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.


Slow Motion and the Eventual Disposition of Black Holes

PSI Blog 20190703 Slow Motion and the Eventual Disposition of Black Holes

A great question with many profound implications from Abhishek Chakravartty:

 “You wrote that solids, unlike the gases in the atmosphere, have fewer “degrees of freedom.” But this would mean that there can be matter without motion because if the "degree of freedom" of any form of matter becomes 0, it would not be in motion and it would be a form of matter without motion. Can you please look deeply into this?”

[GB: Abhi, you are correct in implying that zero degrees of freedom would be a violation of the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion). That never happens in the same way absolute zero (0oK) never can be achieved. Even outer space has a temperature of 2.7 oK. Temperature is a measure of the motion of matter.

The atoms in solids are in close juxtaposition. We think of them as being bound together. Regressives would say they are “attracted to each other.” Because of that, their degrees of freedom are restricted. Nevertheless, they continually vibrate because the revolutions of electrons around the nucleus are never perfect. Degrees of freedom never can be zero. Thus, metal contains atoms joined together in “almost” fixed positions. When heated, the vibrations within increase. This motion is transferred to your skin when you touch a hot frying pan.

As explained in more detail in PSI Blog 20190320, all things must be in motion to exist. And, as explained in PSI Blog 20190417, the centers of aetherial vortices such as the solar system and the Milky Way tend to become increasingly dense as they emit motion to their surroundings. The Sun is a nice example of fusion, in which two hydrogen atoms combine to form one helium atom. The resulting helium atom has less internal motion than the sum of the internal motion of the two hydrogen atoms considered separately. Per neomechanics, as described by the E=mc2 equation, this submicrocosmic motion is emitted across the microcosmic boundary, being transferred to supermicrocosms (extent aether particles) in the macrocosm.[1] This motion produces waves in the aether otherwise known as sunlight.

Continued fusion produces increasingly heavier combinations and still more light as seen for neutron stars, supernovas, and quasars. The nuclei of galaxies, otherwise known as “black holes,” have lost so much motion to their surroundings that they presumably emit very little light. That name has stuck although Hawking eventually admitted that they probably were “gray holes,” emitting at least some light.[2] These nuclei are highly dense and like the solids mentioned above, they must contain submicrocosms with few degrees of freedom.

But do they have zero degrees of freedom? That appears to be exactly what the younger Hawking believed when he was pushing the Black Hole idealism. That view was akin to the “perfectly solid matter” idealization I previously discussed as the opposite of the equally bogus “perfectly empty space” idealization.[3] It is nice to see the elder Hawking gave up that part of his otherwise magical thinking. Is the Black Hole the end state for matter?

The correct answer is no. Here are some theoretical and observational reasons for that answer:


Idealistic mathematicians might calculate that Black Holes are infinitely dense and that their contents therefore have zero degrees of freedom. Of course, that would violate the Tenth Assumption of Science, interconnection (All things are interconnected, that is, between any two objects exist other objects that transmit matter and motion). There is another assumption that may help us understand the eventual disposition of Black Holes. It is the Sixth Assumption of Science, complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things). In sum, that means every microcosm in the universe is the result of a coming together of other things, followed by a coming apart of those things.


In "Universal Cycle Theory" we emphasized the part played by rotation in the life of cosmological objects.[4] When microcosms rotate they tend to accrete matter and when their rotation slows they tend to excrete matter. For instance, planets that rotate rather fast tend to have satellites (moons); those that rotate slowly tend to have no satellites, excreting gases instead. The accreting Earth rotates once a day while the excreting Venus rotates once every four months. In other words, Earth is still subject to convergence (birth), while Venus is undergoing divergence (death).


Remember that my speculation about the formation of baryonic matter involved the convergence of high-speed aether particles of unequal size.[5] Juxtaposition of small particles around large particles resulted in a reduction of the types of aetherial impacts that normally would force them apart. And, as I illustrated with the “cattle roundup” example, fast longitudinal motion produces fast rotational motion that results in slow longitudinal motion. Individuals within the herd travel just as fast in a circle, but the herd as a whole becomes stationary. Planetary and galactic accretion is a similar process.

Now, galactic nuclei (Black Holes) tend to rotate rapidly, accreting the stars and other matter around them in huge quantities. According to Wikipedia: “One black hole, at the heart of galaxy NGC 1365 is turning at 84% the speed of light.” Looks like the excretion phase of that galactic nucleus will not occur soon. Steve and I calculated that our own Milky Way galaxy will take at least 37,000 trillion years to mature and for excretion to begin.[6] What will happen to the nucleus after the 400 billion stars in the galaxy are pushed into it and its rotation becomes imperceptible? If the universe really is infinite, I predict that it has numerous extremely dense, solitary, slowly rotating, mostly nonluminous “Black Holes” that are the remnants of former galaxies. Like the slowly rotating Venus, these cosmological microcosms would excrete matter to the macrocosm per the Second Law of Thermodynamics until they disappear altogether.

[1] 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]. [Free download, which has been downloaded over 4,500 times according to ResearchGate.net.]
[2] Lewis, Geraint, 2014, Grey is the new black hole: is Stephen Hawking right?: The Conversation, APA citation:, Accessed 20171022 [http://go.glennborchardt.com/Lewis14BHaregrey].
[3] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 349 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].
[4] 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/].
[5] Borchardt, 2017, ibid. [Note that if analogous to the short-range velocity of nitrogen molecules in air, aether particles would have short-range velocity of 1.5c].
[6] Puetz and Borchardt, ibid, p. 172.


Regressive physicist bought and paid for by religion

PSI Blog 20190522 Regressive physicist bought and paid for by religion

PSI books contend that the inordinate influence of religion on the philosophy of science is what drives acceptance of the Big Bang Theory. Over 80% of the people in the world are religious.[1] The Big Bang Theory was invented by a priest. It is a cosmogony. That is, it assumes that the universe had a beginning. Even atheistic scientists such as Jerry Coyne have suckered into that charade even though they would not accept direct payments from religious organizations. As a former professor of evolutionary biology, he knows that the contradictions between science and religion cannot be resolved.[2]

This year, the award of the “Templeton Prize” to an overtly religious physicist struck a special chord in Jerry’s chimes:

The prize is for £1 million ($1.29 million), which went to Marcelo Gleiser of Dartmouth College for "affirming life's spiritual dimension." As shown in Jerry’s post above, Gleiser knew just what was expected of him. Scientific American (Egads!) declared: “Atheism is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method, Prizewinning Physicist Says.” This was particularly egregious, but it does seem like we might need a constitutional amendment declaring the separation of church and physics. Except for the explosion of something from nothing and belief in untired light, most physicists avoid any mention of the supernatural. Nevertheless, most of us are well acquainted with religious assumptions, with belief in cosmogony still being second nature (as it is for Jerry Coyne, unfortunately). Let’s all hope Marcelo finds some “spiritual dimensions” before the Big Bang Theory and religion succumbs to logic.

[1] https://go.glennborchardt.com/80-percent-of-world-religious
[2] https://go.glennborchardt.com/war


Infinity or Determinism?

PSI Blog 20190619 Infinity or Determinism?

Infinity or Determinism?

Dialogue, Glenn Borchardt and William Markiewicz

[GB: Below is a dialogue I had between 2009 and 2012 with Wilek (William) Markiewicz, a Toronto writer and artist. He left Poland after the war, eventually founding The Polish Canadian Courier, the first Polish independent paper in North America. He published this dialogue on his Vagabond website. You may have similar questions and be ready for my similar answers.]  

Dear Glenn,

After a prolonged absence, I opened Vagabond’s Communication Page (May June issue) www.vagabondpages.com/may09/communication.html, and what caught my attention was the title “Determinism” which was the subject line of your email and I don’t see the connection with the topic. Is this a mistake? -- because “Infinity” would be a more appropriate title than Determinism. Please let me know.

I have always been fascinated by the idea of infinite universe, infinite big and infinite small. As my mind and senses operate in 3-4 dimensions I will ignore right now the infinite dimensions which have beautiful mathematical formulas but seem to me abstractions, like abstract paintings. So, from the platform of my own dimension, putting aside other dimensions like, for instance, “string theory”, I have the following question which can or cannot be answered, in my view, it cannot: If I have no problem with an infinitely big universe because it is not space that is lacking, how may the universe be reduced to infinity? Where can remain matter in practically no space and, how can matter be something other than matter? For our 3-4 dimensional mind, matter and space are inseparable. If you have some comments I would gladly publish them if you don’t mind.

Thank you very much

[GB: William:

Thanks so much for your interesting questions. I was struck by your philosophical bent and just thought you might be interested in The Scientific Worldview (TSW). So few people seem to have the background and nonprejudicial mind necessary for understanding the philosophy of univironmental determinism (the proposition that whatever happens to a portion of the universe is determined equally by the matter in motion within and without). This philosophy assumes micro and macro infinity, and with it, an assumption of causality derived from Bohm (1957). I have labeled Bohm’s view as “infinite universal causality.” It states that there are an infinite number of causes for any effect. In science, we are lucky to determine the primary causes, labeling the remaining causes as unknown. This is why there is a plus or minus in every real measurement. Classical mechanics and what is commonly referred to as “determinism” used finite universal causality, based on the assumption that there were a finite number of causes for a particular effect. With it, Laplace’s Demon was erroneously assumed able to postdict the past and predict the future with perfect accuracy and precision. Classical mechanics also contained the (usually hidden) presupposition that the universe was microcosmically and macrocosmically finite.

I share your suspicions about mathematics. My view is as follows:
Reality involves a Euclidean universe that consists of matter in motion. Matter exists, that is, it has xyz dimensions and location with respect to other material objects. Matter always contains other matter within it, ad infinitum. That is, there are no partless parts, as was erroneously assumed by the atomists. Motion is what matter does. Motion is not “part” of the universe.

Ideality involves our ideas about matter and the motion of matter. We use the ideality of math to provide imperfect predictions regarding the motions of matter in the real world. But unlike those overcome with idealism, we must continually remind ourselves that the world is real and that our ideas are not. Thus we may have the idea of perfectly empty space and the idea of perfectly solid matter, but neither could possibly exist. All real things lie on the continuum between those two ideas. Space always contains “matter” and matter always contains “space.” Therefore we agree that space is matter. In TSW I also assume that time is the motion of matter. Time is not a thing. Unlike material objects, I cannot put time in my back pocket (even though it would be nice).

The concept of 4-dimensional spacetime is just that, a concept, an idea. Spacetime cannot exist. Only space (xyz) can exist. I can see my desk occupying a particular xyz space and I can imagine it occupying a similar space tomorrow, but that does not make spacetime material. The concept of spacetime may be useful, but like other matter-motion terms (TSW, p. 53-63) it is neither matter nor motion. This is where the Big Bang and string theorists have traded reality for ideality. These folks actually believe that more than 3 dimensions are possible, in fact, it is a job requirement. Moreover, they will not agree that the universe presents us with only two phenomena: 1) matter and 2) the motion of matter. A “modern physicist” seldom will know what time is.

I urge you to read TSW or some of the papers abstracted from it. Pdfs and links are available on the PSI website. My blog http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2007/06/welcome-to-scientific-worldview.html contains numerous questions that I have answers from the univironmental point of view.


Bohm, D., 1957, Causality and chance in modern physics: New York, Harper and Brothers, 170 p.

Links to these are at www.scientificphilosophy.com:

Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, Ten assumptions of science and the demise of 'cosmogony': Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, v. 1, no. 1, p. 3-6.

Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The ten assumptions of science and the demise of cosmogony [abs.], Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Southwestern and Rocky Mountain Division: Metropolitan State College of Denver and the Colorado-Wyoming Academy of Sciences, 79th Annual Meeting of AAAS-SWARM, v. Program with Abstracts, p. 22-23 [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221706041_The_ten_assumptions_of_science_and_the_demise_of_cosmogony].

Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, Ten assumptions of science and the demise of 'cosmogony', Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, v. 1, no. 1, p. 3-6 [10.13140/2.1.2638.5607].

Borchardt, Glenn, 2007, Infinite universe theory, Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance: Storrs, CN, v. 4, no. 1, p. 20-23 [10.13140/RG.2.1.3515.0247].

Borchardt, Glenn, 2007, The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 411 p. [ http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/ ].

Infinity forever,

You Wrote:

"Motion is not “part” of the universe"
This sounds murky. If not part of the universe then part of what? Is our own motion not part of the universe either? Of course, put on your blog whatever you like.


[GB: Thanks.

I must admit that it is hard for many folks to grasp the reality of motion not being a “part” of the universe. Parts have xyz dimensions; motions do not. For instance, legs are part of the universe; running is not. Running is not a thing, it is what things do. Running does not have xyz dimensions and therefore is not “part” of the universe. The fact that running “occurs” within the universe does not make it “part” of the universe. The parts of the universe are divisible, while motion is not.

Here is a bit from a paper on “The Physical Meaning of E=mc2” that I am working on at the moment:

“Language as the Key to Reality

All languages are based on nouns and verbs, that is, things and their motions. The “physical meaning” that we seek in our everyday life is none other than that formalized in the abstract as “matter” and “motion.” My usage of the terms is as follows:

“Matter” is the abstraction for “all things.” Things have length, breath, and width; they have existence. There is no such thing as “matter” per se, just as there is no such thing as “fruit” per se. We only have specific examples of individual things, just as we only have specific examples of fruit, such as apples or oranges. From infinity, we realize that each xyz portion of the universe contains matter, things that always contain other things, ad infinitum. In other words, there are no partless parts. Empty space and solid matter are ideas. Reality exists in the continuum between them. The further implication is that empty space cannot exist and that nonexistence is impossible.

“Motion” is the abstraction for what things do. Motion does not exist, it occurs. In my usage, “motion” is shorthand for the “motion of matter.” Nonetheless, there is no “connection” between matter and motion, because that term is given only to matter. Again, motion is what matter does. Motion is not “part” of the universe. This relatively simple conception of matter and motion has been obscured by the idealistic fog surrounding relativity. It is somewhat ironic that this view of inseparability actually demands that we conceive of matter and motion as two separate categories. I like to think of them this way: if I can put it in my pocket, it is matter; if I can’t, it is motion. Thus, legs consist of matter, but running does not; particles are matter, waves are motion. Examples of motion are: sound, fire, light, and time.

Language, of course, is not infallible. The descriptions of matter easily and properly take the nominative form. Motion, however, is a noun describing action. Thus we unavoidably objectify action simply by categorizing it as a noun. It gets worse. We commonly say that we have “things” to do when we actually mean that we will participate in various activities. In science we commonly refer to the “occurrence” of various specimens, when specimens really don’t “occur,” they “exist.” These examples may seem mere quibbles, but they are symptoms of the problem that lies at the root of the misunderstandings surrounding the equivalence principle. The fact that it has spread from popular culture to scientific culture just shows how interconnected they are.”

Infinity forever,

Glenn -- for most individuals, in particular the creative ones, "motion" is more important than "matter." Therefore the idea that motion is not "part of the universe" may sound confusing.

I stick to the idea that infinity of the universe goes both ways, infinite great and infinite small. This means that if there is no such thing as a primary particle, then at each stage of infinity there must be matter with its three dimensional universe and its motion. How could it be possible? If it is so, our mind has no way to grasp it. For me, this paradox makes it impossible to define matter. I believe it was the physicist Hilley who presumed that the wave precedes matter -- but wave of what?? If my memory is good, he became a spiritualist because he couldn't find any possibility of existence of primary matter. Could you follow speculation in this direction, or maybe you did it and I didn't grasp it properly, or maybe the whole concept of matter, of universe, is erroneous and we must look at it otherwise. But here, as the French say: "Je donne ma langue au chat."


[GB: William:

Both matter and the motion of matter are equally important, as per the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion). One must be careful to not overemphasize either of these phenomena. We both assume the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and the macrocosmic directions). One can imagine each level, as you say it, to contain two things: objects and the space between them, ad infinitum. There is no reason for there to be an end to the number of objects and the spaces between them. This is why matter ultimately cannot be “defined,” as the atomists theorized. Of course, from time to time, scientists discover what many might consider to be the ultimate particle that cannot be subdivided. The Higgs particle, if shown to exist, will receive the same treatment, only to await the next even-larger cyclotron. At some point we won’t bother to pursue that path because of the great expense. We always will be required to choose between finity and infinity.

The main problem with a finite particle is this: all such particles would have no parts and no structure; each would be identical to all the others and incapable of evolution. That would not be the way to make a universe containing the infinite variety we see all about us. Such a particle would not be capable of the six main types of univironmental interactions (TSW, pp. 127-151). For example, the absorption of motion that occurs in all known reactions would be impossible, because any such microcosm would not contain submicrocosms capable of accepting the motion.

The real universe doesn’t care whether we can imagine its infinite character or not. I agree that switching from finity to infinity is a huge step, but with a bit of practice the so-called “paradox” disappears. Thus, as mentioned above, I can’t imagine a finite particle being of any use in explaining the phenomena of the universe. As you can see in TSW, like everyone else, I had to make a choice between finity and infinity. This was the key to understanding the universe. On the other hand, I am not surprised that anyone who could believe in matterless motion also would believe in spiritualism—they essentially are the same thing. Disappointment in the inability to find a finite particle amounts to a disappointment in classical mechanics, because both are founded on the indeterministic assumption of finity.

Infinity forever,

Glenn -- nobody can objectively deny that matter and the motion of matter are equally important, but subjectively, psychologically, for the creative individual, motion is more important, because motion is what he does, while he often neglects preoccupations which we metaphorically call 'material.' Of course, primary particles cannot exist, because primary to what? To the preceding void, or to the following crowd? We don't even know what matter is.


[GB: William:

One could also say that matter is what a person is. What you are is equally as important as what you do. In regard as to what matter is, maybe the Third Assumption of Science, uncertainty, will help: It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is possible to know more about anything. Thus, we know pretty much about what matter is. For example, I know a lot about the computer before me, which is matter, but consistent with the Third Assumption, I will never know everything about it. This is consistent with infinity. Those who seek the ultimate, final answer to what matter is will never find it because the universe is infinite. Thus, the indeterministic opposite of the Third Assumption, certainty, is an errant mistress that has led many a philosopher astray.

Infinity forever,


Free copy of "The Scientific Worldview" audiobook

PSI Blog 20190615 Free copy of "The Scientific Worldview" audiobook

Fred Frees has done a marvellous job of narrating TSW. If you are one of the first 25 folks to reply “Audio” in an email to me at gborchardt@gmail.com, you will be getting a code for downloading your free copy of the audiobook.

These Promo Codes can be redeemed at audible.com/acx-promo or audible.co.uk/acx-promo.


Angels on the Head of a Pin: Falsifying the Idea of Cosmic Inflation

PSI Blog 20190612 Angels on the Head of a Pin: Falsifying the Idea of Cosmic Inflation

Thanks to Steve for this:

“Hi Glenn,

Some "mainstream physicists" are now working on a method to test the validity of the idea of "cosmic inflation" -- to falsify it. It looks like they are making good progress. Now, if we can just get them to falsify the "Big Bang" and then start calling everything that exists the "universe" and stop using terms such as other universes and a previous universe. Here is the article:


[GB: Thanks Steve. Steve, you certainly are more optimistic about their falsification chances than I am. This illustrates the kinds of discussions that occur when a theory is in crisis. It is akin to the old debate about “How many angels can fit on the head of a pin.” It only serves to assure folks that angels and pins actually exist. Like those religious folks, these regressives never ask whether their original assumptions might be wrong. A contraction before an expansion? Both without a cause? And all in tune with Einstein’s Untired Light Theory? Egads! These wastes of “scientific” time and money are all part of the last big battle between science (Infinite Universe Theory) and religion (Big Bang Theory).]


Are particles made of waves?

PSI Blog 20190605 Are particles made of waves?

A pertinent question from Nathan Rogers:

“Hi there!

I'm still a passionate follower of the Progressive Science Institute! I try to read as much as I can from your email updates, and something hit me the other day. In your IUT paper, there is a table comparing light in the BBT model and IUT. The BBT categorizes light as a particle-wave, while the IUT supports a wave. I was curious if you ever considered bringing in the Wave Structure of Matter to illuminate aspects of your theory on the microcosmic scale. It makes sense that light is a wave and that in turn, all matter is made of waves. I know Dr. Milo Wolff has brought forth studies on this topic - I was curious if you had looked into this theory or not and how it could relate and enforce the Ten Assumptions of Science.”

[GB: Nathan. Thanks so much for your question. Glad you are enjoying the PSI Blog.

I believe the idea particles are made of waves was nonexistent until the younger Einstein’s aether denial. Waves are the motion of matter. They only occur in a medium. For instance, a seismic wave produces shaking as it travels through bedrock. It would be foolish to claim bedrock consisted of seismic waves (i.e., that matter consisted of motion). But in the microcosmic world that type of claim has become all too common since 1905. As ridiculous as it may be, Einstein’s “wave-particle duality” ad hoc is essential for the photon theory, quantum mechanics, and the expanding universe theory.

Of course, light has well-known wave properties. This presented a special problem for the particle theory of light. How could a light particle travel through perfectly empty space and still have wave properties? Einstein’s answer was that the particle (later named the “photon”) would take the waves along with it. How this could occur is not clear, but some regressives such as Milo Wolff, who you mentioned, have advanced the idea that matter consists of waves.[1]

Where could that silly idea have come from? Here is Einstein himself, pontificating on the place particles might not have in his “immaterial” fields:

"Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high."[2]

In typical fashion, “field strength” and “energy density” are not defined. That is because “fields” and “energy density” do not exist. Both are products of mathematical imagination. The universe has only two fundamental phenomena: matter and the motion of matter. His denial of this fact makes him an idealist and an anti-mechanist of the first rank. Einstein’s supposed “overthrow” of Newtonian mechanism was not a revolution, but a counter-revolution. That was good for religion, but not so good for science.

In further analyzing this “matter consists of waves” idea, we need to view it as a violation of the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion). We define matter as an xyz portion of the universe and motion as what those portions of the universe do. In other words, matter exists; motion occurs. In seismology, bedrock exists; seismic waves occur. How to determine whether a phenomenon is matter or motion? Simple. If I can put it in my back pocket, it is matter; if I cannot, it is motion.

Univironmental determinism (what happens to a portion of the universe depends on the infinite matter within and without) teaches that matter (microcosms) does not “consist” of waves; it consists of other matter (submicrocosms). What has confused regressive physicists for over a century is the observation that the motion of matter is never perfect. The motion of a microcosm wavers because it must travel through a macrocosm filled with supermicrocosms. It is like running through a thick forest—you cannot do it without wavering. Similarly, the transmittance of motion from one place to another does not occur along a straight line. That is because the transmittance of motion such as sound or light requires a medium. That medium must be filled with microcosms capable of transferring motion from one microcosm to another. This transmittance is never perfect, hence the production of waves. So much so that we wrote a huge book on it called “Universal Cycle Theory.”[3]

It is true that many submicrocosms within a microcosm also travel in a wavering fashion or transmit motion through the submicrocosmic medium as a wave. Nonetheless, this does not mean that microcosms “consist” of waves, for waves are motion and motion is not a constituent. Again, waving is what constituents do. Einstein and his regressive followers would have done well to learn the difference between existence and occurrence.  

[2] Einstein, Albert, 1950, On the Generalized Theory of Gravitation: Scientific American, v. 182, no. 4, p. 13-17. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/24967425].
[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/].


"Time reversal" a product of regressive desperation

PSI Blog 20190529 "Time reversal" a product of regressive desperation

Jesse and Piotr commented on this silly article in Newsweek:


“These people are so far out there. My kid has his building blocks scattered all over when he dumps them out. I (a program macrocosm) put them together in a structure. Then he knocks them all down again. Depending on how complex it is. I can generally reassemble the same way.

Me and my kid reversed time.

These people are just idiots. I can’t mince words anymore.”


“There is a pattern here: the more they are stuck in their research, the more ridiculous ideas they publish.

It's desperation.”

[GB: I agree. You don’t need a computer to “prove time reversal” occurs—as long as you forget about the macrocosm. The experiment involves a typical violation of the 6th assumption of science complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things). On Earth, plants live and die. They grow when they receive converging sunlight; they die when they don’t. That is what regressives do when they write about the “heat death of the universe,” assuming that the observed universe is finite and has nothing outside it.

And of course, it is a blatant violation of the 7th assumption of science, irreversibility (All processes are irreversible). Any experiment I have ever done required outside inputs to obtain a former state. The sci-fi dream of “going back in time” is rampant among regressives and their followers. It is easy to demonstrate how fallacious it is whenever you include the macrocosm in your analysis. For instance, the night sky is unique. Celestial objects, being in constant motion, do not appear in the same locations two nights in succession. To go “back in time” even one day would require you to move each of those objects back to their former positions. Good luck with that!]