I have seen similar articles before and while some of its points are fair many would disagree with others.
At least as far as a Crisis in Cosmology this would be accurate, and effective models are still just that, useful yes but that is all.
At the end of the day a matter only Universe, or even a dualistic one seems problematic at best, and based on the astronomical data of the last 20 years it seems that Plasma Cosmology has a lot of usefulness, Big Bang or not.
So not being a materialist
we'll have to agree to disagree.

All the best and much respect.
Cheers

Timothy Rollin Pickerill
646-299-4173 (cell)


On Sun, Aug 29, 2021 at 5:08 PM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Thanks for this note and welcome to the list, Timothy.

 

I certainly agree with you that there is much in physics that is unclear. I don’t know of anyone who thinks that things are finished or done. And string theory remains basically pure metaphysics (i.e., detached from scientific empiricism) and there are definitely questions about dark energy and dark matter, such that those things are speculative. And the break between quantum field theory and relativity is another good reason to be sure that we have layers to go, not to mention the recent muon wobble.

 

That said, I strongly disagree with you about the general outline of the Big Bang. That frame has become part of standard cosmology for many, many good reasons (see here), and plasma cosmology is not even in the same ballpark, which is why it is rarely considered. Similarly, the core theory that makes up the Standard Theory of Elementary Particle Physics is arguably the most successful scientific theory ever devised.

 

So, at least from where I sit on the view of the universe and our knowledge of it via UTOK, I agree that we should not think of physics as being complete and having found THE Truth of the material universe. However, I will say, to the extent that physics is as far off base as you suggest it might be, well, that would certainly be the end of any genuine sense that we are approaching a coherent naturalistic ontology, at least as far as I am concerned.

 

Best,

Gregg

 

From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of T.R. Pickerill
Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2021 4:35 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: TOK Re: Wave particle duality

 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello all, I am new here and very interested and excited to follow the goings on.

 

I would like to add a cautionary note regarding the current state of Physics which I think relates to this conversation and others.

 

If you follow it as I do (former physics student before turning my attention to Metaphysics, Mysticism, and Art) you may have noticed increasing talk of a 'crisis' in physics, which touches on several theories that are very popular with the press, the public sometimes, and in non-physics discussions such as this: the Big Bang, Quantum Physics in particular the particle-wave duality, String Theory, Dark Matter, and Dark Energy among others.

All of which have major problems that rarely get cited in the popular press though that is starting to change, and it is now being talked about openly as a Paradigm Shift is seen to be imminent but with too many old hands waving about saying no, no, nothing to see here.

Forty years on String Theory has yet to have any verifiable predictions or proofs;

40 years and Dark Matter has never been seen meanwhile Plasma Cosmology provides ample theoretical reasoning and increasingly more astronomical proofs;

40 years on and Dark Energy has nothing much to stand on and is reliant on redshift data that does not agree and the 'axis of evil' problem, and is unjustified if one looks for other reasonings, outside of the Religious Big Bang Theory, namely intrinsic redshift which comports with Waves-not-particles, Holographic Mind Theory, Analytical Idealism, and logic;

and 70 years on all of Big Bang theory has required ad hoc fixes with no predictions holding water, with much of contemporary Astronomical observations giving proof of its falsity including the vast large scale structures that defy the speed of light communication limit, the large and small scale structures that are against a random chaotic universe of an explosive model, the Axis of Evil, Light Elements problem, lack of Dark Matter, matter density, the flatness, uniform density despite distance, no mono-pole - and an overall Materialist framework that requires an outside (God) agent, and inability to actually see the actual event or before;

the Standard Model has become a Particle Zoo that rejects waves and fields and is based on practice that some find troubling primarily making models and using math to make problems in data go away, while refusing to see waves, waves everywhere;

Relativity is derived from Maxwell's Equations which has been known and talked about for some time with a paper out recently, with QFT in disagreement, as well as non-locality, Mach's theory of Inertia, and the problem with Galaxy spin and formation which neither are a problem for Plasma Cosmology, and event Eric Weinstein has recently questioned whether like Newton Einstein's theory were merely effective within a certain set of parameters (and if UFO's are real well...).

 

And finely with the two-slit experiment there is a bias in reasoning based on the assumption of Materialism which is not necessary, when you carry out experiments like this you are looking behind the veil where reality does not tread. In a dualist or solipsist frame an observer is required which in our Anthropic biased state has been (at least in the most radical positions) seen to say - the tree in the woods not only does not make a sound but does not actually exist - but this ignores or refutes a monist or Analytical Idealist (Katsrup) that matter and mind are of one substance and that the matter of the universe in equal measure collapses the wave function, and beyond that experiment is not reality in this case, it is behind the veil.

 

I hope this, what I would call "reporting", is of help in what I would include with the Meaning Crisis my primary hope being that the Paradigm shift and the current reported problems in physics should give us all pause in citation of what is on unstable grounds, and perspective to look for other explanations and directions; and I would say the cajones as lay of academic interested parties to take part in this Paradigm shift which I believe affects us all and in all fields.

 

With regards to "wave-particle duality is like possibility-actuality duality" I would suggest that the universe is not the actual distinct from the possible as much as the substantiation of the Possible. The 'actual' is manifest within the field of the possible not separate from it is my reading, and would be in some agreement with Nicholas' note on Whitehead.

 

All the best to all, I hope I haven't been too long winded.

 

 

Timothy Rollin Pickerill

646-299-4173 (cell)

 

 

On Sat, Aug 28, 2021 at 10:25 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Interesting thought.  I just finished a book by Timothy Eastman that puts the potential actual difference at the heart of quantum field theory.

 

Best,

G

Sent from my iPad



On Aug 28, 2021, at 4:41 AM, Jamie D <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I just had the thought that wave-particle duality is like possibility-actuality duality, especially with regards to the person in front of us.

 

Whenever we resent anyone, that name and image of them is held in memory, in bondage, so to speak, and the western mind has hollywoodized the medieval mind to utterly misunderstand how subtle bondage really is…almost that we are correct not to take it seriously, but at the same time, that we might trust a valid interpretation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

--

-Jamie 

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1