20251215

Are Perfectly Solid Matter and Perfectly Empty Space Possible?

PSI Blog 20251215 Are Perfectly Solid Matter and Perfectly Empty Space Possible?

 

No.

 

 

Thanks to Jesse Witwer for this question:

 

“Incidentally, another philosophical question for you. I know that in some of your work you discuss that all of the universe is comprised of a proportion of "perfectly empty space" and "perfectly solid matter". How deeply have you considered this?”

 

[GB: Well, as you know, those are only imaginary. There is no such thing as perfectly solid matter or perfectly empty space.[1] In reality it is impossible for the universe to produce such things because they are only ideas. They are valuable concepts though—sort of like the open doorway that allows you to walk through it. When the door is closed, it might just as well be considered solid matter. Of course, the doorway contains matter: air molecules, which are so small that we can’t even see them. They have so little mass that you can push them aside. The door itself always contains empty space in addition to whatever matter it consists of. That mass usually is sufficient to prevent your entry.

 

Thus, all matter contains space and all space contains matter. That forms a continuum I define as the:

 

“MATTER-SPACE CONTINUUM. A range or series of microcosms that are slightly different from each other and that exist between what we imagine to be perfectly solid matter and perfectly empty space. Like all idealizations, perfectly solid matter and perfectly empty space do not and cannot exist.”[2]

 

Your question reminds me of a discussion involving the “block universe” idea that was going around. The claim is that, if matter is infinitely subdividable, then slicing and dicing it infinitely would end up with solid matter. That is not possible either. Why? Because each portion of the Infinite Universe contains what appears to be matter and empty space. Subdivision slices both the matter and the empty space ad infinitum.

 

That is also handled by our Tenth Assumption of Science, interconnection (All things are interconnected, that is, between any two objects exist other objects that transmit matter and motion). The opposite is the Tenth Assumption of Religion, disconnection         (There may be perfectly empty space between any two objects). Now, perfectly empty space, being only an idealization cannot exist anywhere. In other words, nonexistence in the Infinite Universe is impossible. Our own existence bears this out.

 

The closest anyone has come to realizing perfectly solid matter is the black hole concept. At one time Stephen Hawking calculated that black holes were so dense that they blocked light entirely and did not radiate. However, before he checked out, he admitted black holes were grey.[3] Per the Sixth Assumption of Science, complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things) they dissipate like all other things in the universe.[4]

 

In other high-pressure environments light atoms are forced together forming heavy atoms. In our Sun, hydrogen is fused together to form helium. In older stars this process advances to form heavy atoms such as gold, silver, uranium, etc. However, the pressures in black holes are so great that the usual spectrographic methods would not detect any atoms whatsoever. This could mean the constituents of atoms, which ultimately are aether particles (aetherons), could be the only things left. Of course, per Infinite Universe Theory, aetherons must contain what we once called aether-2 particles.[5] Where the compression stops, if at all, is unknown, but one thing is assumed: there is no perfectly solid matter.

 

Perfectly empty space has never been found either. That is because aether exists everywhere. Attempts to form a perfect vacuum might get close, but they always fail. The vacuum chamber itself, must consist of atoms, which are held together by pushes from other atoms or aetherons.

 

Google AI says this:

 

“…specialized cryogenic systems have indirectly measured pressures as low as 6.7 fPa, approaching the vacuum of deep space by reducing particles to around 100 per cubic centimeter.”

 

Of course, these are only experiments. A believer in disconnection could continue to hope that perfectly solid matter and perfectly empty space eventually will be found. Don’t bet on it!]

 

 

PSI Blog 20251215

 

Thanks for reading Infinite Universe Theory! Get your copy of the just-released Second Edition of "The Scientific Worldview" to see the step-by-step logic leading to the rational view of the cosmos. Be part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution,” the demise of the “Last Creation Myth,” and the age of enlightenment to come. Buy Now.



[1] MATTER. An abstraction for all things in existence. Above all, matter always contains other things within and without, ad infinitum. There are two basic types of matter: baryonic and aether. Although baryonic matter is what we ordinarily observe, aether is tiny and normally not directly detectable. Both have mass produced by constituents subject to interactions demonstrated by the E=mc2 equation. Both are portions of the universe and have three XYZ dimensions. The “solid matter” of the idealist does not exist.

[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 2025, The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein (2 ed.): Walnut Creek, CA, Progressive Science Institute, p. 498. https://gborc.com/TSW25

[3] Lewis, Geraint, 2014, Grey is the new black hole: Is Stephen Hawking right? The Conversation, APA citation, Accessed 20251210 https://gborc.com/Greyholes

[5] Puetz, S.J., and Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe: Denver, Outskirts Press, 626 p. https://gborc.com/UCT

 

 

 

20251208

Mathematical Definition of Infinity?

PSI Blog 20251208 Mathematical Definition of Infinity?


No. To define is to make finite.

 

                       Credit: Unsplash.

Thanks to Doug Gill for this pertinent question concerning the proof of infinity as a non sequitur:

 

“Thanks for this great article and your other writing on infinity. Is it possible to formulate a generalized mathematical definition of infinity? Do you know of anything like that? We have your discussions and many examples in mathematics. Cantor's diagonal slash argument is a great example. However, listing examples alone does not give us a definition. It would have to be in a mathematical format, not linguistic, such as infinity is something that goes on forever.”

 

[GB: I can’t imagine any such equation being anything short of infinitely long. All of math is an abstraction, a shortening of the infinite characteristics we observe in any part of the Infinite Universe. That is why Newton’s mechanics was so successful. I have defended and modified his mechanics in Chapter 15 (Neomechanics—the Reduction) of "The Scientific Worldview."[1] I define neomechanics as “Classical mechanics with the addition of infinity and its consupponible assumptions.” As I have pointed out, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle led to the demise of classical mechanics, although Heisenberg didn’t know that. Theoretical physicists had a choice: Consider the unknown as either finite or infinite. Regressive physicists continued to choose finity with the Copenhagen school leading the way: They included probability as one of the finite causes for any effect.

 

Progressive physics candidly includes infinity, as we do in the Second Assumption of Science, causality (All effects have an infinite number of material causes). The Third Assumption of Science, uncertainty (It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is often possible to know more about anything) is a consupponible[2] correlative. We still have to use probability, of course, but we must admit that rounding off any causal equation is necessary to provide useful information.

 

The beauty of neomechanics is its overt recognition of the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). With everything in the universe being bathed in aether particles (aetherons, as I call them) there is no way a finite equation could be devised to describe the Infinite Universe. All would have to end with ad infinitum or the infinity sign ∞. Occasionally I hear of folks who claim to have done that after the fashion of Laplace, who imagined an omnipotent demon capable of using the finite equations of classical mechanics to predict the future and postdict the past perfectly. That could never happen of course. But its destined failure nicely illustrates the Achilles heel of classical mechanics and the naivety of Laplace, Heisenberg, Einstein, and regressive physicists and cosmogonists in general.

 

Let me sum up by quoting Google AI on pi:

 

“The latest record for calculating pi is over 300 trillion digits, achieved in May 2025 by KIOXIA and Linus Media Group, breaking previous records set by other teams in 2024 and 2022. While these vast numbers are impressive, only a handful of digits (around 15-16) are needed for most scientific and engineering calculations, like those used by NASA.”

 

Nuff said, and that is only one of the infinite number of factors an equation for the Infinite Universe would require!]

 

 

PSI Blog 20251208

 

Thanks for reading Infinite Universe Theory! Get your copy of the just-released Second Edition of "The Scientific Worldview" to see the step-by-step logic leading to the rational view of the cosmos. Be part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution,” the demise of the “Last Creation Myth,” and the age of enlightenment to come. Buy Now.



[1] Second edition. [Chapter 5 in the first edition.]

[2] Noncontradictory.

20251201

The Nature-Nurture Resolution

PSI Blog 20251201 The Nature-Nurture Resolution

 

The finite universe of the Big Bang has no nurture.

 


Both the ball (a microcosm) and the bat (macrocosm) contribute to the homerun. Credit: Chris Chow in Unsplash.com.

 

Anon asks:

 

“Hi, Glenn.  I’ve been listening to the 2nd edition of your Magnum Opus, The Scientific Worldview, for several days now (that AI reader is shocking).

 

My understanding is the Univironmental perspective gives equal weight to Nature and Nurture in a person’s development and life.  I disagree, it seems that Nurture is far more important in a person’s physical, cognitive, and social development as well as where a person ultimately is education-wise, financially, socially, politically, and intellectually, at the end of their life.  Nurture can destroy a person’s potential before they are born, it can determine a person’s fate in utero, for example a pregnant woman who smokes, consumes alcohol, or illicit drugs and causes her child to be born with cognitive disabilities that can never be corrected.  Similarly, a Fascist Plutocracy can turn a population or segments of a population into idiots and destroyers who constantly act against their own interests for generations.  I don’t see the equal contribution of biology and environment, or am I misunderstanding your position on these matters?”

 

[GB: Thanks for the question. The nature vs. nurture debate is resolved by univironmental determinism (what happens to a portion of the universe depends on the infinite matter in motion within and without). In the figure above both the bat and the ball contribute to the homerun. In sex, both the male and the female contribute to the production of offspring. In each case, an analysis that ignores one or the other would be incorrect. Does the baseball bat and the woman do more work in producing those effects. Sure. Per the Second Assumption of Science, causality (All effects have an infinite number of material causes) you could begin a list of the causes with the ball and the male clearly being near the top.

 

Folks like to debate the relationship between the within and without endlessly, with both of those changing constantly. Some of these errors are pronounced. Obviously, the Big Bang universe clearly overemphasizes the observed universe by considering it finite, either existing in an imagined void or being wrapped up in Einstein’s phantasmagoric four dimensions. Cosmogonists imagine it has no “without,” when the “without” of the Infinite Universe actually is everywhere. Although each portion of the universe is the result of the univironmental convergence of other portions, that does not apply to the Infinite Universe itself, because it exists everywhere.

The primary problem with the finite universe of the Big Bang Theory is that it has no obvious cause. True, some have considered dark energy to have been the cause. But energy is neither matter nor motion, it is a calculation. So, one has to consider the motivations of those who do that. In that case the motivation is religious.[1] It is why we call the Big Bang Theory the “Last Creation Myth.”

 

Here is the very latest on nature-nurture demonstrating the effect of nurture:

 

Horvath, Jared C., and Fabricant, Katie, 2025, IQ differences of identical twins reared apart are significantly influenced by educational differences: Acta Psychologica, v. 257, p. 105072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105072

 

The difference for identical twins is about 15 IQ points as a result of one of the twins having a more enriched macrocosm. I suspect that is about the same as with and without a Ph.D. or equivalent study. One simply memorizes more than the other. Any activity (especially in sports) requires 10,000 hrs. of repetition (i.e., practice including muscle memory) to become professional caliber.

 

Two children can be very different adults despite being raised in the same house. One may be very active and ambitious and other one may be the opposite. So, I guess you would say nature is the most important. The point is that major influences can be either within or without, but neither can exist without the other. A homerun does not occur without both a batter and a pitcher. Each portion of the Infinite Universe cannot exist without the portions that surround it. Cosmogonists have yet to figure that out.]

 

 

PSI Blog 20251201

 

Thanks for reading Infinite Universe Theory! Get your copy of the just-released Second Edition of "The Scientific Worldview" to see the step-by-step logic leading to the rational view of the cosmos. Be part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution,” the demise of the “Last Creation Myth,” and the age of enlightenment to come. Buy Now.



[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2020, Religious Roots of Relativity: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 160 p. https://go.glennborchardt.com/RRR-ebk

 


20251110

Why the “Cyclic Universe” is Impossible

PSI Blog 20251110 Why the “Cyclic Universe” is Impossible

Another cosmogonical reform bites the dust! 


As in baseball, all events in the universe occur via collisions. Hypotheses that claim events can occur without collisions are false. Credit: Chris Chow in Unsplash.com.

 

From time to time I read about theories that use the erroneous universal expansion interpretation in fancy new ways. One involves the hypothesis that the universe undergoes alternating expansions and contractions. This is similar to the oxymoronic multiverse hypothesis that also saves the universal expansion interpretation—but for multiple “universes.” One of those even calculated a nearly infinite number of universes. That got published by the American Physical Society, a mainstream outfit I belong to. Egads!

 

Recycling does occur, as I pointed out here for small portions of the Infinite Universe. Probably that is where the cycling idea comes from. However, in each of those instances the cycling occurs just as you do when you recycle newspaper or glass bottle. You begin with an existing bottle, apply heat to melt it down, and then poor the melt into the form for a new bottle.

 

The universe recyclers don’t do it that way, but ever since 1905 magic is allowed when dealing with the universe. Some introduce the moribund gravitational attraction theory to get the various parts of the universe to be “attracted” to each other. That’s not possible, but if it was, the recyclers then are faced with the same problem faced by the Big Bang Theorists: What will cause that crunched universe then to expand all by itself?

 

The truth is that none of that stuff can possibly happen because everything in the Infinite Universe occurs via collisions, not by magic. Thinking the Big Bang universe could expand by itself is like hoping to get a home run without a bat. Newton's Second Law of Motion describes those collisions in which object A collides with object B. Object A transfers its motion to object B, slowing down in the process, while object B speeds up. In Infinite Universe Theory I call that the Second Assumption of Science, causality (All effects have an infinite number of material causes). The process is mentioned further in the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion).

 

PSI Blog 20251110

 

Thanks for reading Infinite Universe Theory! Get your copy of the just-released Second Edition of "The Scientific Worldview" to see the step-by-step logic leading to the rational view of the cosmos. Be part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution,” the demise of the “Last Creation Myth,” and the age of enlightenment to come. Buy Now

20251103

Proof the Universe is Infinite—A Non Sequitur

PSI Blog 20251103 Proof the Universe is Infinite—A Non Sequitur

  

Thanks to reader Michael Simpson for these questions:

 

“What irrefutable proof exists that the Universe is infinite?

 

It's clear the Big Bang was not the singular start. But surely anything else is conjecture. I can’t prove it's not infinite, but I can say that it doesn't need to be infinite. Is there proof that it is infinite?”

 

[GB: Your question involves two opposed fundamental assumptions, which are neither provable nor falsifiable. However, the beauty of fundamental assumptions is that if one is true, the other is false. The non sequitur involves the impossibility of obtaining a complete proof or falsification because the universe is infinite.

 

We are always forced to deal with less. In all of science, no measurement we make can ever be repeated exactly. With enough precision, we always get differing values. A nitpicker who erroneously assumed finity could take the tiniest variation as evidence for falsification.

 

The inevitable variation produced by the Infinite Universe is handled by the Second Assumption of Science, causality (All effects have an infinite number of material causes) and its corollary, the Third Assumption of Science, uncertainty (It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is often possible to know more about anything). We can, however, get data that tends to support or disprove a theory. Reread “Infinite Universe Theory” to see evidence in support of infinity; reread the second edition of “The Scientific Worldview” where I listed 25 falsifications of the Big Bang Theory.

 

About the strongest evidence in favor of infinity is the discovery of “Elderly Galaxies” as far as we can see in the observed universe. Recent photos from the James Webb Space Telescope are scattered among my posts. Just search on “Elderly Galaxy.” Infinity is seen throughout nature. There are no two snowflakes alike, etc. From the tiniest sand grain to the leaves on trees, I have never seen two that were identical.]

 

“As for time, state change usually involves motion, but need not, if motion implies movement in space state change can happen without movement in space. If however you mean motion as synonymous with state change yes.”

 

[GB: Just a little clarification from Google AI:

 

“Change of state is a physical process where matter transitions from one form (solid, liquid, or gas) to another due to a change in temperature or pressure. This occurs when a substance absorbs or loses energy, causing its particles to move differently, but the chemical composition remains the same. Examples include melting (solid to liquid), freezing (liquid to solid), and boiling (liquid to gas).”

 

Note that absorption or loss of energy always occurs in every reaction, whether a change of state or not, as explained in the neomechanics section of "The Scientific Worldview." Even in your erroneously assumed “perfectly empty space” submicrocosmic motion must occur, and this takes time.

 

This reminds me of one of my first comments in scientific philosophy. It involved the then current fad called “catastrophe theory.” The authors erroneously assumed zero time for the occurrence of the Permian mass extinction.


To sum up, there will never be a definitive (complete) proof of infinity, just as there will never be such for our scientific assumption that there are causes for all effects. That is because we cannot travel to the end of the universe, just as we cannot discover the causes for all effects because they are infinite. Nonetheless, we can see support for Infinite Universe Theory all around us. There are 400 billion stars similar to our Sun in our Milky Way galaxy. There are estimated to be 20 trillion galaxies in the observed universe. Every set of measurements we take has a plus or minus because the universe is both macrocosmically and microcosmically infinite. How much more support do you need?

 

At the personal level, your brain has 86 billion neurons—a tiny fraction of the trillions of atoms that compose the rest of your body. Just get outside and look around you. There is support for infinity in your own backyard. See the infinity of stuff, with no two things being identical. Each XYZ portion of the universe contains parts that came from somewhere else in the Infinite Universe per the Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed). Without infinity you would not be here.


The fact you exist means that nonexistence is not possible. The idea of nonexistence (nothing), is simply an idea, not a reality. The Big Bang Theory is founded on the Eighth Assumption of Religion, finity (The universe is finite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). There is no evidence for that, just as there is no evidence for Einstein’s false assumption light was a massless particle containing perfectly empty space traveling perpetually through perfectly empty space, which underlies the erroneous assumption the universe is expanding. The Big Bang Theory assumes the universe had a beginning: first there was nothing and then there was something. It is the “Last Creation Myth.”] 

 

 

PSI Blog 20251103

 

Thanks for reading Infinite Universe Theory! Get your copy of the just-released Second Edition of "The Scientific Worldview" to see the step-by-step logic leading to the rational view of the cosmos. Be part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution,” the demise of the “Last Creation Myth,” and the age of enlightenment to come. Buy Now.

20251020

"Creation" via Destruction of the Unfit

 PSI Blog 20251020 "Creation" via Destruction of the Unfit

 

Thanks to Maximiliano Echeverri for this prompt:

“In attempting to answer, Leibniz lost control and arrived at his famous thesis usually seen like 'this (created) world is the best of all possible worlds'.

“Microcosms in motion. Note that large microcosm A in the center shelters microcosm B from impacts from the left. Consequently, B will be pushed toward A, with the likelihood it might even end up rotating around A.” (Infinite Universe Theory, Figure 47).


Science is perhaps more at home with the question 'How?' than 'Why?'. Motives are neither interesting nor relevant in the field of the physical sciences.”


[GB: Actually, the “How?” and the “Why?” are identical with regard to evolution. Remember, the universal mechanism of evolution is univironmental determinism (what happens to a portion of the universe depends on the infinite matter in motion within and without). Darwin’s original mechanism was “natural selection,” which eventually was shown to be a macrocosmic mistake. In other words, like environmental determinism, it over emphasized the macrocosm—the outsides of things and neglected the insides of things. (Things are the XYZ portions of the universe I call microcosms). The insides of biological microcosms had to be included as well—genetics, to get Neo-Darwinism. Although genes did not comprise the complete insides of the biological microcosm, Neo-Darwinism was a step in the right direction. The word “univironment” includes all things, and thus is an improvement on Neo-Darwinism in biology as well. Genes were a good start, but the biological microcosm contains other innumerable submicrocosms that often are equally important. For instance, the knowledge encapsulated in our brains, our muscle memories, etc. are parts of our “univironment” that contribute to our journey through life.

 

Destruction of the Unfit

 

Normally, we think of evolution as “survival of the fittest.” I suggest turning that upside down to confront Leibniz’s “perfectly created” (best of all worlds) head-on. First of all, nothing survives for long. Even the dinosaurs only lasted 165 million years. Every microcosm within the Infinite Universe has a beginning and ending described in general by the Sixth Assumption of Science, complementarity (All things are subject to convergence and divergence from other things). We all experience this. We are a product of sexual convergence and eventually suffer the divergence of body parts as we age per the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

 

Second of all, with everything in the Infinite Universe moving with respect to other things, no microcosms (things) and no macrocosms (environments) remain unchanged for long. We are born into a particular environment, but that environment is sure to change. We may “fit” our environment one moment and be “unfit” in the next.

 

As we learned from the formation of ordinary matter from aether particles, the “fit” that occasionally occurs is the result of protection afforded small particles by large ones (Figure). The shelter that results in material complexes would never occur if all aether particles were identical as erroneously suggested for atoms by Democritus. Per the Ninth Assumption of Science, relativism (All things have characteristics that make them similar to all other things as well as characteristics that make them dissimilar to all other things) imperfection makes the existence of matter possible. In this most fundamental case, being “fit” means receiving fewer impacts from the side facing the large particle. All the other aether particles colliding endlessly with each other must be regarded as “unfit” for the making of ordinary matter. Once formed, the aether complexes become larger and increasingly complicated as “gravitational” impacts from free-ranging aether particles push additional aether particles toward those complexes.

 

What we see here as fundamental in the micro-world applies also to the macro-world. All cosmic bodies are a result of aetherial impacts that push electrons, positrons, neutrons, protons, and myriad particles toward one another. What we see as gravitation is merely a continuation of this process with its effectiveness guided by the number of aether particles previously accumulated as mass in Newton’s equation. Eventually, we have hydrogen atoms being pushed together to form helium in the sun. The pushing together (fusion) causes a further decrease in the motion of the atoms involved. This decrease in motion is released into the aether medium whereupon it produces waves that eventually warm the surroundings, notably including Earth.

 

The upshot is that “creation” amounts to the slowing down of aether particles in the form of material complexes we observe as ordinary matter. Again, much of that “lost” motion is transferred to the macrocosm, generally as the acceleration of portions of the macrocosm (especially of the aether medium as the motion we call “radiation”). We might consider those aether particles insufficiently slowed down as being “unfit,” while those resulting in aether complexes as being “fit.” Another upshot is the inevitable growth of these complexes, with the ever-increasing complexity seen in all the microcosms around us. As they grow, they can shield ever more of those “unfit” aether particles, making them evermore “fit.” Again, this process becomes evermore obvious in the macro world. Humans seek shelter from the onslaughts of the macrocosm, not only from the vagaries of the weather, but also from those produced by interspecies competition.

 

Given this natural transformation of one kind of matter into another kind of matter, the “How?” and “Why?” become one and the same. The great mind suggested by the “Why?” does not, and need not exist. Remember that the complete absence of matter (nonexistence or nothingness) is imaginary, an idealization that cannot possibly occur. That would be a violation of the Tenth Assumption of Science, interconnection (All things are interconnected, that is, between any two objects exist other objects that transmit matter and motion). The opposing religious assumption is the Tenth Assumption of Religion, disconnection          (There may be perfectly empty space between any two objects). That is necessary for the religious idea of the creation of something from nothing. Einstein provided the foundation of the Big Bang Theory when he denied the presence of aether, based on the erroneous interpretation of the Michelson-Morley Experiment. Denying aether, he substituted perfectly empty space instead. His “Untired Light Theory” reigns supreme to this day, as does the Big Bang Theory itself.]

 

 

PSI Blog 20251020

 

Thanks for reading Infinite Universe Theory! Get your copy of the just-released Second Edition of "The Scientific Worldview" to see the step-by-step logic leading to the rational view of the cosmos. Be part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution,” the demise of the “Last Creation Myth,” and the age of enlightenment to come. Buy Now.

20251014

The Discovery of Infinity

PSI Blog 20251013 Reprint of PSI Blog 20190501 The Discovery of Infinity

20250908

Existence or Nothing

PSI Blog 20250908 Existence or Nothing

 

Why there is something rather than nothing.

 

By ESA and the Planck Collaboration - Cosmic Microwave Background, CC BY 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=130789180

 

Thanks to Erik Colon for this question about my remark that:


"The fact that we exist and that nothingness does not is support for our assumption the universe is infinite."

 

In what way does it support that conclusion?

 

[GB: Good question. The Infinite Universe can produce an infinite number of things, but it cannot produce nothing (perfectly empty space). Neither can it produce the opposite end of that continuum: perfectly solid matter. All real XYZ portions of the universe have both properties. In other words, all space contains what appears to be both space and matter; all matter contains what appears to be both space and matter. The infinite subdividability of matter always produces things with both characteristics. The simplest atom, hydrogen, has a proton surrounded by an electron, but has 99.9999999999996% “empty space.” I speculate that “empty space” contains aether particles so small that I calculated there are 1020 aether particles in an electron (see appendix in “Infinite Universe Theory”).

 

In science, we often find continua we characterize by using idealizations. Those are ideas we use to understand the reality that exists between them. But we must never forget that idealizations do not really exist. BTW: I must admit I fell into that trap in grad school. I had obtained a sample of “pure” “ideal” montmorillonite (a mineral). My analysis of it did not fit the claimed chemical composition. There were traces of elements other than the Si, O, Mg, and Al it was supposed to have. From then on, I took idealization “under advisement.”

 

In this regard, maybe the use of fundamental assumptions will help.[1] The Tenth Assumption of Science is interconnection (All things are interconnected, that is, between any two objects exist other objects that transmit matter and motion). Its opposite, the Tenth Assumption of Religion is disconnection (There may be perfectly empty space between any two objects). As with all fundamental assumptions, neither of these is completely provable or falsifiable. But, if one is true, its opposite is false—neat! Infinity and finity have the same relationship. The word “completely” is significant here because infinity does not allow the complete description or test of anything. We can get pretty close, however, with the recent discovery of an estimated 20 trillion galaxies in support of Infinite Universe Theory. Science is like that. We never get perfect answers—our measurements always have a plus or minus. Who knows, maybe an improved telescope might eventually find perfectly empty space beyond the observed universe? I would not bet on that.

 

“Existence” is an obvious property of any XYZ portion of the universe. You are such a portion. “Nothing” has never been found anywhere. Attempts to produce absolute zero, where there ideally would be no matter capable of producing the vibrations we measure as temperature have always failed.

 

When Einstein rejected the aether, he essentially replaced it with “nothing.” If that were true, outer space would have no temperature. Instead, the temperature of outer space is 2.7oK, possibly because of the aether there. Of course, cosmogonists claim the CMB (figure) is a remnant of the Big Bang, but remember, the Big Bang Theory surreptitiously uses the Eighth Assumption of Religion, finity (The universe is finite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). Probably because of the overwhelming number of religious folks, the resulting “Last Creation Myth” became wildly popular along with disconnection. The perfectly empty space assumption is necessary for the idea there could be the creation of something from nothing. That would be a violation of the Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed).

 

We are here because the infinite matter in the Infinite Universe is always in motion, with its various parts continually colliding, transforming each thing into other things. A portion of the Infinite Universe that no longer is a fit for the univironment[2] that produced it is destroyed. We are products of a long chain of events in which each thing survives temporarily until the univironment changes yet again.


Those who ask: Where the universe came from are surreptitiously assuming: First there was nothing and then there was something. That becomes a non sequitur when you realize that “nothing” is imaginary and that “something” is not.]

 

 

PSI Blog 20250908

 

Thanks for reading Infinite Universe Theory! Get your copy of the just-released Second Edition of "The Scientific Worldview" to see the step-by-step logic leading to the rational view of the cosmos. Be part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution,” the demise of the “Last Creation Myth,” and the age of enlightenment to come. Buy Now.



[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The Ten Assumptions of Science: Toward a New Scientific Worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p. [https://gborc.com/TTAOS; https://gborc.com/TTAOSpdf].

 [2] The univironment is the combination of a microcosm (portion of the universe) and its macrocosm (environment). The universal mechanism of evolution is univironmental determinism (what happens to a portion of the universe depends on the infinite matter in motion within and without). For details see: "The Scientific Worldview."