Dark Matter older than the universe?

PSI Blog 20190918 Dark Matter older than the universe?

Big Bang illustration (stock image).
Credit: © Andrea Danti / Adobe Stock

PSI Blog 20190918 Dark Matter older than the universe?

Thanks to Luis for this heads up:

Here is the latest Big Bang Theory contradiction:

“Dark matter, which researchers believe make up about 80% of the universe's mass, is one of the most elusive mysteries in modern physics. What exactly it is and how it came to be is a mystery, but a new study now suggests that dark matter may have existed before the Big Bang.”

Note that Dark Matter is a mystery only to cosmogonists and other aether deniers. According to Aether Deceleration Theory, it is simply decelerated aether that surrounds all baryonic matter after it produces the acceleration called gravitation.[1] The “discovery” (actually only a calculation) is no contradiction for Infinite Universe Theory. 

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


Big Bang Theory wastes tax dollars on the search for nonexistent “Dark Energy”

PSI Blog 20190911 Big Bang Theory wastes tax dollars on the search for nonexistent “Dark Energy”

The atom interferometer. Credit: Imperial College London

“Dark Energy” supposedly drives the universal expansion assumed in the Big Bang Theory. Only one problem for researchers looking for this particular Big Bang ghost: “energy” does not exist. Energy is a calculation; energy neither exists nor occurs. Energy is a matter-motion term we use to describe matter and motion. The E=mc2 calculation requires a material carrier for it to be valid. If m=0, then E=0. That is why matterless motion is impossible and energy cannot exist. What does exist is the material carrier and what does occur is its motion. But there is no material carrier for Dark Energy. It is not the well-established “Dark Matter,” which is the decelerated aether that surrounds all baryonic matter as a result of gravitation.[1]

Failing to find a particle for their phony Dark Energy, regressives now hypothesize an equally mysterious “Fifth Force.” This they mistreat in the same way as “energy.” Force gets to be some magical matterless ghost pushing things around. Those pushes require a material pusher. They will never find that either because the universe is not expanding (unless you believed in Einstein’s matterless particles with perpetual motion).

Despite all the public money wasted on the search for nonexistent Dark Energy, the whole brouhaha serves as a great example of the importance of proper theory. It is only the tip of the monetary iceberg engendered by the ridiculous Big Bang Theory and its genuflecting to the religious idea the universe had a beginning. It is time we put a stop to it.

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


Pierre Berrigan’s French translation of Infinite Universe Theory (Théorie de l'univers infini) now available

PSI Blog 20190904 Pierre Berrigan’s French translation of Infinite Universe Theory (Théorie de l'univers infini) now available

Many, many, many, thanks to Pierre Berrigan for translating IUT into French. As far as I can tell, he did a wonderful job. I met Pierre through a response he gave on Quora. It turns out that physicist Paul Marmet was his uncle. Professor Marmet was one of the early dissidents, having written 30 papers and books refuting the Big Bang Theory and the solipsism of quantum mechanics. One of my favorites is:

Marmet, Paul, 1990, Big Bang Cosmology Meets an Astronomical Death: 21st Century, Science and Technology (P.O. Box, 17285, Washington, D.C. 20041), v. 3, no. 2, p. 52-59. [https://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/bigbang/index.html].

Another is his self-published book:

Marmet, Paul, 1993, Absurdities in Modern Physics: a Solution, or, A Rational Interpretation of Modern Physics, Éditions du Nordir; 1st edition (January 1, 1993), 144 p. [https://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/heisenberg/index.html]. [This is a collector’s item, with hard copies selling for up to $900. Lucky you. Most chapters are available for download at the above link. An excellent 5-star review is on the Amazon sale page.]

Pierre apparently caught the bug from Paul in that he also has been critical of the Big Bang Theory for a long time. Pierre recently retired as an IT consultant and has answered over 160 questions on Quora. If you have any French-speaking friends, “Théorie de l'univers infini” might be the perfect holiday gift.


A star older than the Big Bang universe

PSI Blog 20190828 A star older than the Big Bang universe

“Methuselah star”, or scientifically called HD 140283 (Image: NASA)

Thanks to James Nelson for this heads up:

Among the many contradictions encountered by the Big Bang Theory is Methuselah, a star older than the supposed age of the universe.

The title of this report is: 

"Have we been wrong about the age of our universe all along? Astronomers are trying to understand why the universe appears to contain stars older than itself."

And from Fred Frees:

Big Bang theory wrong? Star older than Universe discovered - threat of ‘scientific crisis’


Right. Good luck with that and what we predict will be even older galaxies and stars when the Webb telescope supersedes the Hubble after 20210301. This “star older than the universe” conundrum has occurred before, and like the “inflationary” universe has been cured with some special “Dark Energy” ad hoc to make it go away. Remember that the inflationary idea had to be brought up when cosmological redshifts indicated galactic recessions hugely greater than the speed of light.                                                                                                                                       


General Relativity Theory “confirmed” by cosmogonists once again

PSI Blog 20190821 General Relativity Theory “confirmed” by cosmogonists once again

An artist's rendering of a supermassive black hole. NASA-JPL-Caltech

From George Coyne, Vancouver PSI Director:


Astronomers claim General Relativity Theory (GRT) is confirmed from monitoring the star S0-2 orbiting the super massive black hole Sagittarius A* at the center of the Milky Way.  They base their conclusion on GRT's prediction of gravitational redshift, which proposes that light is distorted by gravity. 

You have written on how redshift is misinterpreted. You may wish to respond in a blog on the flaws in this study's conclusion that this proves Einstein's GRT is correct.

Here is another NBC news article on the same study.

An Einstein glorification video on the same topic (this one from National Geographic):

 [GB: Thanks so much George. As you know, unlike other theories well-accepted by the mainstream (e.g., heliocentricity, evolution, and plate tectonics), there have been doubts about relativity for over a century. So-called “confirmations” are brought forth habitually to give it credence it does not deserve.  This black hole misinterpretation is one of the major Einsteinisms used to “prove” “Einstein is always right.” It is spread all over the news almost every time light from a massive cosmic source is found to have experienced “gravitational redshift.” In GRT (General Relativity Theory) Einstein predicted that, in struggling against the force of gravity, light particles would lose energy whenever they left a massive light source. The phenomenon was proven experimentally by Pound and associates at Harvard.[1]

The data from cosmic light sources are likewise unquestionable. The only problem: The interpretation is incorrect. One of Einstein’s major ad hocs in Special Relativity Theory was the assumption that light was a massless particle. It could not be affected by gravitation and would never satisfy Newton’s famous equation (F=GM1M2/r2). Another ad hoc was his famous assumption that light always traveled at c.

Now, as I emphasized in Infinite Universe Theory and my recent manuscript,[2] light is a wave in the aether. Its velocity depends on the properties of that medium. Aether pressure (and light velocity) increases with distance from massive bodies. The “gravitational redshift” occurs because light waves increase in velocity as they travel away from their source. Although the effect is tiny, light’s wavelength increases in the same way it does when light leaves the water medium at 225,000,000 m/s and enters the air medium at 300,000,000 m/s. Remember that red light has a wavelength of 488 nm in water and 650 nm in air, with no change in frequency, which is responsible for its color.

This Einsteinism, like the one in which refraction was mistaken as “proof of curved empty space,” will be with us until GRT finally succumbs to the needed philosophical change, finally and quietly entering the “dustbin of history.”]

[1] Pound, R.V., and Rebka, G.A., 1960, Apparent Weight of Photons: Physical Review Letters, v. 4, no. 7, p. 337-341. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/PR60]; Pound, R.V., and Snider, J.L., 1964, Effect of Gravity on Nuclear Resonance: Physical Review Letters, v. 13, no. 18, p. 539-540. [http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.539]; Pound, R.V., and Snider, J.L., 1965, Effect of Gravity on Gamma Radiation: Physical Review, v. 140, no. 3B, p. B788-B802.

[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 343 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook]; Borchardt, Glenn, 2018, The Physical Cause of Gravitation: viXra:1806.0165.


“Universal expansion” confuses cosmogonists

PSI Blog 20190814 “Universal expansion” confuses cosmogonists

The “Hubble Constant,” assumed by cosmogonists (but not by Hubble himself) to be indicative of their made-up universal expansion, keeps being inconstant. The latest measurement does not agree with two previous measurements that were at odds.

Even so, that amounts to yet another propaganda opportunity for regressive physics courtesy of the journal Nature:   

How fast is the Universe expanding? Cosmologists just got more confused

Of course, readers of Infinite Universe Theory know that the universe cannot expand and does not have any massless particles with perpetual motion to do so.

Here is the latest article. You might want to read it, but don’t get too confused:


Anti-Kuhn paradigm

PSI Blog 20190807 Anti-Kuhn paradigm


Thomas Kuhn generally is a hero among dissidents. Along with his explication of what it all meant, his invention of the word “paradigm” was his greatest achievement. A paradigm forms the body of data, assumptions, and interpretations guiding a discipline during a particular period. A paradigm cannot be overthrown by anyone whose livelihood depends on it—only outsiders need apply for that infrequent function.

Here is an interesting interview “Thomas Kuhn Threw an Ashtray at Me” with Errol Morris, who was kicked out of Princeton by Kuhn to go on to become a famous documentary film maker (The Fog of War) and writer of a new book critical of Kuhn (The Ashtray).

Although he tends to throw the baby out with the bath water, I tend to agree with Morris’s major criticisms. In particular, that Kuhn erroneously assumes:

1.   There is no objective truth. Truth is determined by subjects, not by nature.
2.   Science is not progressive. The same data are interpreted differently at various times.
3.   There may be no such thing as reality.

Morris puts it this way:

 “The truth is central to the human enterprise. What stuck in my craw was Kuhn’s underlying belief that there was no such thing as truth, perhaps no such thing as reality, no such thing as progress. It struck me then, and still strikes me now, as a postmodern and pernicious idea.”

Remember Kuhn’s great work was first published in 1962, although not much changed in the 50 years subsequent.[1] Like most “philosophers of science” he was actually a “historian of science.” That occupation is to report on what scientists think and have thought, not what they should think as we do in “scientific philosophy.” He had studied the Copernican Revolution[2] in which the math worked pretty much as well as in the geocentric Ptolemaic system. Like our current struggle to get rid of the Big Bang Theory, it was all a matter of perspective and interpretation that would ruffle the fewest feathers among the ruling class. As Bruno and Galileo found out, the ruling class in 1600 was the church.

As scientists, we must adamantly oppose Kuhn’s idea that there is no objective truth, while agreeing that interpretations vary. Kuhn was confused because the Einsteinian regression in physics had confused most everyone. Kuhn’s second point that there was no progress in science did not seem otherwise at the time. Eventually, physicists might give up their obeisance to math and come to their interpretive senses as they did with Copernicus. The cyclic theory of history surely would prevail. Truth would once again be whatever people thought it should be, just as the postmodernists were beginning to claim in the late 50s.

Is there progress in science? Is there human progress at all? Of course a regressive period tends to produce pessimism aplenty. In this postmodern-prerevolutionary age any demonstration of progress[3] reaches a public made sceptical by incessant news of humanity’s failure to provide the promised nirvana. Still, progress is spiralic—three steps forward, two steps backward. This particular regression will not be without end.

Kuhn’s ambivalence about the existence of reality fits with the immaterialism you can find in most any reading of quantum mechanics or relativity. Whether its action-at-a-distance, immaterial fields, or immaterial attraction, all fit with the religious milieu most of us grew up with. The soul of regressive physics at least requires matterless motion for its sustenance. Maybe we shouldn’t be so hard on Kuhn for, like the rest of us, he was a product of the times. His ground-breaking observations concerning paradigms are useful nevertheless.

[1] Kuhn, T.S., 1962, The structure of scientific revolutions: Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 210 p.; Kuhn, Thomas S. , and Hacking, Ian, 2012, The structure of scientific revolutions: Chicago; London, The University of Chicago Press, 264 p.

[2] Kuhn, T.S., 1957, The Copernican revolution: Planetary astronomy in the development of Western thought: New York, Random House, 297 p.

[3] Pinker, Steven, 2011, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined: New York, Viking [http://stevenpinker.com/publications/better-angels-our-nature]; Pinker, Steven, 2018, Enlightenment now: The case for reason, science, humanism, and progress: New York, New York, Viking, an imprint of Penguin Random House LLC, 556 p.


Review of Ratcliff’s “The Static Universe”

PSI Blog 20190731 Review of Ratcliff’s “The Static Universe”

Below is a belated review of:

Ratcliffe, Hilton, 2010, The Static Universe: Exploding the Myth of Cosmic Expansion: Montreal, Canada, C. Roy Keys Incorporated, 239 p.

As perceptive readers know, we believe the idea the universe is expanding is ridiculous. Hilton Ratcliffe, a South African astrophysicist, seems to agree. The blurb for his book states:

“"The Static Universe" is an anthem for the growing number of skywatchers who are heartily sick and tired of being led up the garden path. Is the Universe expanding? Maverick astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, author of the highly controversial book "The Virtue of Heresy", argues that it is not, and if he's right, an entire body of science is brought to its knees. The impact of the ensuing catastrophe will be devastating, and the cost to those who doggedly defend the prevailing paradigm is inestimable. It certainly runs to billions of dollars. In a world where self-interest rules, the author of this shocking expos is literally putting himself on the line. Big Brother does not want you to read this!”

First off, I do not like the title. Strictly speaking, the universe is not static. Absolutely everything in the universe is always in motion with respect to everything else. I would never use terms such as “static” or “steady state” to describe the Infinite Universe, though as shown below Radcliffe says cosmologists commonly do that.

Now let’s see what Hilton thinks.[1] I will use plenty of quotes so you can get a feel for the book:

The “expanding universe picture currently known as the Lambda-Cold Dark Matter Model (abbreviated…LCDMM). …Lambda…refers to a repulsive gravitational effect, a negative force counteracting the collapse of the Universe so vigorously that it is said to be blowing everything apart. It’s commonly called Dark (3)[2] Energy. Opposing this Dark Energy is an attractive impetus emanating from Dark Matter, described as “cold” in the model because it does not radiate. Like Dark Energy, Dark Matter is completely invisible. Because it manifests as halos around large, visible objects, Dark Matter must also be absolutely transparent.” (4)

A bit of clarification: “we propose that the Universe is static. In the terminology of cosmology, that does not imply that it is standing still. The term “static” refers to an absence of a global, all-encompassing motion, and is usually taken to mean nonexpansion. Basically, this means that the Universe is not evolving…it is not as an entire organism advancing from a primitive state. …The Standard Model attempts to prove expansion by assuming expansion. …extremely poor science.” (9)

“The Universe as we perceive it is a hierarchy of systems, percolating up from beneath micro-atoms to way beyond macro-galaxies…” (10)

“Lemaitre told us in 1924 that fiery creation issued forth from what he euphemistically described as a ‘primordial atom', which somehow exploded and drove the galaxies apart.” (14)

He lists 11 requirements for expansion:
1.   Homogeneous and isotropic (Cosmological Principle [CP])
2.   Large objects moving away, but no large objects (CP)
3.   Mechanism to drive expansion (space-time)
4.   Finite limits to space and time
5.   [All] redshifts increasing uniformly over distance
6.   Evolution of structure correlated with redshift
7.   Evolution of all chemicals and forces from particles
8.   Bottom up large-scale formation
9.   Solution to the horizon problem via Inflation Theory
10.                     Uniform radio wave picture of the early universe
11.                     Complete consistency with SRT and GRT

And writes “Not a single one of these requirements is met.” (16)

His argument:

1.   “Expansion…suggest[s] creation of space itself (essentially, the creation of energy).”
2.   “The Universe appears to be infinite. There is nothing indicating it is finite. Olbers’ Paradox carries no weight…”
3.   “The ad hoc imposition of inflation defies established physics”
4.   “The Hubble Law is a fallacy…a static Universe can present the redshift in a variety of ways.”
5.   The CMB is simply a diffuse image of local astrophysical structure at the equilibrium temperature of starlight”
6.   “A nonexpanding Universe does not contradict the observed abundances of elements…”
7.   “Higher redshift objects are not necessarily less mature, less bright, and closer together, or crucially, further away, than those with lower redshift values.” (18)

“Creation, whether of the entire Universe or just part of it, cannot proceed from nothing at all. Every created effect must necessarily…be given by creating cause. Since this is logically true for all cases, the infinite Universe is proven.” “The rock star status of Albert Einstein in the 1920s and (19) Stephen Hawking today was driven by fans that, with respect, hadn’t a clue what those gentlemen were actually on about.” (20)

“Observational astronomers and astrophysicists using empiricism to derive their explanations of the cosmos would tend to concentrate on the first two tenets of cosmology, and…would lean towards redshift because the microwave background requires horrendous mathematical manipulation before it makes sense in the BBT context.” (26)

“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…” (33)

Z=v/c, so any z>1 involves >c recession, a problem solved by this regressive ad hoc Hilton considers incredulous:

“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.” (36)

This explains a lot about why perfectly empty space, Dark Energy, time dilation, and Universal Inflation are the Four Horsemen, so to speak, of cosmogony and regressive physics. All four are critical ad hocs for saving the Big Bang Theory in the current age of observed redshifts greater than 1. Perspicacious readers know that perfectly empty space cannot exist because it is an idealization; Dark Energy does not exist because it is a calculation; Time cannot dilate because it is motion; and the whole Universal Inflation idea is a failure to interpret Cosmological redshifts as a simple function of distance, not recession. In other words, if we could see light from an infinite distance, redshift z values and the calculated recessional velocities would be infinite. That could never happen of course, but the very thought of it illustrates the absurdity of Einstein’s theory of light with its gross violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Like everything else in the universe, light simply cannot travel perpetually without losing energy as foretold by the lengthening of its waves through the aether.     

One of Ratcliffe’s mistakes is this:

“light from the middle of the Sun covers a smaller distance getting to us than light from the extremities…gravitational redshift is independent of centre of limb, so the only conclusion solar physicists could reach is that light travelling the greater distance passes through more space, and thus interacts with more (67) particles. It is a clear observational demonstration that light loses energy as a function of travel time through a particulate medium. Therefore…all cosmological redshift is tired light.” (68)

Those who have read the sections on “Gravitational Redshift” in “Universal Cycle Theory”[3] and “Infinite Universe Theory”[4] know that the redshift from a light source is due to increases in distal aether pressure and consequent increase in the velocity of light. The slightly higher velocity causes an increase in wavelength. It is not an indicator of energy loss and “tired light.” In fact, the Cosmological redshift is not detected at distances even as close as the Local Group (which Hilton acknowledges elsewhere). Although his concluding sentence is partly true, it does not follow from the evidence presented. The opposite occurs for travel through particulate matter (e.g., wavelengths shorten as they travel slower through water).

He should have known better because he has a whole chapter on quasars, which are extremely massive, bright objects with high redshifts. I believe those are actually gravitational redshifts that have nothing to do with cosmological distance or recessional velocity. That is why Arp had so many observations showing them in close juxtaposition with low-redshift galaxies.[5] 

As I did in the early chapters of "Infinite Universe Theory," Hilton displays a photo of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field showing the “elderly galaxy” falsification of the Big Bang Theory. (153) He wraps up with these words: “Is the Universe expanding? It would appear not. What do we see? We do not see, let alone measure, large objects systematically moving away from all other large objects. On the contrary, it would seem to be quite the opposite, a least in the case of colliding spiral galaxies.” (209)


Upon reading the title, I thought I may have missed something majorly important in the dissident literature before writing "Infinite Universe Theory." That was not to be. Like numerous reformists, Radcliffe presents many convincing arguments against the Big Bang Theory. This is particularly impressive in that he is a bonifide physicist, mathematician, and astronomer. However, like many similar books, this one only amounts to being a long grumble session without presenting a clear alternative. Nonetheless, Hilton has an interesting perspective for a skeptical empiricist. I was particularly struck by his mentioning how desperate cosmogonists reconciled the supposed recessional velocities greater than the velocity of light. For decades, I guess I have been tuned out to the more ridiculous ad hocs such as the hypothesized expanding space, stretching light wave/particles, and dilating time.

As mentioned, by “Static Universe” Radcliffe really means “Infinite Universe.” The book is one small step toward the only possible alternative to the Big Bang Theory. Many reformists are unaware of that likely fact. Nevertheless, the book is missing key ingredients that would make it a viable theory. It needs a list of fundamental assumptions, a section on the neomechanical approach, a section on the analytical methodology, sections providing resolutions to problems, contradictions, and paradoxes presented by Big Bang Theory, and a set of predictions that can be tested by observation or experiment.

[1] Ratcliffe, Hilton, 2010, The static universe: Exploding the myth of cosmic expansion [abs.], in Volk, Greg, Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 17th Conference of the NPA, 23-26 June: Long Beach, California, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, v. 7, p. 1-2.

[2] Numbers in parentheses refer to pages in the text.

[3] 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/].

[4] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 343 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].

[5] Arp, Halton, 1998, Seeing red: Redshifts, cosmology and academic science: Montreal, Apeiron, 306 p.


Kaku fails as newly anointed science evangelist

PSI Blog 20190724 Kaku fails as newly anointed science evangelist

Jerry Coyne is one of the best educators in the evolution-creation battle. In his latest blog, Jerry manages to trash Michio Kaku on his overt pandering to religion.

Well-read folks will remember Kaku for his nutty pronouncements about cosmogony and the paradoxes common to regressive physics. At least, previous evangelists such as Einstein, Hawking, and de Grass admitted to being atheists. Kaku drags out Galileo’s religion as a sort of proof of things that cannot be proven. But Galileo was under lethal pressure and living in a less enlightened period. On the other hand, Kaku’s stance on the currently religious-flavored cosmology should put him in good stead with media junkies looking for “scientific” salvation.

Here is the link to Coyne’s blog. It is worth the read:


The Dark Matter Conundrum faced by aether deniers

PSI Blog 20190717 The Dark Matter Conundrum faced by aether deniers

From Bill Howell:

Thanks for the responses.  Aether entrainment seems like a perfectly reasonable explanation for the Michelson-Morley results, and a galactic version of that could explain the flattening of galactic rotation curves.  I hadn't heard that less than 1% of the mass of the Milky Way was in the nucleus.  If Newton's point-source/center of gravity concept isn't applicable to galaxies, that would certainly explain the flattening of those curves over a large distance (of course, that would also support the MOND idea).

Seems obvious now that you point it out.  It's yet another example of how you provide a simple explanation that hadn't occurred to me (and others). But if this simple solution is the answer to the 'missing mass problem' (which spawned the theories about Dark Matter), I'm puzzled why it has eluded astronomers for so long?

[GB: Bill, thanks again for your comments to Blog 20160120 (Does dark matter and dark energy prove Einstein wrong?).

Remember that, to a man, astronomers are led by cosmogonists and regressive physicists who are raised on the mantra that “there is no ether, there is no aether.” Giving any credence to aether would crush the Big Bang Theory forthwith. Although most probably are unaware of the logic behind that, editors of mainstream publications must follow the no aether mantra without fail. That is why any manuscript with the word “ether” or “aether” receives the circular file. I tested this with my Aether Deceleration Theory manuscript (Borchardt, Glenn, 2018, The Physical Cause of Gravitation: viXra:1806.0165), which I submitted to Physical Review Letters. It was infamously rejected within 23.47 hours without review.

Bill, you may have missed my PSI Blog 20190410 (Why do the Big Bang Theory and the Steady State Theory regard the universe as expanding?). Let me try a different approach so you can see the logic behind aether denial. It goes like this:

1.   Nothing exists for an eternity[1]
2.   The traditional view assumes that, as with everything else, the universe had a beginning[2]
3.   God or something (Dark Energy?) created the universe out of nothing[3]
4.   The above assumes nonexistence (perfectly empty space) is possible
5.   Light is a massless particle capable of perpetual motion through empty space
6.   The Doppler Shift can occur without a medium
7.   Alternatively, empty space (nothing) is capable of expansion
8.   The Cosmological Redshift proves the universe is expanding in all directions
9.   Our improbable position at the exact center of the observable universe containing 2 trillion galaxies is resolved by the four dimensions of Einstein’s General Relativity Theory

As explained in IUT[4] and throughout the PSI Blog, all of these claims are false. The slavish dedication to aether denial and Einstein’s photon theory makes it impossible for cosmogonists to understand Dark Matter. And most of all, they will never be able to understand the part played by aether deceleration in the acceleration that causes gravitation.]

[1] Strictly speaking, this would be impossible. Cosmogonists seldom have an answer to what came before the Big Bang. The party line seems to be that matter, space, time, and the laws of physics were created at the moment of the Big Bang.
[2] This is the assumption underlying cosmogony.
[3] Remember that energy does not exist. It is a calculation.
[4] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 343 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].


Plants and waves of light

PSI Blog 20190710 Plants and waves of light

Abhishek Chakravartty asks:

If light is a wave and not a particle, then how is it possible that plants use light to make food during the process of photosynthesis?

[GB: Thanks for the question. This essentially is what Maxwell answered in 1862 when he invented the E=mc2 equation. I explained it in "Infinite Universe Theory" with this quote from Ricker, which was buried in the glossary:

“The derivation of E=mc2 originates from Maxwell’s formula [f = δE/cδt] which equates the force exerted on an absorbing body at the rate energy is received by the body. Since force is also the rate of the change of momentum of the body, which, by the conservation of momentum, is also the rate of change in the momentum of the radiation, the momentum lost by the radiation is equal to 1/c times the energy delivered to the body, or M = E/c. If the momentum of the radiation of a mass is M times the velocity c of the radiation, the equation m = E/c2 is derived.”[1]

Get that? Didn’t think so. Now let me illustrate how it works from the simple neomechanical point of view. Remember that neomechanics describes everything in terms of two fundamental phenomena: matter and the motion of matter. Photosynthesis is a convergence, the opposite of the divergence described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The result is the same whether light is construed as a particle or whether it is construed as a wave in a medium filled with particles. As seen in Figure 17, supermicrocosms (particles outside) transfer motion across the microcosmic boundary speeding up the submicrocosms (particles inside) in the microcosm of the plant.

Figure 17 ABSORPTION OF MOTION. A high-velocity supermicrocosm col­lides with and transfers motion to a low-velocity submicrocosm (internal microcosm). As a result, submicrocosms inside are accelerated slightly to the right.[2]

As a result, the internal constituents of the microcosm (plant leaf in this example) are thought to be “energized.” Whether light is considered a particle or a wave, the result is the same. Regressives, following Einstein, view light as a photon that has traveled all the way from the sun, while progressives view light as particle-to-particle motion in an aether filled with particles. Both types of motion are in accord with the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion).

Incidentally, this process is similar to the “photoelectric effect” for which Einstein received his only Nobel Prize. Because light is a wave in a sea of particles, its interaction with baryonic (ordinary) matter always is digital. That gave rise to Planck’s “smallest unit of motion” and, among aether deniers, the “wave-particle duality” theory of light and consequent confusion in quantum mechanics. The photon supposedly brings its own packet of waves along with it through Einstein’s perfectly empty space. The wave-particle paradox will disappear when aether denial disappears.

Of course, the opposite effect occurs during atomic fission.[3] Motion is emitted to the macrocosm (the surroundings of the fissioning atom, which includes adjacent atoms, the atmosphere, and, most importantly, the aetherosphere).[4] Without aether being present to receive that motion across the microcosmic boundary, we are left with the phantasmagorical image of energy flitting through Einstein’s perfectly empty space. This magical energy stuff is said by regressives to be similar to the mass from which it was derived. Of course, “energy” is neither matter nor motion; it is an equation.

Mass/energy Conversion

Once one accepts the reality of aether, the “conversion of mass into energy” is simple. Remember, mass is resistance to acceleration. As explained by neomechanics, this resistance is due to the motion of submicrocosms. It is why all microcosms must have submicrocosms infinitum and why there can be no finite, ultimate particle that gives mass to all things. The idea of massless particles is forbidden by neomechanics as well as the E=mc2 equation. The resistance produced by submicrocosms is best viewed as internal momentum (P=mv), which increases when submicrocosms receive impacts from across the microcosmic boundary (Figure 17). It is why a hot cup of tea temporarily has more mass than a cold one; it is why a hot leaf has more mass than a cold one.

Again, the reverse process occurs during the emission of motion. Mass decreases during cooling because internal motion is transmitted to the environment, whether it is the atmosphere, the aetherosphere, or your finger. So all we are seeing with these mass/energy conversions are simple reflections of the locations and motions of things. They describe absorption and emission of motion per Newton's Second Law of Motion. The phenomena do not change just because they occur across the microcosmic boundary. There is no such thing as “mass” (it’s a measurement); there is no such thing as “energy” (it’s a measurement).

In conclusion, be reminded of all this the next time you look at a plant undergoing photosynthesis. Our wonderful Sun is emitting a special kind of motion that travels to Earth as waves in the aether. These waves, like the waves produced by sound, occur in a medium filled with particles experiencing short-range motion sufficient to accelerate the constituents of microcosms necessary for our survival.]

[1] Ricker, H.H., 2015, The origin of the equation E=mc^2, Accessed 20171022 [http://go.glennborchardt.com/Ricker15mc2origin]. [The true author of this quote is unclear. It was not Ricker. More info at: http://go.glennborchardt.com/emc2origin in the Einstein section].
[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 349 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].
[3] Borchardt, Glenn, 2009, The physical meaning of E=mc2, Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance: Storrs, CN, v. 6, no. 1, p. 27-31 [10.13140/RG.2.1.2387.4643]. [My most popular publication, with 4,733 reads on ResearchGate.net].
[4] Borchardt, 2017, ibid, Figure 19.