

In any case here is a nice chart done by Mike Huttner exploring this contradiction within a larger framework:




see Mike's brief post here

Sunday, August 11, 2013

Quote of the Day From Abruzzo's The Genesis of a Theoretical Cul-de-Sac

Here are a couple little cross sections from Anthony Abruzzo's work title The Origins of the Nebular Hypothesis --- Or, the Genesis of a Theoretical Cul-de-Sac.  What struck me about this writing of his is that the introduction of a new word, in this case 'solar system' directed thinkers toward the nebular hypothesis. Words, word usage, semantics, semiotics, syntax, etc. can and should never be underestimated in science, especially cosmology/cosmogony: 


"What distinguishes the foregoing cosmogonies from the ones that will follow in the next section is the manner in which stars and planets are created. Each creation is a singular event. This is very clear in the case of Descartes’ cosmogony. A star forms in the center of a vortex and subsequently transforms either into a comet or a planet. The classic nebular hypothesis, on the other hand, envisions the creation of the Solar System; complete with the central Sun and its attending orbiting planets, from one unique process.


The Nebular Hypothesis


We find the first inkling and subsequent maturity of the classic nebular hypothesis emerging in the 18th century, the dawn of The Enlightenment, in the works of Swedenborg, Kant and Laplace. It is of some interest to point out that the term “solar system” came into general use during the first decade of the 18th century, and its importance cannot be underestimated since it represents a particular theoretical orientation and direction the aforementioned thinkers would take that would lead to the current state of affairs in Solar System studies. The Sun and the bodies that orbit it began to be viewed as a “system” of celestial objects. And, as a system, it must, then, have had a common origin. Therefore, any theory worth its salt had to devise a physical mechanism that would account not only for this common origin but also for its dynamical and physical characteristics. Science was on the threshold of a theoretical cul-de-sac and, upon entering, has been trapped in it ever since."


. . . 

"There is no reason, other than the one based on tradition, compelling us to conclude that the Solar System came into complete existence by way of some originating cause at some specific time in the distant past. Indeed, calling the ensemble of Sun, planets and other bodies a “system” is indicative of the ideological predisposition that tradition has imposed on the astrophysical sciences. Conventional theorists cannot “think” the Solar “System” without also thinking that it must have come into existence through one evolutionary process. To them, the idea that its current composition is the result of a piecemeal accumulation over an indefinite period of time is unthinkable."

Friday, August 9, 2013

Are There Physical Laws?

No. A law is a concept. Laws are not objects that exist, in physics, i.e. have physical presence. Physical Law is a misnomer. At best it is a figure of speech. At worst it is misleading the masses. My friend Mike Huttner just did a well-reasoned-well-written article about this:

Physics: The Study of Laws, or Objects?

Here is the part of his article that struck me most:

The mathematician begins his investigations with the preconception that Nature is ultimately beyond complete understanding. When Penrose calls phenomena such as gravity, light, magnetism, ect. "laws" he is harkening back to the days of ancient Greece when Gods of myth ruled nature, except instead of being driven by emotion, the God's of the mathematician are driven by mathematics, of course. Laws are not to be understood, of course, but obeyed.

The moderns transferred the ancient Grecian concept of law to science. Big mistake.

Law is a relation of existing personal objects, specifically objects who have the ability to reason and choose and spread their reasoned decisions to objects without who obey or disobey the reasoned decisions. The purpose of law is a relation between personal objects who think and choose and relate to other objects who do the same. Atoms and cells do not have these abilities. So obviously there is no such thing as a physical law. Laws come out of men and relate men. They do not come out of atoms and relate atoms, or cells or stars or galaxies or whatever type of matter you choose. An atom is not the law. A king is in a manner of speaking, the law, in so far as he is in a unique relation with his people.

Different types of laws come out from Man and Angels and God. In theology some say that the Eternal Moral Law is the Divine Essence, i.e. God as He is (Aquinas). But this is an entirely different matter. Even so Moral Law is a concept associating God and Man, as well as God, Man and fellow Man.  Mankind reasons, chooses, spreads choices, obeys or disobeys, etc. Atoms and cells do not. Nor does the universe itself. The universe is a conceptual system relating space and matter, and in in theology this concept could be elevated to include God and Heaven and Angels, etc. But there is no such thing as a physical law.  Not in this universe.  

The physical cosmologists bow down to laws that come out of men who have no authority, e.g. Hubble's Law, Copernican principle, etc. Its not as if these laws are written into the universe. It is ridiculous to see them pay homage to these "laws".  Sure maybe they were more or less useful for a brief time, but they are not written in the stars. The principles which flow from the Copernican revolution are obsolete (universality, homogeneity, isotropic, etc). The network of atoms is shaped asymmetrically   How much longer will it take the physical cosmologists to figure this out?  Never because they evade the counter-argument by stating that these laws only apply to large scale structures which cannot be observed anyway.      

Thursday, August 8, 2013

Nebular Hypothesis Defied Yet Again

At io9 they reported a newly discovered star labelled GJ 504b.
http://io9.com/astronomers-discover-a-pink-planet-around-a-sun-like-st-1065810131

This old star orbits a newer star GJ 504 at a distance of about 43.5 AU thus ruling out the possibility of any rational explanation for its presence using the nebular hypothesis. She probably moved in once the new star went active.


The assumption that 'planets' form within the disk of gas and dust left around new born stars is unsound. It simply cannot be used to explain the presence of this astronomical object and many others. It cannot be used to explain the formation of a core from within a disc since their is no physical mechanism for dust and gas balls to come together around a new star.

From io9:

"This is among the hardest planets to explain in a traditional planet-formation framework," said Markus Janson through a release. He’s a Hubble postdoctoral fellow at Princeton University in New Jersey. "Its discovery implies that we need to seriously consider alternative formation theories, or perhaps to reassess some of the basic assumptions in the core-accretion theory."

How many more observations will they make before giving up on nebular and solar nebular hypothesis? They should have abandoned these assumptions long ago.



A planet is a star and a star is a planet

--- Jeffrey Wolynski

Sunday, August 4, 2013

Quote of the Day from Gaede's Why God Doesn't Exist

I've been reading Gaede's incredible work on physics called 
Why God Doesn't Exist

Taken from a section where he defines science and proposes a rational scientific method:  


6.2.3.1 A relativist is a person who confuses a fact with the statement of the facts 


"Like all scientific theories, the Theory of Evolution is comprised of fact and opinion, evidence and theory, and we must learn not to confuse them. The Darwinists confuse finding bones in a given layer of earth (facts and evidence) with their interpretation of the finding (theory, conclusions, and proof). A fossil is evidence of a 
fact (i.e., that something happened). How long it has been there, why it is there, and whom these remains belong to are either statements of fact or theories, but never facts. Even assuming that Gould and Rennie could convince everyone on Earth that a bone is a million years old, this theory will never become a fact. The reason for this is that theories and facts pertain to different stages of the scientific method. In science, a juror may vote for a theory, but not for a fact. A fact differs from a theory in that it is observer-free and belongs to the hypothesis stage. In Law, a verdict is the fact-finder’s opinion with respect to a fact: a conclusion. In science, there are no ‘triers-of-fact’ or verdicts because facts are strictly part of the assumptions. When we say that it is a fact that this cup is on this table, we are not giving an opinion or asking for a verdict. We are making a statement about a real film clip of the Universal Film. That this cup is on this table is a fact. That you say that this cup is on the table is a statement of the facts: an assumption. Both belong to the hypothesis. Why the cup is on the table (meaning HOW it got there – by what mechanical process) is an issue that belongs either to the hypothesis or to the theory, depending on how the statement is used. You can believe the theory proposed by the prosecutor, but your vote will not retroactively modify what actually occurred (true fact). If God sweeps the floor, it won’t alter the fact that it was dirty a minute ago, even in the case where He wipes the entire incident from everybody’s memory."
(Bill Gaede:  Why God Doesn't Exist)

In the same subsection he exposes Anderson's positron.  Anderson converted an inferential assumption into a fact and got awarded a Nobel Prize for his slop.  Now particle accelerators are the pantheons to all the gods of particle physics.