"Our technology is based on..."

In keeping with what I was ranting about the other day (Michio Kaku's statement), I often hear scientists say something similar to the following: “Quantum mechanics undoubtedly seems strange and counterintuitive, but we know that it’s true because most of our technology is based upon it, our technology would not work without quantum mechanics.” As if a prerequisite of having a technology is having a particular theory that supports the technology. Must a caveman have a theory of thermodynamics in order to use fire? Of course not.

As an example, here is a direct quotation from the Faculty Senate Statement of Science (February 2007) of the University of Oklahoma: “Some of the great scientific discoveries upon which our technology is based include the atomic theory (Physics and Chemistry), quantum theory, electromagnetic theory, Newton’s theory of gravity, and the theory of relativity (Physics), the theory of plate tectonics (Earth Science), and the theory of evolution (Life Sciences).”

But this is foolishness. Our technology is not based upon quantum mechanics or atomic theory and such; actually, the reverse is true: quantum mechanics is based upon our technology. Or rather, quantum mechanics is based upon our observations. To say that our technology is based upon quantum mechanics is as foolish as saying that electricity is based upon atomic theory. Atomic theory was created to explain electricity; electricity does not exist because we came up with atomic theory. Electricity would exist whether or not we had an atomic theory, so electricity cannot be based upon atomic theory. Likewise, our technology, or rather the workings of nature behind our technology, does not exist because of quantum mechanics. We came up with quantum mechanics to explain the observed workings of nature.

You could argue that our development of quantum theory, and our subsequent understanding of it, made it possible for us to develop our technology; without this theory we would not have been able to develop our technology. But I would argue that we could have come up with our technology without a quantum theory. It might have taken us longer, as we stumbled blindly along without a theory to guide us. But we would have eventually developed our technology without quantum theory. Just like you don’t need an understanding of the molecular structure and molecular behavior of water to be able to make a dam and harness the energy of moving water. Just like you don’t need an understanding of atoms and electrons to make electricity flow through a wire.

Nature and its workings exist regardless of our understanding; our lack of understanding does not render nature inoperative. If we come up with a theory to explain those workings, it does not mean that those workings are based upon our theory. That’s absurd. Yet this is precisely what scientists are saying when they say, “Our technology is based upon such and such a theory.”

I say all this to make the following point: when I say I think something like relativity is nonsense, and a scientist tells me I’m a fool and a crackpot, because relativity is proved by countless experiments and observation, what the scientist is telling me is akin to telling me that our technology is based upon quantum mechanics. Relativity is not proved by observations; it is put forward as an explanation of observations. Thus if I disagree with relativity, I’m not necessarily disagreeing with observations, but with relativity’s explanation of those observations. To say that relativity is wrong is not to say that observation is wrong, or that experimental results are wrong. If I were to say, “The sky is not blue,” when clearly it is indeed blue, then I would be a fool. But if someone tells me, “The sky is blue because…” and I disagree with their because, I am not disagreeing with the fact that the sky is blue. I am disagreeing with their explanation of why it is blue. Relativity is not saying that the sky is blue, so to speak; it is saying that the sky is blue because. And it’s the because with which I disagree.

Thoughts on past Coast to Coast AM shows

Recently, I’ve been listening to a lot of old Coast to Coast AM radio broadcasts. Here are a few things that bugged me:

On Coast to Coast, host George Noory was interviewing a Nobel Prize-winning physicist who had discovered the equations for the strong and weak nuclear forces. This physicist made the statement that the more physicists learn about nature, the more abstract it is becoming. Nature is at heart an abstraction, he said.

But is nature becoming more and more an abstraction because that’s the way it really is? Or is it becoming more of an abstraction because physicists are descending ever deeper into relying on mathematics? Physicists these days accept nothing unless there are pages and pages of equations to support anything. They come up with their new theories by extending existing equations, or developing new ones. They look to their equations to point the way to new insights. They refuse to think except in mathematical terms. One wonders if they are even capable of thinking in conceptual, non-mathematical ways. Mathematics, especially the complex kind physicists deal with, are extremely abstract. So is it any wonder that our Nobel Prize-winning physicist says that they’re discovering nature is an abstraction? But is it really? Do the equations of physicists bear any resemblance whatsoever to reality?

On another broadcast, Michio Kaku said, in regards to black holes, “that's what the math seems to indicate.” Like I'm supposed to believe that, “Well, if that's what the math seems to indicate, then it must be so.” Who cares what the math seems to indicate? The math seems to indicate that if I take five apples away from three, I'll be left with -2 apples. So I don't have two apples. As if negative apples are something I can actually possess. Why give such authority to math, when we're dealing with speculative theories?

Mr. Kaku also said that the simplest explanation for the Schrodinger's Cat paradox was the many worlds hypothesis.

...what?

How is that the simplest explanation? Let's see...Billions of parallel universes created every second, or that our quantum mechanical theory is wrong. Hmmm. Oh, obviously the many worlds theory is the simplest explanation. Sure. I think the reason scientists are so unwilling to think quantum mechanics is wrong is this: just before he said this, Kaku also said that quantum mechanics makes possible transistors, laser beams, etc. But quantum mechanics does NOT MAKE THESE THINGS POSSBILE!!!! As if, had we not had a theory of quantum mechanics, then these things wouldn't work. Quantum mechanics is an explanation for observed phenomena. It does not make those phenomena possible. We could have these technologies without understanding the why of the processes behind them. The very fact that we DO have these technologies DESPITE our flawed theory of quantum mechanics proves this.

The best theory we've got?

Just because I can’t as yet offer a viable alternative to relativity doesn’t mean that I have to accept relativity. “It’s not perfect, but it’s the best theory we’ve got,” is usually the rote response given to anyone who points out the shortcomings of relativity. But just because we haven’t got anything better doesn’t mean one has to accept a theory one believes to be fatally flawed. If there was only one woman left on Earth, and she was hideously, grotesquely repulsive, I wouldn’t throw a bag over her head and pretend she was a gorgeous angel. I would still know the truth. Relativity is utterly flawed, and I don’t care how much experimental data supports it, I firmly believe there are other explanations for that data. The same data must also support another, correct theory, even though I have no idea what that theory is. But I do know what that theory is not: relativity. Call me a crackpot and a fool if you will, a brainless idiot who refuses to accept physical fact, but I have no doubt time will bear me out.

Geocentrism

If, as relativity claims, we can with equal justification choose any reference frame and call that one “at rest,” with the result that no reference frame is privileged and really “at rest,” then why cannot the Christian say that, since God created man, man is therefore special in the universe; and that therefore, man is justified in claiming that Earth’s frame is truly “at rest,” and the rest of the universe is in motion relative to Earth. In other words, the ancient view that the sun revolves around the Earth, indeed that the entire universe revolves around the Earth, is the correct view. If any reference frame we choose can be regarded as “at rest,” why not choose Earth’s frame? Perhaps God truly did create Earth “at rest,” and Earth is the only body in the universe “at rest.”

Most physicists would say that there are certain astronomical observations that can only be explained if the Earth is revolving around the sun. These observations are what led Copernicus to his sun-centered model of the solar system. But if this is true, and certain observations can only be explained in terms of a sun-centered model, does this not violate Einstein’s assertion that any reference frame can with equal justification be regarded as “at rest?” For does not Copernicus show us that Einstein is incorrect? If scientists wish to uphold Einstein, then there must be some way to explain astronomical observations such that Earth can be regarded as “at rest.” And if so, then the Christian, with his belief in God, is perfectly within his right to assert that the universe is centered on the Earth, and no scientist can legitimately refute the Christian.

For the moment, putting aside the theological/scientific dispute to which my previous assertion gives rise, let’s suppose that the Earth truly is the absolute rest frame, and that the universe revolves around the Earth. What might we expect to be the observational and experimental results of such a situation? What new conclusions might we be led to, what new discoveries might be made? In other words, has no one thought to reconsider the view that the universe revolves around the Earth? It was supposedly definitively refuted by Copernicus. But what if that refutation was itself a mistake? Why not go back and look at the implications of an Earth-centered universe, in light of the centuries of scientific knowledge that have accumulated since such a view was abandoned? Are there any scientists willing to put aside their scientific prejudices and cogitate upon the matter? For if relativity is correct, as they assert, then it must be possible to view Earth as the “rest” frame. Why not go one step further, and pretend that it is the one true rest frame, and all other frames cannot validly be regarded as at rest.

The first thing such a geocentric view explains is the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment. One might even say that Michelson-Morley is proof of the geocentric view. One wonders if this has ever been considered.

The immediate, ready response of the relativist is probably, “Earth is rotating about its own axis, and it’s rotating around the sun. Rotation is acceleration, and accelerating frames are not inertial frames. Therefore Earth is not an inertial reference frame. Einstein’s assertion that all reference frames can with equal justification be regarded as at rest only applies to inertial frames. Thus Earth cannot with equal justification be regarded as at rest. Therefore your argument is invalid.”

But this response presupposes the conclusion. It presupposes that the Earth is rotating about the sun. If we claim the Earth is at rest, then the above response of the relativist is invalid at the outset. Earth is only rotating if you assume it is actually in motion. In the geocentric view, we’re saying Earth is not in motion. We deny any motion in the Earth. The sun and the universe are rotating around the Earth, in such a way that to an Earth-bound observer, it appears the Earth is the one moving. But that’s just an illusion. The Earth is at rest. The Earth is the only true inertial frame, and the entire universe is accelerating around the Earth.

Next the relativist will probably accuse me of being a Christian and dragging God into the argument. This alone, from the viewpoint of the relativist, is enough to discredit my little theory. No further investigation is therefore needed.

But I’m not trying to drag God into this. I’m merely trying to go against currently accepted wisdom and see where it leads. Accepted wisdom says the Earth rotates around the sun. I’m saying maybe it’s time to reconsider the reverse. Accepted wisdom says there is no absolute frame of reference. I’m saying maybe it’s time to consider that there is. Forget dragging God into the argument. Maybe there’s a different reason why Earth is the center of the universe. Why should Science refuse to “go there” just because the territory smacks of God? Who is the fanatic here, holding fast to accepted dogma? The religious person, or the scientist? When you’re stuck in a rut, thinking beyond dogma, beyond accepted wisdom, is the only way to advance from the rut. And it seems to me that Science is currently stuck in a rut. Why then do so many scientists turn up their noses at thinking in directions that depart too radically from their accepted notions? Are scientists so attached to the ideas keeping them in a rut, that they’re unwilling to cast a mere exploratory thought along radical paths? Are they just unwilling, or have they been so thoroughly indoctrinated that they’re completely incapable of such thought?

Clarification: I’m not even saying that everything in the universe is revolving around the Earth. I’m not saying Mercury, Venus, et al, must revolve around the Earth. I’m saying that overall, the entire universe revolves around Earth, it’s all centered on Earth. Locally, there may be objects that don’t revolve around Earth. They may revolve around other bodies, which revolve around other bodies, etc. which themselves revolve about the Earth. The whole universe, overall, revolves around the Earth. The Earth is at absolute rest. No rotation, no motion through space—nothing. Our task is then to figure out why this is so, and what conclusions we might draw from the situation. Maybe if certain theories were reworked slightly, they would support geocentrism, and would be the stronger for it.

If scientists rule out geocentrism as definitely impossible, then scientists must also concede the following: while we cannot by any experiment determine an absolute rest frame, we can determine frames that definitely cannot be at rest. Thus, there must be at least two categories of reference frames: those that could be at absolute rest but cannot be proven by experiment to be at absolute rest, and those that definitely are not at absolute rest. So we cannot prove by experiment that any frame is at absolute rest, but we can prove that some frames are definitely not at absolute rest. Thus if two frames are in relative motion, it is not equally valid to say that either frame is in motion or at rest with respect to the other, since there will be some frames that can be proven to not be at rest. Thus, again, we come across another error in Einstein’s theory.

So relativists must either accept geocentrism as a valid possibility, or reject it and thus deal a blow to relativity.