20181212

Where does Infinite Universe Theory get us?


PSI Blog 20181212 Where does Infinite Universe Theory get us?

In a piqué over the general lack of interest in IUT, I asked Rick (Director of the Michigan Office) this question.

As usual, Rick put it on the line in the way only he can do it:

I'd say IUT gets us to logical reasoning in all areas of philosophy. IUT is a devastating blow against immaterialism and indeterminism, for those with ears to hear it.

There are many podcasting atheists out there who I enjoy listening to, but some of them talk about a "respectable" Jungian value that religion and spirituality bring to humankind. Some sense of purpose or sense of wonder. BS! I couldn't disagree more. 

I think even the most harmless, touchy-feely, lovey-dovey, new-age "I'm not religious, but I'm spiritual" preacher perpetuates immaterialism, anti-naturalism, and anti-life. It's the poison that Plato injected into our cultural thinking long ago. All his highly-respected talk about "non-physical forms" that are the "true reality". That kind of attitude leads to unnecessary suffering in so many non-religious pursuits - technological, political, cultural…you name it. It leads people to worship words instead of matter, after-life instead of life here and now. I about puke when someone says at a funeral, "she's in a better place now".

I'll paraphrase something that comes to mind, "Materialism builds jet airliners. Immaterialism flies jet airliners into buildings." Or how about, "Good people do good things, bad people do bad things, but only religion and politics make good people do bad things"? Religion and politics are cultural insanity brought on by indeterminism and immaterialism.

People think it's admirable to believe weird and spooky ideas without any proof except the family tradition or cultural "norms". Stories made up by cave-dwellers or sheep-herders sitting around the campfire. So, if female genital mutilation is a "tradition", it must be hunky dory. If honor killings are considered sacred, go for it. If everyone says "support the troops" instead of "bring home the troops", we're in trouble if we make any observations about how military adventurism wastes lives, money, resources, time, and energy. (Not to mention the mega-pollution from depleted Uranium and other toxic chemicals used in warfare.)

My idea of fun:

With the upsurge in the popular belief in ghosts, I like to ask believers if their pet ghosts are affected at all by gravity or physical barriers like walls and floors. When they say, "no they are not affected by gravity or walls", I tell them that if that's so, the ghosts would go flying past us at 1,000 mph, as gravity holds us mere mortals to the earth while it rotates. And then I throw in the idea that we physical beings who are affected by gravity and inertia are traveling 66,000 mph, thanks to gravity keeping us attached to the earth as it orbits the sun. Any "non-physical entity" not affected by gravity would zip right past us at incredible speed. (And I don't use that word "incredible" lightly. It's such an overused word.)

Happy holidays,
Rick Doogie


20181205

Minor progress in the regressive community according to Steve Puetz


PSI Blog 20181205 Minor progress in the regressive community according to Steve Puetz

This is from my co-author, who is Director of the Hawaii PSI office:

Hi Glenn,

A few days ago, on the "Science Channel", I watched an interesting show called "How the universe operates". They still believe in the Big Bang Theory, however, it seems that astronomers have slightly changed their views over the past 10 years. Following, are some of their comments.

1) They noted that "dark matter" (aetherial matter) might actually be interactive (rather than the previous idea of mass-less dark matter that only has a gravitational effect). They came to this conclusion by studying how two galaxies collide. Of course, I still believe that "baryonic dark matter" exists, and helps explain the rotation of galaxies. The key take-away is that some astronomers seem to be rejecting the idea of mass-less dark matter (aetherial dark matter).

2) The moderator said that Zwicky's ideas are now being accepted by mainstream astronomers. He said that even though Zwicky was hated by his peers 30 years ago, the prevailing view now is that Zwicky was just too far ahead of his time. As Doogie noted in one of his e-mails, once new observations and new ideas are out there, they cannot be taken back. If the observations and ideas are correct, then scientists will eventually accept them. That appears to be true for Zwicky, as it has for many other unfortunate researchers who were too far ahead of their time. (For example, Borchardt's 10 Assumptions ... :smile.)

3) Mike Rampino was also on the show, discussing his theory of how dark matter causes cycles in asteroid strikes. If you recall, Rampino reviewed our paper on mass-extinctions (which I still have not rewritten).

In summary, the ideas within the scientific community continue to evolve -- slowly moving in the direction that we anticipate as they try to resolve contradictions and new observations. Of course, the progress is at a snail’s pace. I'm not sure when the 10 Assumptions will become mainstream....


20181128

Why does matter always contain other matter in motion?


PSI Blog 20181128 Why does matter always contain other matter in motion?

Abhishek asked this question. Here are my answers and his follow-ups:

[GB: For the same reason that a balloon contains matter inside to resist the matter outside--univironmental determinism, remember?]

Abhi:

Then what would happen if all forms of matter were not in motion?

[GB: There would be no universe.]

Abhi:

But why? Besides, when Einstein said that nothing can travel faster than light, he put an upper limit on maximum velocity in the universe i.e. 299,792,458 m/s. But what he said was actually wrong because faster than light is possible and there is no upper limit on maximum velocity in the universe. Similarly when you say that matter must be in motion, you are putting a lower limit on minimum velocity in the universe i.e. velocity of matter must be greater than 0 m/s and never equal to it. So it may be possible that this may also be equally wrong because there may not actually be any lower limit on minimum velocity in the universe just the same way there is no upper limit on maximum velocity in the universe. Can you please look deeply into the matter?

[GB: Look at the balloon example again. For the balloon to keep its shape, it simply must have enough pressure inside (submicrocosms in motion) to counteract the pressure outside (supermicrocosms in motion). This is true for all microcosms (things). Decrease the pressure inside and the microcosm implodes; decrease the pressure outside and microcosm explodes. The velocities of the submicrocosms and supermicrocosms are secondary.

By using the analog for sound in air, I have speculated that short-range travel of aether particles might occur at velocities 50% greater than what the medium produces for long-range travel. If you have a reference for faster than light travel, I would like to read it.

The reason c appears as an upper limit on velocity is because that is the velocity characteristic of wave motion through the aether medium. All media have a characteristic for wave velocity (e.g., air transmits sound at 343 m/s). Particle accelerators cannot exceed c because they use electromagnetic wave motion to perform the acceleration. Also, the aether medium is filled with aether particles that provide resistance to the motion of other particles.

Sorry, but to say there are velocities less than 0 makes no sense. On the other hand, you could say there are infinitely small velocities in the same way we can approach absolute zero, but never reach it. That is an experimental fact that provides support both for the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions) and for the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion).]



20181119

Print copies of “Infinite Universe Theory” now available!


PSI Blog 20181121 Print copies of “Infinite Universe Theory” now available!

Finally, IUT is available in paperback. You have a choice of black and white ($19.95) or color ($49.95). Purchasers of either of these can get a copy of the e-Book for $2.99. 

If you are on a tight budget, you can get the black and white version. You can see the color versions of the photos in the e-Book and use the links to check out the definitions and to visit my links to important web pages. 

Of course, the color version of the paperback is wonderful. Not many of those will be printed, so I suspect it will become a collector’s item.

All three versions are at:







20181114

Egads! Hawking says time travel possible!


PSI Blog 20181114 Egads! Hawking says time travel possible!


The passage of the premier propagandist (Stephen Hawking 1942-2018) for the Big Bang Theory has just been marked by his recent posthumous last words:


His claim that time travel is possible also makes him only second to Einstein as the most famous regressive physicist.

As our readers know, the correct assumption is irreversibility. Here is the brief passage I wrote starting on page 80 in Infinite Universe Theory :

 Seventh: Irreversibility


All processes are irreversible.

“Irreversibility deals with the abstraction of motion that we call time. In its broadest application, universal time is the motion of all things with respect to all other things. In its narrowest application, specific time is the motion of one thing with respect to another thing. Again, time is motion, and therefore does not exist—it occurs. Time is not part of the universe. It is what its various parts do. Time is irreversible because each motion of each microcosm in the Infinite Universe is unique. Folks who still believe that travel into the past might be possible are either delusional Sci-fi fans or victims of relativity.

One way to view it is this:

1.   It is a fact that the planets, stars, galaxies, etc. are in motion with respect to each other.
2.   That makes the night sky unique. It is never the same even two seconds in a row.
3.   “Going back in time” would entail moving those heavenly bodies back to the positions they had on the night targeted for this fanciful adventure. Good luck with that.

The opposing assumption, reversibility, underpins systems philosophy, which tends to overemphasize the system and neglect the environment. Lab technicians often believe they can demonstrate reversibility by providing a semblance of former experimental conditions. When we ignore the environment, reactions in such systems seem like they are reversible. However, when the environment is included, then each reaction properly appears unique and unprecedented. With perfectly empty space being impossible and with the ubiquity of aether, our inability to produce perfect isolation prevents us from getting exactly the same result each time we perform an experiment. Even though the idea of reversible time makes great stories for science fiction, it holds no relevance in the real world. Prospective time-travelers are destined to be forever disappointed.”

That is simple, but not so if you fail to get your assumptions in a row. Looks like regressive physics will be wallowing in its mess for quite some time…




20180815

Why will the adoption of Infinite Universe Theory be the “Last Cosmological Revolution”?


PSI Blog 20180815 Why will the adoption of Infinite Universe Theory be the “Last Cosmological Revolution”?


In his fine YouTube review of my Blog on why the universe exists, David de Hilster objected to the implication that Infinite Universe Theory [1]would be the last of the cosmological revolutions. Normally, in science, we can have no “last” or “ultimate” theories. That is because all theories have finite components and all are subject to impacts from the infinite macrocosm, which then force necessary revisions. A good example is my revision of Newton’s laws of motion after I assumed infinity.[2] An “ultimate” theory would have to contain an infinite number of factors—an impossible feat.

We then need to review the nature of revolution. “Revolution” is actually a misnomer implying a complete rotation. Instead, the word usually describes a 180-degree or half rotation, such as when those on top are displaced by those on the bottom. Similarly, a revolution in thought occurs when one abandons a particular viewpoint to adopt its opposite. The First Cosmological Revolution occurred when we abandoned the Earth-centered universe in favor of the heliocentric one. The second was when we realized our Sun was only one of the billions of stars in the Milky Way. The third was when those fuzzy objects in the night sky thought to be “island universes” actually were a few of the 2 trillion galaxies now observed.

Through all that time, we stood steadfast in our assumption that the universe was finite. Logically, that meant that the universe had a beginning and would have an end, just like each of the things within it. However, when we assume just the opposite—infinity, we produce a revolution in thought. When applied to the entire universe Infinite Universe Theory amounts to the “Last” cosmological revolution. Sure, the theory will be revised and modified as more and more infinite detail is discovered, but the revolutionary aspect of the theory will never change. We can never really go back to the idea that the universe is finite. Sure, one can assume either finity or infinity. There never can be a complete, final proof of such a fundamental assumption.[3] We never can go to the “end of the universe” to answer that question. Logically, we are forced to assume one or the other. My whole project has been to show how the assumption of infinity leads to answers to the many paradoxes and contradictions plaguing today’s “modern” physics and cosmology. Sure, there will be counter-revolutionary attempts, but eventually all will fail.
   



[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 325 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].

[2] The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions.

[3] Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The Ten Assumptions of Science: Toward a new scientific worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/TTAOS].




20180808

Why does the universe exist? An update.


PSI Blog 20180808 Why does the universe exist? An update.


See the original, as revised at PSI Blog 20180718.

20180801

Believers gotta believe: The Shroud of Turin and its falsification


PSI Blog 20180801 Believers gotta believe: The Shroud of Turin and its falsification

In the 14th Century, the Catholic Church in what is now Turin, Italy fell short of funds. It was left to some Einsteinian-type genius to come up with some way to get folks to renew the faith and fill the coffers. This was achieved by preparing a shroud, or cloth upon which was impressed an image remarkably similar to the one imagined by many and seen in artwork of the time. Ever since, this “Shroud of Turin” has been visited by the devout and prayed over as if it actually was Christ’s burial cloth.

The debate over authenticity was finally settled when a tiny piece of the cloth was carbon dated at between 1260 and 1390 A.D., falsifying the authenticity of the shroud and proving it was a fake.[1] That did not end the debate. There are many “scientists” who have continued to root for authenticity. There is even one fellow who claims that carbon dating is not valid—this despite the fact that we have thousands of C-14 dates nearly identical to dates obtained in other ways. For instance, redwood trees with 2000 rings began growing about 2,000 years ago according to C-14. Believers gotta believe and the church in Turin continues to call the shroud “holy” and to display it occasionally, presumably to benefit financially from the miseducation of the gullible.

Recently, the shroud has entered the news again, with an analysis of some of the stains that make up the image.[2] Once again, the conclusion from the new investigation is that it is indeed a fake. That, of course, will not satisfy those who wish with all their heart that it wasn’t so. Believers gotta believe.[3]

For those opposed to the current cosmogony, there is a clear lesson here with regard to the nature of falsification. Because the universe is infinite, scientific theories cannot be completely proven, although they can be falsified. That is, it only takes one observation or experiment (like C-14 dating) to prove a theory false. To save a theory from such reprehensible collisions with reality, we often invent ad hocs, which are exceptions that, if included, help the theory fit the data at hand. The ad hocs eventually may prove to be valid—infinite universal causality being what it is, one can always include an additional factor that might just do the trick. More likely, they just make the theory more cumbersome, challenging Ockham’s razor and often stretching believability. Still, believers gotta believe.

We see this with regard to the Big Bang Theory, which is founded on the interpretation that the universe is expanding. That is based on Einstein’s Untired Light Theory, which is based on eight ad hocs[4] needed to explain why the imagined light corpuscles did not behave like the classical particles falsified by Sagnac[5] and by de Sitter.[6]  These particles, subsequently called “photons,” are truly miraculous. They are massless, always travel at the same velocity, do not collide with each other, never take on the motion of the source, etc. Unlike other particles, photons supposedly travel for billions of years through the idealist’s completely empty space without losing energy, in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Nothing we know of, whether particle or wave can travel from point A to point B without losing energy. That, of course, is what we observe with the cosmological redshift—light waves become longer as they lose energy. And yet, regressive physicists assume the increase in wavelength is due to the “Doppler Effect” or the assumed “expansion of empty space” and the resulting assumed galactic recession. They are not bothered by the violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Believers gotta believe…


[1] Damon, P. E. and others, 1989, Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin: Nature, v. 337, no. 6208, p. 611-615. [https://doi.org/10.1038/337611a0].

[2] David, Ariel, 2018, CSI Study of Shroud of Turin Proves Again: Jesus Relic Is Fake, Accessed 0719 [http://go.glennborchardt.com/shroudofturin2018].

[3] For an extensive review of the fiasco, see Wikipedia, 2018, Shroud of Turin.

[4] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 325 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].

[5] Sagnac, Georges, 1913a, The demonstration of the luminiferous aether by an interferometer in uniform rotation: Comptes Rendus, v. 157, p. 708–710.

Sagnac, Georges, 1913b, On the proof of the reality of the luminiferous aether by the experiment with a rotating interferometer: Comptes Rendus, v. 157, p. 1410–1413.


[6] de Sitter, Willem, 1913, An Astronomical Proof for the Constancy of the Speed of Light (English translation): Physik. Zeitschr., v. 14, p. 429. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/desitter13light].



20180718

Why does the universe exist?


PSI Blog 20180718 Why does the universe exist?



The universe exists because it cannot not exist. Nonexistence is impossible. That is because nonexistence would require perfectly empty space, which is completely imaginary. Space is one of the ideal end members of the empty space-solid matter continuum. As with all idealizations, empty space and solid matter cannot exist. According to “Infinite Universe Theory,” everything in existence has both characteristics. We use those idealizations to avoid hitting walls and to go through doorways even though walls are not perfectly solid and doorways are not perfectly empty.

In other words, the universe exists because empty space is impossible. The universe produces an infinite number of things, but it cannot produce perfectly empty space. Production requires the convergence of other “things”. “Perfectly empty space” is not a thing, so the convergence of “nothing” to form more “nothing” is oxymoronic. However, when we consider “space” as matter, it fits our definition of matter as an abstraction for all things.[1] Also, according to infinity[2] , all things contain other things. That is why we have never been able to find any perfectly empty space[3]; and why perfectly solid matter is impossible.[4]

Although the infinite universe cannot be completely understood by anyone, we gradually accumulate knowledge that allows us to survive and to “make sense” of our surroundings. Again, the scientific answer to why the universe exists is simply that it is impossible for it not to exist. When folks ask: “Why is there something instead of nothing?” they are sensing “something,” but only imagining “nothing.”

Idealists inclined to ask these questions are unlikely to be satisfied by the answer provided by Infinite Universe Theory. That is because idealists tend to think in absolute terms. For them, space is empty and matter is solid. By its nature, the infinite universe always “passes the buck.” They will continue to ask the question: “But where did it all come from?” Each thing in the infinite universe is a complex formed from still other things in the universe. The nice, tidy finite universe of the Big Bang Theory appeals because everything we have observed had a beginning. To finally realize those observations do not apply to the universe as a whole is a grandiose step. It is to finally reject cosmogony[5] and to join the Last Cosmological Revolution. 




[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The Ten Assumptions of Science: Toward a new scientific worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, p. 17 [http://go.glennborchardt.com/TTAOS].

[2] The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions.

[3] Absolute zero (0oK) cannot be obtained and the “vacuum” of outer space contains enough matter to yield a temperature of 2.7oK.

[5] The study of the origin of the universe. Cosmogony, of course, assumes that the universe is finite and that it had an origin, with the additional implication that it will have an ending (see also “Blog 20160330 The death of heat death”).

20180711

Why acceleration requires collisions


PSI Blog 20180711 Why acceleration requires collisions


Abhi asks:

“In your newly released article ’The Physical Cause of Gravitation',[1] you wrote that the unseen particles involved in these collisions provide the acceleration that drives gravitation. But if those particles stop existing, will gravitation also stop occurring?”

[GB: Per Newton's Second Law of Motion, all causes (i.e., events, changes, etc.) involve collisions resulting in the acceleration of the collidee and deceleration of the collider. This is the guts of the philosophy of mechanism and its proposition that the universe consists of matter in motion. Indeterminists, especially regressive physicists and religious folks, do not necessarily believe this. That is why some especially naïve people still believe in ESP (Extra Sensory Perception). It is why many of today’s physicists say that Einstein’s relativity overthrew classical mechanics. It is why I say they are regressive. It is why my gravitation paper was just rejected outright by the editor of Physical Review Letters (returned in 24.46 hr without review). It does not take much training in regressive physics to reject the first sentence in that paper:

The physical cause of gravitation is simple: the collision of one thing with another.

As I pointed out in that paper, gravitation is acceleration. Every acceleration results in a deceleration—simple. The fact that the particles doing the accelerating are unseen is no big deal. Air particles cannot be seen either, but they do plenty of accelerating. Abhi, you are right that if aether particles stopped existing, there would be no more gravitation. Similarly, if air particles stopped existing, there would be no more breathing or hearing.

You also ask: “Besides, why do you assume they are “aether” particles when we do not know exactly what these particles are?” There is a lengthy history in which aether has commonly played a part.[2] Reread my paper to review Newton’s effort at hypothesizing a medium accounting for gravitation. Aether is theoretically necessary because, according to Newton’s three laws, there are no true pulls in nature. The recent LIGO experiments show that light and galactic shock waves (regressives call them gravitational waves) both travel within the aether medium at the same velocity—the speed of light. All waves require a medium. That is what Sagnac found in 1913, correctly calling it “aether.”[3]

The Michelson-Morley experiment[4] was searching for a medium in which their hypothetical particles were not assumed to collide with matter. I now use the “ether” spelling for that kind of particle, which we now know does not exist—all things are in motion, capable of colliding with other things. Aether, on the other hand, does exist, comprising the “dark matter” entrained around all matter. It is entrained because it becomes decelerated upon colliding with other matter as explained in my paper.]


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

[2] Whittaker, E.T., 1951, A history of the theories of aether and electricity: The classical theories: New York, Harper Torchbooks, v. 1, 434 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/Whittaker-I].

Whittaker, E.T., 1953, A history of the theories of aether and electricity: The modern theories, 1900-1926 II: New York, Harper and Brothers, v. 2, 319 p. [I have a pdf of this. Just let me know and I can send a copy.][BTW: Jesse Witwer and I are working on a sorely needed update.]

[3] Sagnac, Georges, 1913a, The demonstration of the luminiferous aether by an interferometer in uniform rotation: Comptes Rendus, v. 157, p. 708–710.

Sagnac, Georges, 1913b, On the proof of the reality of the luminiferous aether by the experiment with a rotating interferometer: Comptes Rendus, v. 157, p. 1410–1413.

[4] Michelson, A.A., and Morley, E.W., 1887, On the relative motion of the earth and the luminiferous ether: American Journal of Science, v. 39, p. 333-345. [http://www.anti-relativity.com/MM_Paper.pdf].









20180704

Inconstancy of the speed of light


PSI Blog 20180704 Inconstancy of the speed of light

Thanks to Captain Bligh for his question about the constancy of the speed of light (SOL):

 Upon entering a new medium (such as glass or water), the speed and wavelength of light is reduced, although the frequency remains unaltered.-http://light.physics.auth.gr/enc/wavelength_en.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remember they teach us that frequency and wavelength are reciprocal. Right? This is not the case according to this source. In a medium the SOL varies as does the wavelength, but not the frequency.
Am I missing something here?

[GB: You are right. I explained this in Chapter 14.2 of IUT.[1] Reciprocity is drilled into our heads just like the slogan “There is no aether.” That is why it seems such a shock when we first find out that SOL is not constant and that SOL in water is only 225,000,000 m/s instead of the 300,000,000 m/s that occurs in air. Another shock occurs when we find out that wavelengths decrease in water, but that the frequency does not. Still another is the fact that red light in air and red light in water has two different wavelengths (650 nm vs. 488 nm) but the same frequency. In other words, color is determined by frequency, not wavelength. Incidentally, that is why distant galaxies with high redshifts are not necessarily red.

Frequency is determined by the source of a wave. Thus, if I am in a motionless boat and hit the water with my paddle once every second, the frequency of those collisions will be 1/s (one per second).  Nothing can change that. I could do it in a lake filled with molasses—the frequency still would be 1/s. I could stand on dry land and do the same—the frequency still would be 1/s. In progressive physics we say that there are no constants in nature, although frequency comes closest to being the only exception. Frequency never changes because it represents an action that has occurred in the past. Once my paddle collides with the medium, I cannot “uncollide” it, in the same way you cannot undo what you did yesterday. Of course, the production of perfect frequency is impossible. For instance, I cannot hit my paddle at exactly one second intervals. Due to causality, there always will be some plus or minus variation.  Remember also, as we have seen with the Doppler Effect, that the measurement of frequency must take into account the motion of the source, the motion of the observer, and the rate at which the intervening medium conducts wave motion.

BTW: The above lesson would have greatly aided Pound and Rebka[2] in interpreting their “gravitational redshift” experiment. They mistakenly attributed their results to changes in frequency instead of changes in wavelength. Keeping SOL constant, then required them to invoke “time dilation” in their interpretation that light photons actually existed and were affected by gravitation.]




[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 325 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].
[2] 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].



20180627

Einstein's Zenith


PSI Blog 20180627 Einstein's Zenith

It seems that Einstein worship seems to have peaked. As the genius hero of heroes, Albert could do nothing wrong. He was always made out to be right in the popular press. Now that all seems to have changed. Of course, that is nothing new. The press sells media and advertisements when you climb the popularity mountain and again when you come crashing down. The recent publication of his racist travel diaries may be the beginning of the end for our favorite genius physicist. Grade school teachers will have to find some other model who has long hair and looks smart.

One always can ask: Why now? Are these revelations part of the “Me Too” and “Lives Matter” campaigns? Long ago, those of us in the know were apprised of Einstein’s moral difficulties with fidelity, family matters, and proper attribution. The press conveniently ignored that stuff, just like they still ignore the obvious contradictions in relativity. Reporters are reluctant to reverse direction. Those with careers on the line cannot say the universe is expanding one day and not the next. That is why I think this particular reversal is significant. Maybe we are in the age of hero destruction, which I suspect precedes every revolution.

Einstein’s reputation will suffer even greater damage when the Big Bang Theory is replaced by Infinite Universe Theory during the Last Cosmological Revolution. Here is an example of what the press had to say about Albert’s racism:


This commentary from Trevor Noah of The Daily Show on Comedy Central is particularly hard-hitting:



20180620

The Physical Cause of Gravitation

PSI Blog 20180620 The Physical Cause of Gravitation

Abstract[1]

The physical cause of gravitation is simple: the collision of one thing with another. Here I propose that the unseen particles involved in these collisions provide the acceleration that drives gravitation. We do not know exactly what these particles are, but it is clear they must be decelerated in the process. Here I assume they are “aether” particles, as distinguished from the anathematic fixed “ether” particles nullified by the famous Michelson-Morley experiment. Having been decelerated, aether particles become lethargic, tending to hang around whatever baryonic matter was involved in the collision. Like the nitrogen in Earth’s atmosphere, these aether particles are entrained, attached to Earth as a far-reaching “dark matter” halo. They provide the physical reason for interpretations of gravity calling for “curved space.” At low altitudes this entrained “aetherosphere” allows little of the “ether wind” that Michelson and Morley tried to measure. The upshot: proximal aether is less active (lower pressure) than distal aether (higher pressure). Things in the vicinity of massive objects receive stronger impacts from the distal side of the halo than from the proximal side. This Aether Deceleration Theory is supported by much of the data generally considered as confirmation of General Relativity Theory.

The entire paper is downloadable as a PDF at the link in this citation:

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

The direct link to the pdf is here:  http://go.glennborchardt.com/TPCOGpdf



[1] Note: After working on this intermittently for the last 40 years, I finally felt comfortable enough with the result to hurdle through the mainstream publication process. Nowadays, the first step is to put your unreviewed paper on an e-print site, arXiv, or viXra, the alternative. Unfortunately, the arXiv site is highly censored, being well-guarded by academics who have grown up with the “no-aether” paradigm necessary to join the physics establishment. You would have to be endorsed by one of them before submitting a paper.

The viXra site is also free, does not require endorsements, applies no censorship, and will post anything scientific that is not libellous. And unlike conference proceedings, anything you post normally is not considered “previously published,” which otherwise would make it ineligible for mainstream journals. I encourage all dissidents to consider viXra. Your paper is date-stamped, can be revised, and will be available perpetually as a free download. It might even be recognized by the mainstream after the aether ban is lifted.



20180613

Physics off the rails


PSI Blog 20180613 Physics off the rails


Every once in a while even the mainstream subconsciously realizes how pathetic physics has become. Here is an article by NBC News entitled “Why some scientists say physics has gone off the rails.”

It is centered on the failure of mathematical physics to discover anything of significance about reality since 1970. As usual, it includes a glorification of Einstein and quantum mechanics. It does hint that string theory and its umpteen dimensions is worthless.

The article doesn’t suggest much about what needs to be changed, although it has some subtle complaints that the billions taxpayers spent on mathematical physics may have not been worth it.

The article itself is an indication that the relativity-Big Bang paradigm has reached the end of its usefulness. Thousands of academic papers are being turned out with diminishing returns. The interviewees have criticisms, but don’t have a clue:





20180606

Free speech, censorship, and the Big Bang Theory


PSI Blog 20180606 Free speech, censorship, and the Big Bang Theory

The news is neither fake nor new that those who dare to confront popular ideas face deprecation and censorship. The guardians of the Big Bang Theory are numerous and relentless. The paradigm must be protected at all costs—billions in funding are at stake. The censorship usually is quite subtle: rejections of manuscripts and grant proposals. Mild criticism of “A Universe from Nothing”[1] can get you disinvited from a debate on the subject by no less than Neil deGrasse Tyson,[2] the new point man for the BBT. So far, the attack on free speech in physics has not reached the violence promoted by the regressive left at UC and Evergreen State, where opposing views are now banned from campus.

Of course, our crusade to overthrow the Big Bang Theory is absolutely dependent on free speech. Courtesy of Jerry Coyne, here is part of John Stuart Mill’s famous chapter on the importance of free speech.

According to the editors of the piece:

“Mill opens his argument for free speech by imagining a world in which just one person holds a view contrary to that held by the rest of humanity. What harm could be done by silencing this lone eccentric?”






[1] Krauss, L.M., 2012, A universe from nothing: Why there is something rather than nothing: New York, Free Press, 224 p.

20180530

Belief, the unconscious, and the Big Bang Theory


PSI Blog 20180530 Belief, the unconscious, and the Big Bang Theory


Thanks to Marilyn again for this interesting apropos link:


This is a nice interview with Dr. Bruce Lipton who wrote a book on belief. It is mostly about the differences between your conscious and unconscious brain. Your unconscious brain stores all your permanent memory such as “muscle memory,” which allows you to be an excellent athlete (or a mediocre one if you practice incorrectly). It is what allows you to drive down the highway automatically, not actually remembering parts of the trip. It is what regressives store in their brains in preparation for the physics of Big Bang Theory.

I just ran into a good example of this the other day. As you know, Hubble discovered the distance/redshift relationship that regressives use to support the current belief that the universe is expanding. I was trying to find a distance/redshift curve on the Internet. No such luck. All I could find in reputable publications were recessional velocity/redshift curves. Obviously, to work as an astronomer or cosmologist or astrophysicist today, one must unconsciously accept the assumption that distance values always must be converted to velocity values. As Dr. Lipton says, the unconscious learns through repetition. That is why slogans are so good in politics and science. First lesson in physics: “There is no aether,” “there is no aether.” Repeat 5,000 times and you are a physicist. First lesson in cosmogony: “distance is velocity,” “distance is velocity.” Repeat 10,000 times and you are a cosmogonist. You now are well-trained to use the Big Bang Theory at work. You might even get to tell the great unwashed all about how the entire universe exploded out of nothing on TV.

BTW: Much of Lipton’s interview is about how your subconscious brain affects your health. I experienced this myself when I decided happiness was the most important thing about life. I used Lipton’s slogan “Fake it until you make it.” I can’t say that I have been truly unhappy any time since. My resulting optimism overshadows everything. Maybe that is why I am still tilting at the Big Bang Theory.