20200113

Financing the birth of regressive physics


PSI Blog 20200113 Financing the birth of regressive physics and cosmogony

Last week I hinted at the relationship between ideologies and economics. Like everyone else, regressive physicists and cosmogonists do not live on air. In the USA, money for science must go through Congress, the executive branch, or rich donors almost all of whom are extremely or at least moderately religious. The USA government is not going to finance the downfall of religion, which patriotically supports their military endeavours.

Here I once again present the interesting anecdote by John Chappell, who is widely regarded as the “founder of dissident physics in the USA”:

Here is part of #3 in the founding principles of the Natural Philosophy Alliance written by Dr. Chappell:

"DO NOT ASSUME THAT IF SPECIAL RELATIVITY WERE INVALID, THIS FACT WOULD LONG AGO HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED WITHIN ESTABLISHMENT PHYSICS.

The reason it has not been is that almost everyone with a sufficiently bold and critical view of the subject to develop sound arguments against SR has not been allowed to flourish within the establishment. Great numbers of reliable accounts of such intolerance have been told.

One of the most recent comes from a new NPA member who, when doing graduate work in physics around 1960, heard the following story from his advisor: While working for his Ph.D. in physics at the University of California in Berkeley in the late 1920s, this advisor had learned that all physics departments in the U.C. system were being purged of all critics of Einsteinian relativity. Those who refused to change their minds were ordered to resign, and those who would not were fired, on slanderous charges of anti-Semitism. The main cited motivation for this unspeakably unethical procedure was to present a united front before grant-giving agencies, the better to obtain maximal funds. This story does not surprise me. There has been a particularly vicious attitude towards critics of Einsteinian relativity at U.C. Berkeley ever since. I ran into it in 1985, when I read a paper arguing for absolute simultaneity at that year’s International Congress on the History of Science. After I finished, the Danish chairman made some courteous remarks about dissidents he had learned about in Scandinavia, and then turned to the audience for questions. The first speaker was one of a group of about 4 young physics students in the back. He launched immediately into a horrible tirade of verbal abuse, accusing me of being entirely wrong in my analysis, a simplification of the Melbourne Evans analysis–” Evans is wrong; you are wrong,” he shouted. He accused me of being way out of line to present my “faulty” arguments on his prestigious campus. When I started to ask him “Then how would you explain…”, he loudly interrupted me with “I don’t have to explain anything.” The rest of the audience felt so disturbed by all this, that the question session was essentially destroyed."

Financially, this has worked out extremely well for U.C. Berkeley, which is arguably “the best public university in the USA” where the Physics Department is famous for developing nuclear weapons and filling out the periodic table with the heavier elements (e.g., californium). It has been in the forefront of propagandizing the Big Bang Theory. This from the former chair of the Astronomy Department:

 Silk, Joseph, 1973, Cosmological theory: Science, v. 181, p. 1038-1039.

Silk, Joseph, 1980, The big bang: The creation and evolution of the universe: San Francisco, Freeman, 394 p.

Silk, Joseph, 1988, The Big Bang (2nd edition): New York, Freeman, 485 p.

Silk, Joseph, 2002, The big bang (3rd ed.): New York, W.H. Freeman, 480 p.

Those financial constraints still hold. I doubt U.C. Berkeley will drop its support of creationism any time soon:


‘Saul Perlmutter, of the University of California, Berkeley, and the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, said that a breakthrough in dark energy research “feels like a natural thing to occur soon.”’ Credit: R. Kaltschmidt/Berkeley Lab

The philosophical naivety of cosmogonists knows no bounds. Here is the latest on how your tax dollars are being wasted by U.C and Prof. Perlmutter:


Readers know dark energy does not exist. Welcome to the latest cosmogonical goose chase!  



20200106

Why do ideologies exist?


PSI Blog 20200106 Why do ideologies exist?

It should be clear from last week’s PSI Blog that weird ideas like the Big Bang Theory serve some important societal and cultural function. As in ideologies, in general, the outright dismissal of opposing ideas is mandatory for the survival of the relativity and Big Bang paradigm. Dissidents can point out Einstein's errors all they want, but that does not trump the “Einstein is always right” trope taught to youngsters for generations. One can point out there are better interpretations of data said to “confirm” relativity.[1] One can repeat Newton’s Second Law of Motion demanding that every acceleration of something (such as gravitation) simply requires a corresponding deceleration of something.[2] All that remains futile, because there is something else going on.

I have been aware of that “something else” for some time. Now comes a particularly excellent essay written by Richard Koenigsberg, which I just received in an email. He writes:

“Social theory rarely addresses the reasons why certain ideologies exist. Scholars write about "dominant discourses," but the question is why particular discourses become dominant. To answer the question of why particular ideas are embraced and perpetuated, I suggest a psychological approach: What does this ideology do for the people who embrace it? What role does the ideology play in the psychic life of its adherents?”

Dr. Koenigsberg is a psychologist who is Director of the Library of Social Science. He specializes in the ideological causes of violence. I would broaden his last sentence by removing the word “psychic.” All causes involve univironments: microcosms and their macrocosms. In other words, the development of mental states result from interactions with the environment. Fascists live with fascists; cosmogonists live with cosmogonists; regressive physicists live with regressive physicists. Above all, economic conditions are paramount. No one can live on air alone.

Do read this essay. It is a good start at understanding why folks are encouraged to believe the entire universe (of over 2 trillion galaxies, no less) exploded out of nothing:

Richard’s email introduces the essay with this:

“The current President may be narcissistic, delusional, even occasionally psychotic. However, this explains nothing. The question is what is he saying that causes tens-of-millions of people to embrace his ideas?

Politicians articulate their own emotions and fantasies through the vehicle of ideas put forth upon the public stage. If a politician is to become successful, the ideas he conveys must resonate with the populace. The leader's words must evoke emotions and fantasies within his audience not unlike the emotions and fantasies his words evoke within himself.

Metaphors and images within the rhetoric of political leaders contain, evoke and bring forth latent fantasies into reality. An ideology constitutes a modus operandi, allowing unconscious fantasies to be activated and externalized into the world. Ideologies "capture" or harness energy contained with latent desires or fantasies, making this energy available for concerted, societal action.”






[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 327 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].
[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 2018, The Physical Cause of Gravitation: viXra:1806.0165.

20191230

The Psychology of Big Bangers


PSI Blog 20191230 The Psychology of Big Bangers

Here is a wonderful essay by Rob Marchant on why absurd beliefs are still so prevalent in our society. Although he concentrates on the “flat-earth” belief, you can substitute any other seemingly illogical belief (e.g., Big Bang Theory, regressive physics, religion, politics, etc.) to get a better understanding about this common phenomenon. Rob’s wisdom comes with excellent writing to boot. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.

                        Credit: NY Post

Here is Rob’s introductory paragraph (with my apropos substitution in brackets):

“[Big Bangers] have a tendency to evoke a great deal of condescension in people. Wry grins are accompanied by snorts and scoffs, all wrapped up in a feeling of unquestionable superiority. What kind of idiots could believe such a thing?”



20191223

Dumb regressive physics question of the day: The universe tends towards disorder. But how come nobody knows why?


PSI Blog 20191223 Dumb regressive physics question of the day: The universe tends towards disorder. But how come nobody knows why?



                        Credit: Domenic Bahmann

The universe tends towards disorder. But how come nobody knows why?

Entropy is the physicist’s magic word, invoked to answer to some of the biggest questions in cosmology. Yet a quantum rethink may be needed to tell us what it actually is

Read more: 


Astute readers should get a kick out of this one. I answered that question back in 1980 when I submitted my paper on it to Science magazine. After the inevitable rejection, it became the Sixth Assumption of Science, complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things) in The Scientific Worldview[1] and was published as a separate paper in 2008 as “Resolution of the SLT-order paradox.”[2]

The fact this question is still being asked in a major scientific news magazine 40 years later, teaches us two valuable lessons:

1.)  Despite the observation there are over 2 trillion galaxies, cosmogonists and regressive physicists still assume the universe is finite.
2.)  The blockade against progressive physics and the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions) has been unrelenting. Physics and cosmology are the worse for it. The dumb questions keep rolling in...

As I pointed out in the above references, once you assume infinity, the answer to that dumb question is obvious: Each portion of the infinite universe is produced by the coming together of other things (an increase in negentropy) and thereafter is subject to coming apart (an in increase in entropy).

The erroneous statement in the title of Michael Brook’s New Scientist article is otherwise known as “the heat death of the universe.” Anyone who makes such a statement is assuming finity, as required in the current cosmogony, the Big Bang Theory, and in the rest of regressive physics.

The simple explanation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (SLT) goes like this: Any isolated part of the universe will lose matter and/or motion to its environment. For instance, you can bring materials together to build a house (convergence), but if left isolated (i.e., without maintenance) that structure eventually will come apart (divergence). Now, this is little more than a reiteration of Newton’s First Law of Motion: A body in motion stays in motion. Each portion of the infinite universe, including all the parts of that house, are always in motion. Since perfect isolation is impossible, the constituents and/or their motions in that house eventually will be emitted to its environment.

So, what happens to those constituents in an infinite universe? They just go somewhere else. The divergence in one place just becomes convergence in another place. That’s why I call the Sixth Assumption “complementarity.” You can see examples of this at every turn. For every plant or animal that is growing (matter coming together), another is dying (matter coming apart). That’s why infinity resolves the SLT-order paradox: If the SLT describes destruction, how come there is construction all around us? As with all paradoxes, that one arises because it is founded on an erroneous assumption. In this case, it is finity.

Treating the entire universe as a finite, isolated object, as cosmogonists do, logically leads, not only to a beginning, but also to an end for the universe. The “heat death” part of the regressive assertion implies “energy” invariably is lost due to the inevitable leakage from what are admittedly not “isolated” systems. As I explained in the neomechanics section of “Infinite Universe Theory,” “energy” is simply a calculation. It neither exists nor occurs; it is neither matter nor motion, but a description of the motion of matter. Above all, energy is not some ghostly matterless motion that escapes into the imagined perfectly empty space surrounding the regressive’s isolated system.

Of course, the mystification of energy is crucial for the regressive treatment of matter in motion. It is why the Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed) is stated improperly by regressives as “Energy can be neither created nor destroyed” in the First Law of Thermodynamics. It is done that way because the carrier for electro-magnetic motion is aether. All motion requires a material carrier for its transfer from one part of the universe to another per inseparability, the Fourth Assumption of Science. The “heat” regressives require for the heat death claim cannot even leave its assumed finite universe without it being surrounded by aether, its essential material carrier. In lieu of that, regressives must treat the motion emitted by all things as truly magical.

In the Brook’s article there is much speculation about the scientific reason for the “arrow of time.” This problem is also solved by infinity, which is consupponible with the Seventh Assumption of Science, irreversibility (All processes are irreversible). All portions of the infinite universe are in motion with respect to each other. There is no way for any of those portions and their environments to converge or diverge from each other twice in the same way. In other words, time travel has been and will continue to be impossible forever.  






[1] Review manuscript: Borchardt, Glenn, 1984, The scientific worldview: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 343 p. [http://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.16123.52006]. Published version: Borchardt, Glenn, 2007, The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 411 p. [http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/].
[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 2008, Resolution of the SLT-order paradox, Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance: Albuquerque, NM, v. 5 [10.13140/RG.2.1.1413.7768].


20191216

Hubble inconstant and superluminal galaxies


PSI Blog 20191216 Hubble inconstant and superluminal galaxies



Author Joel Achenbach writes:

“The universe doesn’t look right. It suddenly looks . . . out of whack.

That is the strange message coming from astronomers and physicists, who are wondering whether they need to revise cosmic history.

The universe is unimaginably big, and it keeps getting bigger. But astronomers cannot agree on how quickly it is growing — and the more they study the problem, the more they disagree. Some scientists call this a “crisis” in cosmology. A less dramatic term in circulation is “the Hubble Constant tension.””

[GB: This particular crisis has been in the making ever since Hubble discovered the Cosmological Redshift (CRS), which is one of the many types of redshift. He noted that some nearby galaxies had redshifts more or less correlated with their degree of dimness. Now, dimness is a measure of distance—at night, a lit flashlight nearby appears larger than one faraway. Unfortunately, Hubble infamously and prematurely claimed this meant those galaxies were receding.[1] By 1953, he recanted: “When no recession factors are included, the law will represent approximately a linear relation between red-shifts and distance.”[2] (666) He vehemently and frequently denied that he had discovered the universe was expanding.[3] This was ignored—folks much preferred the religious implications of the cosmogonical explosion suggested by the priest.[4]

The article above mentions there currently are four discordant values for the Hubble constant: 67, 70, 73, and 77 km/s. These huge variations are due to the various types of measurement being used. All are based upon the assumption the CRS indicates universal expansion. Of course, none of them are valid, because the universe is not expanding.[5]

Hilton Ratcliffe writes:

“As a physicist used to dealing with real things, I know that the expansion paradigm is more than extraordinary, far beyond unlikely, just hopeless wishful thinking. I should be very surprised if an observation or experiment can be contrived to unambiguously support it.” “fluctuations in the energy levels of light will be an effect resulting from a cocktail of causes because space is not empty. We can consequently state with certainty that some weariness will result as light fights its way across the Universe…”[6]

The assumption that the CRS was a result of galactic recession worked fine for nearby galaxies. The CRS was assumed to be z=v/c. Because Einstein assumed nothing could travel at velocities greater than the speed of light, z should never have been greater than 1. Unfortunately, for cosmogonists, improvements in telescopes enabled more distant galaxies to be seen. Guess what? They had z values greater than 1. It got so bad that the record now is z=11.1[7] This was a whopping crisis! A new Nobel-worthy ad hoc had to be dreamt up.

Alan Guth and friends came to the rescue with the inflationary universe theory:[8]




“History of the Universe – gravitational waves are hypothesized to arise from cosmic inflation, a faster-than-light expansion just after the Big Bang (17 March 2014).[11][12][13]”[9] [Note this particular ad hoc shows a fantastic, impossible rate of expansion and, if true, would falsify relativity once again. It includes the bogus “gravitational wave” calculation for good measure.]


This particular magic involved the expansion of nothing at all—the darling of regressive physics: perfectly empty space. The z=v/c equation now could be abandoned. Hilton considered this ad hoc incredulous, but explains it well:

“Although the galaxies weren’t actually moving apart, the space between them was expanding. That stretched the light waves, and dilated time itself, without causing the measurable distance between galaxies to increase.”[10]

How and why perfectly empty space could expand was never explained. Of course, that is no crazier than the whole universe exploding out of nothing.

Of course, all this means is that Hubble was right: CRS is a result of distance, not recessional velocity. As he surmised, light loses energy over distance, just like everything else in the universe. Einstein’s massless light particle with perpetual motion is just as magical as perfectly empty space, time dilation, and universal expansion.

Conclusion:

All this means the observed universe is many times older than the Big Bang Theory says it is. Some cosmogonists say z=1 yields an age of 5.87 Ga (billion years).[11] That implies the maximum z=11.1 would yield an age of 65.2 Ga if z was a 1:1 relationship with distance, as we assume in Infinite Universe Theory. To this, we must add the age of the cosmic object that emitted light with that redshift. As I pointed out in Infinite Universe Theory, galaxies at the limit of current observation look just like our Milk Way, which is about 13.5 Ga. That makes the currently measured age of the observed universe to be 78.7 Ga (65.2 + 13.5 Ga). This is almost six times the age currently proclaimed by cosmogonists.]













[1] Hubble, Edwin, 1929, A relation between distance and radial velocity among extra-galactic nebulae: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, v. 15, no. 3, p. 168-173. [http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.15.3.168].

[2] Hubble, Edwin, 1953, The Law of Red-shifts: George Darwin Lecture, delivered by Dr Edwin Hubble on 1953 May 8: Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, v. 113, no. 6, p. 658-666. [http://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/113.6.658].

[3] Sauvé, Vincent, 2016, Edwin Hubble... and the myth that he discovered an expanding universe, Number of  [http://doi.org/https://sites.google.com/site/bigbangcosmythology/home/edwinhubble].

[4] Lemaître, Abbé G., 1931, A Homogeneous Universe of Constant Mass and Increasing Radius accounting for the Radial Velocity of Extra-galactic Nebulæ: Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, v. 91, no. 5, p. 483-490. [http://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/91.5.483].

Lemaitre, Georges, 1950, The primeval atom: An essay on cosmogony: New York, D. Van Nostrand, 186 p.

[5] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 343 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].
[6] Ratcliffe, Hilton, 2010, The Static Universe: Exploding the Myth of Cosmic Expansion: Montreal, Canada, C. Roy Keys Incorporated, p. 33.
[8] Guth, Alan H., 1998, The inflationary universe: The quest for a new theory of cosmic origins, Basic Books, 384 p. [https://rebrand.ly/robot9b7e].

Guth, A.H., and Steinhardt, P.J., 1984, The inflationary universe: Scientific American, v. 250, no. 5, p. 116-128, 154.

[10] Ibid, p. 36.

20191211

Free Infinite Universe Theory in celebration of Fred Frees, new Director of Communications



PSI Blog 20191211 Free "Infinite Universe Theory" in celebration of Fred Frees, new Director of Communications




I had a nice meeting with Fred Frees in southern California over the Thanksgiving weekend. He has accepted the Director of Communications position at PSI. Fred is uniquely qualified for the position in that he is the sort of open-minded person curious enough to consider the proper alternative to the Big Bang Theory. We hope he can discover more readers just like him. “Publishing” is spreading the word all over the place—something that writers like myself are not very good at.

Fred is the son of actor/voiceover artist Paul Frees, otherwise known as “The Man of a Thousand Voices.”  Fred discovered us after studying the evolution-creation debate in detail. Fred had extensive notes on it—enough for a book, he says. “The Scientific Worldview” answered all his questions, and he has been a fan ever since. Being a voiceover actor in Hollywood for many years, he even consented to produce the audio version of the book.

In celebration of his appointment, we are offering free Kindle versions of “Infinite Universe Theory” for friends and family. Just click here TODAY ONLY. Even if you already have a copy, you might want to get a new one—there have been a few typo and layout corrections.






20191204

Drift of galactic clusters as proof for the Local Mega-Vortex


PSI Blog 20191204 Drift of galactic clusters as proof for the Local Mega-Vortex

Guest Blog by Ed Mason:

Hi Glenn,

Here is a very short video that mentions “beyond the known universe.” Something out there is affecting various galaxies and their movement. Just another conundrum that cosmologists are trying to sort out. They keep having to add things to their list of hard-to-explain things.


Ed

[GB: Thanks for the link. This is a nice illustration of Kashlinsky’s work, which we used in “Universal Cycle Theory”[1] to show the observed universe was only a portion of the universal hierarchy. Our cover showed it too:




Of course, no “mysterious force” exists either inside or outside the known universe. “Force” is a matter-motion term describing the collision of one microcosm with another. Above all, the galaxies are not being “pulled” toward the Local Mega-Vortex—they are being pushed, just like all microcosms undergoing gravitation per Aether Deceleration Theory.[2]

Gefter[3] summarized the phenomenon shortly after the Kashlinsky group discovered this “dark flow” of galactic clusters in 2008:  


It also has been used in support of the reformist “multiverse” and “parallel universe” theories used to bridge the gap between finity and infinity and cushion the inevitable demise of the Big Bang Theory.]









[1] Puetz, Stephen J., and Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Universal cycle theory: Neomechanics of the hierarchically infinite universe: Denver, Outskirts Press, 626 p. [http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/].
[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 2018, The Physical Cause of Gravitation: viXra:1806.0165.
[3] Gefter, Amanda, 2009, Dark Flow: Proof Of Another Universe?: New Scientist. [https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921-900-dark-flow-proof-of-another-universe/].


20191127

Can aether save relativity?


PSI Blog 20191127



“The dark substances that permeate the cosmos could be the aether in disguise NASA/N. Smith (University of California, Berkeley) and NOAO/AURA/NSF”


New Scientist thinks so:


Although reformists might think these claims by regressive physicists are hopeful signs, they should not hold their breath. In addition to aether denial they would have to give up the photon and spacetime along with the rest of the contradictory nonsense associated with relativity. In other words, they could not “save relativity” without discarding it entirely. Current funding sources will not allow that. Best they tread lightly.

A few quotes:

“Tom Złosnik, a cosmologist at the Czech Academy of Sciences in Prague, is one of those looking to achieve that goal. Like Jacobson, his original intention was to paint a unified picture of quantum gravity that incorporated an aether-like field. But as he and his colleagues got stuck into the mathematics, they made a remarkable discovery. The aether that fit best into their model was one that matched the demands cosmologists made of dark matter. “The result,” says Złosnik, “was general relativity with a dark matter dust.

They published that result in late 2018. At about the same time, Richard Battye at the Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics in Manchester, UK, published a paper suggesting the aether could explain dark energy as well. He and his team followed in Złosnik’s footsteps, using an expanded form of Jacobson and Mattingly’s Einstein-aether theory to see how such models tallied with cosmological data.”

The author’s (Brenden Foster) conclusion:

“Whether the aether actually does make up dark matter, dark energy or both, the dark sector may be the best place to look for clues, says Blas. “It opens a window of detection to the aether.” We could check any experiment that probes the properties of dark matter to look for signs of a preferred frame, he says.

If anything does turn up, it would be an irony of truly cosmic proportions. More than a century after its banishment from the realm of respectable science, the aether could be the very thing we need to help make sense of the universe. In the graveyard of failed ideas, something ethereal is stirring.”

[GB: A “preferred frame,” I think not. “Dark Energy,” I think not. There is no “preferred frame” in the Infinite Universe, with each microcosm in motion, whether aetherial or not. They will never discover “Dark Energy” for two reasons: 1) Energy does not exist; it is a calculation and 2) The magical Dark Energy is an ad hoc invented to save the bogus universal expansion idea promulgated by relativity itself.]


20191120

Negative Results in Search for Dark Matter Consistent with Infinite Universe Theory

PSI Blog 20191120 Negative Results in Search for Dark Matter Consistent with Infinite Universe Theory

Guest Blog by Pierre Berrigan:

Hello, Glenn!

Here is something that you will most certainly find interesting:

In an article published this 25th of October in Science Advances (https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/10/eaax4539), Garcon et al report the negative result of the latest search for dark matter. Garcon used ultra-low field nuclear magnetic resonance to probe the hypothetical dark matter halo that surrounds galaxies.

The experiment would have detected the presence of dark matter bosons with masses 7.8x10e-14 eV or above. The fact that none was observed sets an experimental limit to the possible mass of dark matter particles.

It is interesting to note that this value of 7.8x10e-14 eV, which converted to grams gives 0.14x10e-47, comes very close to the value of 0.98x10e-47 grams as calculated by you in IUT as the maximum value for aether particles.



[GB: Thanks so much Pierre. Nice catch. You sure know your stuff! Other readers should know I calculated that value from Planck’s constant, which implies there is a “smallest unit of motion.” I assumed anyone trying to discover that would be evaluating the collision of a single aether particle with baryonic matter. There probably are “smaller units of motion” produced by aether-2 particles but we may not be able to detect them at this time, if ever. BTW: This discrete nature of the aether is one of the reasons relativity cannot be reconciled with Quantum Mechanics. Special Relativity Theory assumes space is perfectly empty and General Relativity Theory assumes spacetime also is perfectly empty. In other words, the fields in relativity are immaterial. They are just mathematical idealizations that cannot exist in reality.

You can see where this is going. Regressive physicists eventually will have to give up their aether denial. Dark matter will remain elusive as long as Aether Deceleration Theory is ignored as the physical cause of gravitation.[1]]

[GB: BTW: Here is another article on the failure to find Dark Matter:

Why dark matter's no-show could mean a big bang rethink

We can't find any trace of cosmic dark matter – perhaps because our models of the early universe are missing a crucial piece, says astrophysicist Dan Hooper




[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2018, The Physical Cause of Gravitation: viXra:1806.0165.



20191113

Quantum weirdness could allow a person-sized wormhole to last forever?


PSI Blog 20191113 Quantum weirdness could allow a person-sized wormhole to last forever?



Wormholes have been a staple of science fiction for decades
L. CALCADA / EUROPEAN SOUTHERN OBSERVATORY / SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY

Egads! New Scientist continues to be a treasure trove of regressive nonsense:


Note: No real scientist would believe such outlandish stuff no matter what his math said. Hint: Go back and check your original assumptions!

20191106

Why does the universe exist?


PSI Blog 20191106 Why does the universe exist?

The answers to this age-old question are reviewed in this 17-minute TED talk by Jim Holt:


Of course, the correct answer is that it is impossible for the Infinite Universe not to exist. As an idealist, Jim does a fair job on the subject within the limitations of that indeterministic philosophical position. But once people get off their idealistic high horses, the answer becomes obvious.

Nothingness and perfectly empty space are equivalent. They are the same idealization. All things in the universe exist on the continuum between perfectly empty space and perfectly solid matter. The empty space and solid matter endmembers do not and cannot exist—they are idealizations. All real things have properties akin to each of those ideals. The doorway does not have to be perfectly empty for us to leave the room while not crashing into the not perfectly solid wall.

Like all the other “Big Questions” religious folks denigrate science for its inability to give answers that might satisfy their quest for idealistic eternal life. Sorry, the Infinite Universe can produce an infinite number of things, but perfectly empty space and eternal life are not among them.

20191030

Reality an illusion?


PSI Blog 20191030 Reality an illusion?




Among the stupidest ideas in regressive physics is the claim of UC Irvine prof Donald Hoffman that was highlighted by New Scientist recently:   https://go.glennborchardt.com/Reality

Of course, this is nothing new, just plain old immaterialism—the blurb by Chopra is the kiss of death.

If you wish to read the book this came from, here it is: Hoffman, Donald D., 2019, The case against reality: Why evolution hid the truth from our eyes: New York, Norton, 272 p.

Apparently, the well-worn central thesis of this mess is that perception is never perfect, and therefore we can not trust it completely. Well, that is how the Infinite Universe is. The materialist view is that reality is quite simple. Our perception is usually good enough to tell the difference between a wall and a doorway. Neither is an “illusion.” It they were, we would have been dead long ago. Granted, there are an infinite number of complications both to the wall and the doorway. Univironmental Determinism (e.g., evolution) has taught us to focus only on the important features of our world. That does not make either the important or the unimportant characteristics any less “material.” Shame on New Scientist for publishing such claptrap.