Untired Light Theory and Regressive Attempts to Support It

PSI Blog 20201026 Untired Light Theory and Regressive Attempts to Support It


The reason the Big Bang Theory is hanging on so long is not because of any data the regressives have accumulated. It is entirely how those data are interpreted. Thanks to Jesse Witwer for asking my opinion on this enduring use of Einstein’s Untired Light Theory:


"Tired-Light" Hypothesis Gets Re-Tired


Whether light was a particle, a wave, or an idiotic combination of both, it would be impossible for it to travel over cosmic distances without losing energy. The only way that could happen is for space to be perfectly empty, as assumed by Einstein and his idealistic followers.


They claim: “For the tired-light theory to be correct, young galaxies would have to be dimmer, rather than brighter, than old ones.” Ask yourself: How much sense does that make? Furthermore, how much sense does perfectly empty space make?


As usual, regressives hold fast to their religiously based assumptions and are wont to emit borderline insults to nonbelievers: ‘Even so, "I don't think it's possible to convince people who are holding on to tired light," says Ned Wright, an astrophysicist at the University of California, Los Angeles. "I would say it is more a problem for a psychological journal than for Science."’


Maybe they should publish their Untired Light Theory stuff in religious journals.



Imperfect Transmission of Waves

 PSI Blog 20201019 Imperfect Transmission of Waves


[GB: Another great question from faithful reader Abhishek Chakravartty:]


“On page 55 of IUT, you wrote the following sentences:


"Each wave involves a convergence and divergence that produces the next wave. The next wave is similar to the last one, but it is never identical. What does change is the slight decrease in the ability of a wave to produce the next wave. Eventually, waves spread out from the source, being reproduced in a form not quite as true as the last."


In the above sentences, when you use the words "next wave", it would mean that after a wave is formed around it and so on. But that is not the fact. The fact is that each and every wave is emitted from the source and continues to move away from the source. Then why do you use the words "next wave" instead of the words "same wave at the next position”? Can you please explain this to me in detail?”


[GB: Abhi: There are two different processes occurring here:

1.  Production

2.  Transmission

Waves are produced by the source and transmitted by the medium. Thus, if I drop a pebble into still water, a single T-wave[1] will be produced. The water under the pebble will be displaced, with the surrounding water being pushed back into the hole thus created. This distortion of the surface of the medium affects the surface of the water in all directions, producing peaks and valleys we call waves. However, as this disturbance spreads away from the source the production of each subsequent peak and valley never can be perfect, as mentioned in “Infinite Universe Theory”.[2] This is because the reproduction of any thing or the motion of an thing cannot be perfect, in tune with 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).


But what about the second part of your question, which involves a source that continually produces new waves? That would be like the light waves continually produced by the sun. It also would be like the waves I would produce by continually dropping a series of pebbles into still water. Each wave, like the one produced by the single pebble, would produce similar imperfect replication of the next.


Why is any of this important? It is extremely important because there is no perfection in Infinite Universe Theory. There is no perfectly empty space, just as there is no perfect reproduction of the waves occurring within the medium making up what, instead, is assumed by Einstein and his regressive followers to be empty space. Waves occur via the multitude of particulate collisions within what constitutes the medium. Per neomechanics,[3] none of these collisions can occur without energy (motion of matter) losses to the macrocosm (aether-2 particles in this case). In wave motion, these losses appear as increases in wavelength (i.e., a redshift). There are many types of redshift, but only one, the cosmological redshift is a direct function of cosmological distance as would be expected for this “imperfect transmission theory.”


So, by tossing out the idea of perfection rampant among cosmogonists we have a logical explanation of the cosmological redshift. We no longer can use the doppler effect or the ridiculous expanding empty space to support the equally ridiculous expanding universe theory. The Big Bang Theory and all its supposed mathematical perfection is destroyed by the imperfections necessary for the Infinite Universe to exist.]




[1] Remember, T-waves are transverse waves. The particles in the medium move up and down, always returning to their previous positions. The disturbance, however, moves in all directions, forming peaks and valleys as it does so. T-waves also are sometimes called shear waves, particularly in seismology. L-waves, on the other hand, are a result of oscillating particle movement in the direction of the disturbance. These are also called longitudinal waves or pressure waves, as in seismology in which they travel faster than T-waves and arrive before the T-waves produced by earthquakes.  

[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 337 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].

 [3] Chapter 11 in Infinite Universe Theory.


Nonsense about Space and Time as Illusions

 PSI Blog 20201012 Nonsense about Space and Time as Illusions


One primary characteristic of regressive physicists is the inability to know what time is. The same, it seems, goes for space.


Here is another one by Dr. Tim Andersen, regressive physicist, from Georgia Tech. This time it is the old “time is an illusion” trope. As readers know, time is the motion of matter.[1]


Space and time may be illusions


Of course, this discussion amounts to a contradiction of the First Assumption of Science, materialism (The external world exists after the observer does not). It illustrates once again how far regressive physics has strayed from reality.


  Tim writes:


“One of the deepest philosophical questions is: why is there something rather than nothing? A more tractable question is: why is there space and time even when there is no matter?”


These are “deep philosophical questions” only for naïve idealists. As readers know, perfectly empty space is an idealization. There can be no such thing. Empty space has never been and will never be found. It is impossible for “nothing” to exist. After assuming just the opposite, Tim goes on to ask his second dumb question, proving once again that regressive physicists have no idea what time is. This is a paradox for him only because his beginning assumption (immaterialism) is incorrect.




[1] This from George Coyne: “Glenn, Ever since Einstein decoupled motion from matter in his relativity, physicists have accepted that motion can occur in the absence of matter. You and I know this is nonsensical, but the mainstream physicists do not question this dogma. Thus, your phrase "time is motion" needs to always be stated in full as "Time is the motion of matter." The last 2 words may appear unnecessary for a reason that is obvious to you and I, but they are needed. In your comparison of the BBT and IUT you do use the full phrase.”  [GB: I agree.]



Nonsense in Five Dimensions


PSI Blog 20201005 Nonsense in Five Dimensions


Regressives and reformists are always at work trying to demolish contradictions with untoward imagination. Here is one by Dr. Tim Andersen from Georgia Tech:


A 5th dimension may explain quantum theory


“String theorists claim that the universe has many dimensions: 10, 11, or 26, but that all but the four are curled up so small that we can’t detect them.

That’s not what I’m talking about here. I’m talking about a real 5th dimension, one that is as big and uncurled as the other four.”


Tim goes on to give all the details to this loony idea. Like many reform attempts, this one may be attractive to Newtonians and Einsteinians who simply cannot give up the indeterministic assumption of finity (The universe is finite in the microscopic and macroscopic directions). Because there are an infinite number of causes for any effect, all measurements have a plus or minus. Readers know the Copenhagen crowd handled nature’s reluctance to conform to finity by considering probability as a cause in itself. Einstein objected because, like the old-fashioned Newtonians (and Copenhageners), he could not give up the finity assumption. Here is how Tim goes about getting rid of that nasty old infinity:


“If this is true, it would mean that rather than being random, quantum mechanics is simply the result of classical motion in a largely invisible dimension.”


What he means by “classical motion” is the Newtonian assumption that causality is finite. Here he substitutes probability as a singular cause with the imagined 5th dimension as a singular cause. Voila! This would satisfy Einstein’s dislike of probability, possibly achieving the holy grail of reformists: the impossible unification of relativity and quantum mechanics.




Note: This is part of a website Tim calls “The Infinite Universe

First Principles in Science, Philosophy, and Religion.” I don’t think so.


“COVID-19 Is Transmitted Through Aerosols. We Have Enough Evidence, Now It Is Time to Act”

PSI Blog 20200831 “COVID-19 Is Transmitted Through Aerosols. We Have Enough Evidence, Now It Is Time to Act”

Here is a follow-up on my PSI Blog 20200601 “Coronavirus Hates the Outdoors” on aerosol virus transmission. It is an excellent article written by by Jose-Luis Jimenez for Time.

Note his point that Chapin’s 1910 denigration of aerosol transmission is still mainstream, despite aerosols being primary for measles and TB. WHO and the CDC have remained in the dark ages with regard to aerosols. This myopic conservatism is similar to what has infected cosmogonists and regressive physicists. Unfortunately, in this case it has led to thousands of deaths. Governors close beaches, but open bars. Egads! As I summed it up 3 months ago: DON’T BREATHE BAD AIR!


No, change that calc--universe to end in trillions of years

PSI Blog 20200824 No, change that calc--universe to end in trillions of years

"An artist's concept of a dark brown dwarf, which may resemble the black dwarfs predicted to form in the future. (Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech)"

Thanks to Don Leatham for this heads-up. Now we can all feel better with that extra time since last week’s Blog about a cosmogonist who calculated the universe might end in a few billion years or in the next few seconds.


“The universe will end in this way, at this time, researcher says”

“It will happen sometime over the "next few trillion years"

“It [the universe] will be a bit of a sad, lonely, cold place,” the study's lead author, theoretical physicist Matt Caplan, said in a statement. “It’s known as ‘heat death,’ where the universe will be mostly black holes and burned-out stars.”

Just more BS from another regressive physicist who, like all the others, invariably misinterprets the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which only applies to isolated systems. That interpretation, of course, is based on the indeterministic assumption of finity. Once you use the correct assumption, all your calculations become worthless—the universe is not isolated. The correct Assumption is infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). The Second Law of Thermodynamics then has an obvious complement, as I explained in:

Borchardt, Glenn, 2008, Resolution of the SLT-order paradox, in Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, Albuquerque, NM [http://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1413.7768].

The gist of it is this. All things are in motion toward other things or away from other things. “Disorder” is produced when things come apart; “order” is produced when things come together. In the infinite universe, the Second Law of Thermodynamics describes the first process and its complement describes the second.

But don’t hold your breath. We will be hearing about this “end of the universe” nonsense as long as the Big Bang Theory reigns supreme.


More “End of the Universe” Crap

PSI Blog 20200817 More “End of the Universe” Crap

Discredit: New Scientist

Readers know the universe is infinite—it had no beginning and will have not end. And they also know that “Dark Energy” was invented to save the Big Bang Theory—energy does not exist; it is a calculation. I was especially amused by New Scientist pushing the following two propaganda pieces in their lecture series. They even have the nerve to charge 12£ for such nonsense.

Here it is straight from the “national enquirer of science”:


We know the universe had a beginning and physicists agree that one day it will end, but how will it finish? Will our universe collapse in upon itself, rip itself apart, or even – in the next five minutes – succumb to an inescapable expanding bubble of doom?

Drawing on cutting-edge theory and brand new results from the most powerful telescopes and particle colliders, theoretical astrophysicist Katie Mack, explores five possible finales for the universe and what they would look like  (if anyone were still around to see them): the Big Crunch, Heat Death, Vacuum Decay, the Big Rip and the Bounce.”

Included in your ticket is exclusive access to additional on demand lecture...


After 14 billion years, you might expect the expansion of the cosmos to be slowing down.  Professor of astrophysics at the University of Sussex, Kathy Romer describes the mysterious substance, known as dark energy, that seems to be causing the universe to rip itself apart and introduces a new generation of industrial-scale international astronomy projects seeking to explore the underlying physics.”


Sorry this email notification came too late for you to enjoy this latest attempt to spread Cosmogonical Fake News. Oh well, maybe they will have a video you could watch for giggles.


No kidding: “A Cosmological Revolution is Coming”

PSI Blog 20200810 No kidding: “A Cosmological Revolution is Coming”

                 Studiom1/Istock Photo

From time to time even New Scientist presents what is supposed to be an anti-Big Bang article. The most recent is one with this title and subtitle:

“The four puzzles that tell us a cosmological revolution is coming"

"A century ago, we missed the loose threads that told us our picture of the universe would unravel. Let’s not be so complacent now, says cosmologist Dan Hooper”

This is the usual compilation of all the silly interpretations that make the Big Bang Theory as fragile as an egg from a malnourished hen on the edge of a precipice. And also, as usual, Hooper comes up with no resolution of the mess. The obvious assumption that the universe is infinite totally escapes him. He even repeats the old fake news that “Hubble discovered the universe was expanding:”

“In 1929, Edwin Hubble observed that the universe is in fact changing. Every galaxy is receding from us: every two points in space are getting farther apart from each other as time advances. The universe is expanding.”

Except for the misstep in the title of his initial paper, Hubble continued to deny he discovered any such thing. He always thought, correctly, that light from distant galaxies simply lost energy over distance, resulting in the cosmological redshift. Hooper ought to read the literature.

I don’t recommend your reading this piece unless you need a refresher on the current cosmogonical propaganda.


Crisis in cosmology by Eric Lerner

PSI Blog 20200803 Crisis in cosmology by Eric Lerner

Thanks to Don Briddell for this heads-up:


This is the first in a series of videos on the crisis by Eric Lerner, the physicist who blew the whistle with his prescient book:

Lerner, E.J., 1992, The Big Bang never happened: New York, Vintage Books, 440 p.

I did a detailed critical review of physics Prof. Victor Stenger’s regressive review of Lerner’s book here:

Eric’s videos go into much detail pointing out the Big Bang Theory’s failure to provide accurate predictions. For example, the He and Li measurements are 10 to 25 standard deviations removed from BBT predictions. He shows a huge increase in “cosmological crisis awareness” mentioned in 2019 articles, but unfortunately, I was not able to confirm that with a simple Google search. In any case, the falsifications and contradictions keep piling up.


Infinite Universe Theory Free at Last!

PSI Blog 20200729 Infinite Universe Theory Free at Last!

PSI is 40 years old this year. Here is a little something in celebration in case you or your friends don’t have a copy of the Kindle version yet:

Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 327 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].

This Kindle version is free today only. Be sure to tell your friends!



IUT is #1 in Amazon (free) both in Astrophysics and Cosmology! (free extended for one more day)


Another Big Bang falsification: Elderly stars at the “birth of the universe”

PSI Blog 20200727 Another Big Bang falsification: Elderly stars at the “birth of the universe”

This from Pierre:

“Hello, Glenn!

Here is another one.

According to the BBT, the first stars to have formed in the early universe should have an almost null metallicity. The team led by Bhatawdekar found no such stars at distances up to 13.3 billion light years, presumably 500 million years after the birth of the universe. They just found old galaxies!


Pierre Berrigan”

“New results from the Hubble Space Telescope suggest the formation of the first stars and galaxies in the early universe took place sooner than previously thought. A European team of astronomers have found no evidence of the first generation of stars, known as Population III stars, when the universe was less than 1 billion years old. This artist's impression presents the early universe. Credits: ESA/Hubble, M. Kornmesser and NASA"

[GB: Note that our own metallic star (the Sun) is over 4.5 billion years old. Can’t wait until the Webb telescope (due in March?) shows galaxies at the new limit of observation to be greater than the cosmogonists’ 13.8 billion-yr “age of the universe.” Of course, that too will be defended by some new made-up story, but you can see where this is headed: The eventual junking of the BBT and the adoption of IUT (Infinite Universe Theory). Here you are present for another “giant step for mankind.”]


Even Galileo “Proves Einstein Right Again”

PSI Blog 20200720 Even Galileo “Proves Einstein Right Again”
"The motion of stars has helped prove Einstein correct again. Credit: UPI / Alamy"

"Einstein was right about how extremely massive objects fall in space":

The mainstream media glorifies Einstein any chance they get. He is always proven right, even when the “proof” was done centuries ago by someone else. This article is one of the silliest. Even grade-school kids are supposed to know “Galileo dropped a big one and a small one off the Tower of Pisa, with both arriving at the same time.” According to Wikipedia, even that did not actually happen. That experiment was performed a few years before Galileo’s imperiment[1]:

“A similar experiment took place some years earlier in Delft in the Netherlands, when the mathematician and physicist Simon Stevin and Jan Cornets de Groot (the father of Hugo de Groot) conducted the experiment from the top of the Nieuwe Kerk. The experiment is described in Simon Stevin's 1586 book De Beghinselen der Weeghconst (The Principles of Statics), a landmark book on statics:

Let us take (as the highly educated Jan Cornets de Groot, the diligent researcher of the mysteries of Nature, and I have done) two balls of lead, the one ten times bigger and heavier than the other, and let them drop together from 30 feet high, and it will show, that the lightest ball is not ten times longer under way than the heaviest, but they fall together at the same time on the ground.”

Anyway, the observation being promoted as yet another “proof” of Einstein’s General Relativity Theory is no such thing. That three different stars having different masses should respond to gravitation in the same way is nothing new. Remember that anything attributed to Einstein’s “curved space-time” is really due to aetherial pressure differences produced by aether particle deceleration via collisions with massive bodies.[2]

[1] IMPERIMENT. A thought “experiment.” I invented this as a proper replacement for what was formerly considered a “thought experiment” by quasi-immaterialists such as Einstein. Strictly speaking, an experiment only can occur outside the mind per the prefix “ex.” Science discovers truth through observation and experiment. Imperiments may be useful for predicting experimental results, but they have little credence among materialists (scientists) until those experiments actually are performed. There is no published evidence Galileo actually did the experiment attributed to him.
[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 2018, The physical cause of gravitation: Preprint. [http://vixra.org/abs/1806.0165].


The entire universe may once have been spinning all over the place?

PSI Blog 20200713 The entire universe may once have been spinning all over the place?

Spiral galaxies have revealed a clue about the early universe
NASA, ESA and the Hubble SM4 ERO Team

Egads! Well, at least this shows you don’t have to have a correct theory to come up with useful data. These 200,000 observations show about half of the spirals rotating clockwise (CW) and half rotating counter clockwise (CCW). Of course, microcosms rotate after interacting with their macrocosms in a special way: shear. Shear occurs when one thing moves in the opposite direction as another thing. That’s what we observe when landslides and earthquakes occur. When both sides of the shear plane are not fixed, countervailing rotations occur. You can prove this yourself by rotating one spherical object in contact with another. A CW in one will produce a CCW in the other.

The point of all this is that a microcosm cannot begin to rotate in isolation—least of all in a finite universe surrounded by empty space. Like much of cosmogony, the title to this piece is quite absurd. Do these folks really think the universe could spin willy-nilly in opposite directions at different times? The change in direction would be as miraculous as their imagined explosion of the entire universe out of nothing. And do they really think that would have any influence on spiral galaxy rotation?

Now for the useful stuff:
1.    Again, the finding that half were CW and half CCW is more or less what we would expect for the Infinite Universe. They mention a 2% variation. That is quite uniform for a universe that is infinite and imperfect.
2.    The variation appears greater for distant galaxies than for nearby galaxies. This is as it should be. Measurements farther away are going to be more difficult than those nearby. The plus or minus variation should increase with distance.
3.    Observations from the poles found a couple percent more CCW than CW; from the equator, there were more CW than CCW. This is probably an artefact of the location of measurement.    


Perfectly Empty Space Meets an Overdue Death--Again

PSI Blog 20200706 Perfectly Empty Space Meets an Overdue Death--Again

Einstein’s crucial assumption that space is perfectly empty continues to be battered by mean old data. Einstein’s light particles have to travel through the universe at a constant velocity without losing energy. Of course, light is not a particle. It is a wave, as Sagnac showed in 1913.[1] All real particles lose velocity over distance. The velocity of wave motion is controlled by the medium and therefore is constant over distance. It too, losses energy, with wave lengths increasing over distance.

Thanks to Marilyn for this heads up on this research summarized by J. Xavier Prochaska and Jean-Pierre Macquart. The takeaway here is what happens to certain radio waves when they travel through the universe. They review one of the first discoveries indicating space was not empty:

“This was termed the “warm-hot intergalactic medium” and nicknamed “the WHIM.” The WHIM, if it existed, would solve the missing baryon problem but at the time there was no way to confirm its existence.

In 2001, another piece of evidence in favor of the WHIM emerged. A second team confirmed the initial prediction of baryons making up 5% of the universe by looking at tiny temperature fluctuations in the universe’s cosmic microwave background [CMB]…”

This was the famous Nobel-prize work of Penzias and Wilson of Bell Labs, who published two papers on their discovery of the CMB in 1965.[2] Of course, these data had to be erroneously interpreted by others as confirmation of the Big Bang Theory, which assumes the universe was once a million degrees. Universal expansion during the last 13.8 billion years is supposed to have led to the cooling indicated by the CMB measurement.

Of course, their data proved no such thing. They actually were a disproof of the theory, since the expansion hypothesis on which the Big Bang Theory is based itself requires perfectly empty space. The temperature of perfectly empty space would have been 0oK. Instead, it was about 2.7oK. Temperature, of course, is the motion of matter. Any temperature above 0oK would mean there was matter in outer space.

That matter is what the current study was searching for. The CMB data came up with only half of the 5% cosmic matter predicted by the assumptions of Big Bang Theory.

The current study uses the 2007-discovery of fast radio bursts (FRB):

“FRBs are extremely brief, highly energetic pulses of radio emissions. Cosmologists and astronomers still don’t know what creates them, but they seem to come from galaxies far, far away.[3]

As these bursts of radiation traverse the universe and pass through gasses and the theorized WHIM, they undergo something called dispersion.”

“…when radio waves pass through matter, they are briefly slowed down. The longer the wavelength, the more a radio wave “feels” the matter. Think of it like wind resistance. A bigger car feels more wind resistance than a smaller car.

The “wind resistance” effect on radio waves is incredibly small, but space is big. By the time an FRB has traveled millions or billions of light-years to reach Earth, dispersion has slowed the longer wavelengths so much that they arrive nearly a second later than the shorter wavelengths.”

Now, light waves, using the same aether medium, also slowdown in contact with baryonic (ordinary) matter. That slowdown is responsible for simple refraction—a process we measure as the “index of refraction.” Remember, the velocity of light is 300 million meters per second in air and 225 million meters per second in water. That is why light slows and becomes curved as it enters and exists a planetary atmosphere. We call that the “Shapiro Effect.”[4] So this is yet another observation proving there is no perfectly empty space, no particles of light requiring it, no universal expansion, or Big Bang.

[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 337 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook]. Ch.15.1.

[2] Penzias, A. A., and Wilson, R. W., 1965, A Measurement of Excess Antenna Temperature at 4080 Mc/s: The Astrophysical Journal, v. 142, p. 419. [https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1965ApJ...142..419P].

Penzias, A. A., and Wilson, R. W., 1965, Measurement of the Flux Density of CAS a at 4080 Mc/s: The Astrophysical Journal, v. 142, p. 1149. [https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1965ApJ...142.1149P].

[3] Actually, a more recent discovery has fairly good evidence that a fast radio burst came from a “magnetar,” which is a highly magnetic, dense star in our own galaxy: 
[4] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 337 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook]. Ch. 17.5.


When Did Time Really Begin? The Little Loophole in the Big Bang

PSI Blog 20200622 When Did Time Really Begin? The Little Loophole in the Big Bang

Time is motion, but by definition, regressive physicists and cosmogonists do not know what time is. Their confusion seems boundless—well, almost. At least Hawking knew there would be no time without a universe. Although he was not a particularly good materialist, he seems to have had a vague recollection of Hegel’s famous dictum, which is the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion).

Read this article and watch how regressives dance all around the “mysterious” concept of time:

“In this invigorating PBS segment, New York-based Australian astrophysicist Matt O’Dowd delves into the science and splendor of when time actually began and what that illuminates about the nature of a universe which contains everything we know, including the mind that does the knowing, yet one which we are still getting to know”:

“In this next segment, O’Dowd considers the possibilities, as presently understood, of what might have happened before the Big Bang:”

Note how certain Matt is about the expanding universe interpretation. He obviously is not aware it is based on Einstein’s “Untired Light Theory”[1] and its assumption that space must be perfectly empty. Hope these two bits of PBS-sanctioned propaganda don’t make you too sick.

[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 337 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].


The Aether: Against the biggest mistake in the history of physics

PSI Blog 20200622 The Aether: Against the biggest mistake in the history of physics

Thanks to Bill Howell for this heads up on Jean de Climont’s latest. In many respects he is on the same page we are, though he seems a bit reluctant to say the word “aether,” instead calling it the “medium,” just like Newton did in his push theory.

Here are just a few things he gets right:

1.    Light is a wave in the aether.
2.    Photons do not exist.
3.    Aether is entrained around baryonic objects, including electrons.
4.    Sagnac proved the existence of aether.
5.    Gravitation is a push; not a pull.
6.    The LIGO experiment proved the detected motion was transmitted as a wave through the aether at the velocity of light.
7.    The cosmological redshift is a function of distance—not galactic recession.
8.    The universe is not expanding.
9.    There was no Big Bang.

The 30-minute video is a bit technical and covers a lot of ground pretty fast, but it is worth looking into, for the history, if nothing else:


Death of the Universe Nonsense Again

PSI Blog 20200615 Death of the Universe Nonsense Again

Nerissa Escanlar/Earth-Life Science Institute

Leave it to New Scientist to broadcast the latest woo-woo in cosmogony:

“Cosmologist Katie Mack spends her days pondering the end of everything. Whether the cosmos dies a slow heat death or winks out of existence tomorrow, she finds it helps put everyday troubles in perspective”

Read more: 

Wow! You can even get paid for that? All you have to do is assume the universe had a beginning like all the other Big Bangers do. Of course, if regressives were not generating and publishing this nonsense, then New Scientist could not write about it. Maybe they would have to turn to Jesus stories and homeopathic nostrums like National Geographic did when Murdoch got hold of it for a couple years.

The only thing good about this article is the interview with a woman evangelist instead of the usual suspects such as the venerable deGrasse.

Some quotes from cosmogonist Katie Mack:

“We can say what fraction of the universe’s energy density is matter and what is radiation, and we found out that a large proportion of the universe is made up of these invisible substances called dark matter and dark energy.”

Readers know "dark energy" does not exist--it is a calculation.

“Surely there are some other big things that we don’t understand?

There are also questions around the beginning of the universe. We think that the big bang, which was the beginning of the universe as we know it, happened about 13.8 billion years ago, and the first tiny fractions of a second after that saw the universe expand exponentially in a process called inflation. Most cosmologists agree that it happened, but there’s no solid theory on what would have caused it.”

Right—it surely must have been a miracle.

“There are several possibilities that I discuss in my book. The one that I think is most likely based on current data is called the heat death.

If the universe is expanding, and if its expansion continues to speed up, then space will get more and more dilute over time, which is to say there will be more and more space between each galaxy.”

Yeah sure, this is as “diluted” as the universe looks like as far as we can see:[1]

As readers know, the “heat death of the universe” trope is a logical conclusion of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that an isolated system only can undergo an increase in entropy (or disorder). Aside from the Big Bang Theory itself, that interpretation is one of the greatest achievements of systems philosophy (overemphasis on the system and underemphasis on the environment). The correct interpretation is founded on the Sixth Assumption of Science, complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things).[4]

It would be nice if Katie would think a bit more “outside the box,” consider Infinite Universe Theory, and join us in promoting the Last Cosmological Revolution.

[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 327 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook]. Figure 8.
[3] H. Teplitz and M. Rafelski (IPAC/Caltech), A. Koekemoer (STScI), R. Windhorst (Arizona State University), and Z. Levay (STScI).
[4] 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].