20180516

The Power of Knowledge and the Big Bang Theory


PSI Blog 20180516 The Power of Knowledge and the Big Bang Theory

Thanks to Marilyn for the link to this wonderful essay on what I first thought was a pretty odd topic:


On the other hand, I am always intrigued by much of the crazy stuff people of the 21st century still believe.

Author Harry Dyer left us with a few good quotes:

“The level of discussion however often did not revolve around the models on offer, but on broader issues of attitudes towards existing structures of knowledge, and the institutions that supported and presented these models.

Flat earthers are not the first group to be sceptical of existing power structures and their tight grasps on knowledge. This viewpoint is somewhat typified by the work of Michel Foucault, a famous and heavily influential 20th century philosopher who made a career of studying those on the fringes of society to understand what they could tell us about everyday life.

He is well known, amongst many other things, for looking at the close relationship between power and knowledge. He suggested that knowledge is created and used in a way that reinforces the claims to legitimacy of those in power. At the same time, those in power control what is considered to be correct and incorrect knowledge. According to Foucault, there is therefore an intimate and interlinked relationship between power and knowledge.

At the time Foucault was writing on the topic, the control of power and knowledge had moved away from religious institutions, who previously held a very singular hold over knowledge and morality, and was instead beginning to move towards a network of scientific institutions, media monopolies, legal courts, and bureaucratised governments. Foucault argued that these institutions work to maintain their claims to legitimacy by controlling knowledge.

In the 21st century, we are witnessing another important shift in both power and knowledge due to factors that include the increased public platforms afforded by social media. Knowledge is no longer centrally controlled…”

Mine eyes are opened! This helps a lot to explain why otherwise bright folks still believe Einstein’s 8 ad hocs we discussed last week. It helps to explain many of the other wild imaginings of today’s regressive physics in which Einstein’s “Untired Light Theory” leads directly to the imagined expansion of the universe and its explosion out of nothing. The laws of physics have been laid down: Believe this “scientific” fake news—or else.

20180509

Wave-particle theory bites the dust—again


PSI Blog 20180509 Wave-particle theory bites the dust—again

Thanks to Jesse for this heads up. In response to the regressive interpretation in this article, he writes “Atrocious:”


Regressives will go to any extent to claim that “Einstein is always right.” As readers know, waves can only occur in a medium consisting of particles. There are no such things as “wave-particles.” The interference pattern shown in the illustration does not prove anything other than the fact that electrons can interact with aether particles. That is not surprising in view of my speculation that electrons are made up of aether particles (about 1020 in each).[1] The idea that one could visually observe a single photon is ludicrous. But of course, some electromagnetic waves are over a kilometer long, so I guess that is a possibility for aether deniers like these folks.

Readers know that both Sagnac[2] and de Sitter[3] long ago demonstrated that aether existed and that light was not a particle. Of course, Einstein got around that by inventing 8 silly ad hocs, which I emphasized in Infinite Universe Theory [4]:

 Table 6 Einstein’s eight ad hocs.
1
Unlike other particles, his light particle always traveled at the same velocity—it never slowed down.
2
Unlike other particles, it attained this velocity instantaneously when emitted from a source.
3
Unlike other particles, it would not take on the velocity of its source.
4
Unlike other particles, it was massless.
5
Unlike other particles, light particles did not lose motion when they collided with other light particles.
6
Unlike other particles, any measurement indicating light speed was not constant had to be attributed to “time dilation”—another especially egregious ad hoc.
7
Time had to be considered something other than motion, for motion cannot dilate.
8
The claim light speed was constant flew in the face of all other measurements showing there are no constants in nature because everything is always in motion. Because the universe is infinite, every measurement of every so-called “constant” always has a plus or minus. The velocities for wave motion in any medium are dependent on the properties of that medium, which vary from place to place.


The first ad hoc alone is responsible for the equally silly idea that the universe is expanding. If you believe that waves (or particles) could travel from galaxy to eyeball without losing energy (i.e., the cosmological redshift), then I have a nice red bridge across the Bay I can sell you. The upshot here is that the imagined photon does not exist, although many of the claims for it are due to the real properties of aether.





[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 324 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].
[2] 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.
[3] 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].
[4] Borchardt, ibid, Ch. 15.1.

20180502

Is Anti-Authoritarianism a Mental Health Problem?


PSI Blog 20180502 Is Anti-Authoritarianism a Mental Health Problem?

In a previous PSI Blog 20180418 I noted that young men (18-24 yrs) were our biggest fans. No other age group came close. Perhaps this is the group that will make history by accepting and promulgating Infinite Universe Theory. It surely won’t be the older “authoritarians” who run physics and cosmology in support of the current misbegotten paradigm. They typically defend the inanity by questioning the mental health of anyone who doesn’t believe Einstein is always right and that the universe exploded out of nothing. In this regard, I wish to thank George Coyne for this pertinent heads-up:

Glenn:

This is an important article on how psychiatrists are drugging kids who question authoritarians. 

"Albert Einstein, as a youth, would have likely received an ADHD diagnosis, and maybe an ODD one as well. Albert didn't pay attention to his teachers, failed his college entrance examinations twice, and had difficulty holding jobs. However, Einstein biographer Ronald Clark (Einstein: The Life and Times) asserts that Albert's problems did not stem from attention deficits but rather from his hatred of authoritarian, Prussian discipline in his schools. "





20180425

Coping with Determinism

PSI Blog 20180425 Coping with Determinism

From Jesse Witwer:

Glenn,

I think it has become pretty clear to me, both from my own reaction and from that of others that I have observed is that the root cause of rejection of the full assumptions of science is the rejection of Determinism.

A full adoption of the assumptions of science logically removes the concept of "Free Will". This was an absolutely terrifying moment for me. You know that feeling when you are dropping in a ride (free fall). This is exactly what I felt. But you have to conclude it.

The default assumption even of people immersed in logic and deterministic ventures is still Specific Determinism. For example, Stefan Molyneau who has done great amounts of research into statistical cause and effects of child raising methods and outcomes still clings dearly at the last moment to "Free Will".

Everybody's ego forces them to believe that they have "Free Will", but in fact, that is an illusion. We are all products of the macrocosm. We are given eyes that can detect vibrations in the Aether. We are given ears that can detect vibrations in Baryonic matter. We are given brains that store information from all of our senses and that grow and create synapses that facilitate our responses to other phenomena.

We literally do not have "Free Will". Information coming from the macrocosm can influence us and change the structures of our brain that will in the future make us react differently (learning) but we still are subject to reacting to the macrocosm in a manner defined by our previous interactions with it.

I still struggle with it greatly. It's easier not to think about it. It is very disquieting.

[GB: Jesse:

Welcome to determinism and its foundational assumption that there are physical causes for all effects. I went through the same logical process back in 1977. As you say, that realization is quite a shock. It is like the epiphany that agnostics go through when they are “born again” as christians. For me, the next step was a sense of fatalism (overemphasis on the macrocosm).That tended to remove any remaining remnants of solipsism that I might have had (overemphasis on the microcosm). My geologist friend's comment that "We are all just glorified coke machines." was instrumental. I began to think of the commuters going to work in the City as though they were ants or puppets driven by their environment. Of course, univironmental determinism (the universal mechanism of evolution in which what happens to a portion of the universe is determined by the infinite matter in motion within and without) makes us an integral part of the Infinite Universe. Like everything else, we are infinitely complicated, though completely subject to univironmental determinism (UD). Good thing too, because with UD, we can make some decent predictions about the universe that incidentally might be useful for continuing our existence and possibly making us happier for a few extra microseconds.

Your epiphany indicates that you really understand UD. My own fatalism lasted beyond 1978 when I was entertaining "environmental determinism" and still a believer in the Big Bang Theory. Somehow, the overemphasis on the “environmental” part of that concept did not sit well with me despite my infatuation with B.F. Skinner’s “behaviorism.” I was beginning to draw away from my initial fatalism. It didn't go away completely until my friend Elizabeth and I came up with a word for what I thought was really happening: "univironmental." This realization that all occurrences were the interactions between the insides and outsides of things eventually put the kibosh on the Big Bang Theory. Nothing, including the imagined finite universe of the Big Bang could possibly exist without its environment or its “macrocosm,” as I was later to call it. So what if this way of looking at things meant that everything was natural? So what if there was no freewill? The final solution was to suck it up and get back to work changing the world.] 


20180418

Round Earth and Millennials


PSI Blog 20180418 Round Earth and Millennials


Lately I have been holding out hope that the younger generation would be more receptive to Infinite Universe Theory than the old-timers who grew up with the propaganda spread by the likes of Hawking and deGrasse. Now I am not so sure.

Millennials (those between 18 and 24) have been in the news lately, and not always in a good way. Here are the results from a survey asking the question: “Is the Earth round?” Only 66% got it right, while 94% of those over 55 got it right. Correct answers were a function of age. Agnosticism and flat-Earth belief decreased with age. Thanks be to Jerry Coyne for this heads up:


Much of the skepticism was associated with religious miseducation. It looks like we have a long way to go, what with the deplorable state of education in the USA. I guess if you accept religion without question and believe Earth is flat, you also can believe the entire universe exploded out of nothing.

On the other hand...

Look what group on Facebook has our biggest fans:



Now, if we only could get young women to be as curious about the universe as the young men...


20180411

Neo-Darwinian Evolution in Doubt


PSI Blog 20180411 Neo-Darwinian Evolution in Doubt

Here is an excellent Blog by PSI member Fred Frees:


The headline is provocative, and would lead one to think that no explanation exists or is forthcoming. But, such is not the case. Sherman eventually does provide an explanation (just not a univironmental one).

He begins by saying, “Evolution doesn’t start organisms. Organisms start evolution and we still have no explanation for what they are and how they emerge by chance from chemistry.”

He further states: “Unlike inanimate things, organisms engage in functional, fitted effort.”

He explains: “Effort is purposeful work, an organism trying to achieve what is functional – of value to it, fitted or representative of its circumstances. Effort value and representation only make sense with respect to organisms. Organisms try to benefit themselves given their environment. Inanimate things don’t. In the physical sciences, there’s simply no room for explanation from functionally fitted behavior. Any physical scientist who claimed that subatomic, atomic, molecular, geological or galactic phenomena as trying to benefit itself given its circumstances would be drummed out of the physical sciences. A physicist knows better than to say the moon tries to lift the tides for the moon or the tide’s benefit.” 

Sherman’s assertions are based on the theories of Terrence Deacon.

The thrust of Deacon’s (and, thus Sherman’s) argument is living beings need to “try” vs. inanimate objects lack of such need. Living beings “try” to stay alive and reproduce. Inanimate objects don’t. Living beings engage in “Self-regeneration” (i.e., Self protection, self repair, self-reproduction).  All this in the face of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which Sherman reiterates as all things deteriorating.  Sherman regards “trying” as the distinguishing factor in the beginning of life, and asks how did it start. Deacon’s theory is based on “constraints,” or the “channeling of energy into work.”  In the “non-living” universe (prior to the emergence of life), constraints eventually led to “self-organization.”  The first form of self-organization he calls “autocatalysis” (a chemical chain-reaction that creates more catalysts).  But, it alone is not self-regenerating.    What is needed is crystal-formation into organized solids similar to seeds (called “capsids”). But, both processes separately don’t last and there are still no “selves.”  But, combined, these processes create self-regeneration by means of “autogens” (chemically combining capsids and catalysts that open and close in a contained reproductive manner). The process contains the requisite self protection, self repair, and self-reproduction.

I’m not going to critique the particulars of Deacon’s thesis. There may, indeed, be “autogens” and “catalysts” that are engaged in the formation of organisms.  But, all this theory does is try to explain how life forms began, and not why.

What can be criticized about Deacon (and Sherman’s) theory is that there is no context in which to explain why these processes take place.  This is a prime example of systems philosophy, focusing only on the microcosm, while ignoring the macrocosm.  How did the “autogens” come to be in the first place?  Where did the capsids and catalysts come from?

We can agree on one thing. The “theory of evolution” doesn’t explain it.  Neither does “accident” or “chance” explain it.

The process by which life originated from inanimate matter is called “biopoesis.” (Borchardt-TSW-p. 211)  Why does this occur? “To the systems theorist, life may be the result of ‘accident’ or of ‘self-assembly,’ but to the univironmental determinist it is, like cancer, the only possible response to certain conditions.” (Borchardt-TSW-p. 216)

Are Deacon and Sherman indeterminists?  Their repeated usage of the terms “self-regeneration,”  “self-protection,” “ self-repair,” and “ self-reproduction” confirms it.

The fact that the only reference to evolution is the “theory of evolution” (which only pertains to biology) is a second confirmation of their indeterminism.  Their theory completely ignores the macrocosm, in which evolution within the infinite universe gives ultimate rise to life, given the right conditions.

And, thirdly, they regard the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics only as a law of departure, without acknowledging the complementary law of arrival.
At least they don’t credit a supernatural force for creating life. And, to say that science has yet to explain why life occurs is actually correct, since mainstream science is not univironmentally based and is still entrenched in the quagmire of indeterminism, which Deacon and Sherman have yet to dig themselves out of, either.

20180321

Virtual Nonsense from Physical Review Letters


PSI Blog 20180321 Virtual Nonsense from Physical Review Letters

It always amazes me what you can get published in mainstream journals purporting to be “scientific.”

Thanks to reader Piotr Łapiński who writes:

“Oh my God!: 


There must some kind of break-even point someday for all of that nonsense...”

Aether deniers have invented “virtual particles” (particles that don’t really exist or that fluctuate between existence and nonexistence or are simply imagined) to explain some of their calculations derived from Big Bang Theory. This article, filled with the usual gobbledygook, has several critical errors. Can you spot them? The “scientific” article referenced is behind a pay wall. Is that so taxpayers can’t check on what our money has been squandered on? Only saving grace: This gibberish did not come from the USA, although Physical Review Letters is published by the American Physical Society.

20180307

NASA's Bow Waves in the Aether


PSI Blog 20180307 NASA's Bow Waves in the Aether

Here is the latest from NASA:

“Cosmic Bow Shocks

Bow shocks form across the universe, and studying bow shocks can reveal many cosmic secrets.”


This is a nice demonstration proving that Einstein was wrong about space being completely empty. Cosmic objects travel through what NASA calls a medium consisting of “protons, electrons, atoms, molecules, and other matter.” Nonetheless, this is an improvement on the news reports of the detection of gravity waves in the LIGO experiment.

In my first comment on LIGO (Blog 20160217) I wrote: “we can now give up the idea that space is empty. The experiment confirms that AETHER MUST EXIST. The press reports stating that the waves travelled through perfectly empty space via compression and decompression are ludicrous. That could never happen. All wave motion requires a medium. That is why Einstein’s corpuscular theory of light is equally ludicrous. Wave motion without a medium is like having water waves without water.”

Note that in the NASA video, the “bow wave” is like the wave that appears in front of a boat. It also is like the “pilot wave” that occurs when particles move through the unacknowledged aether in Quantum Mechanics. Now that the NASA folks admit that a universal medium exists, isn’t it time that they admit that Einstein’s Untired Light Theory[1] (which depends on space being perfectly empty) has been falsified? That one admission would forthwith destroy the expanding universe interpretation and the Big Bang Theory with it. Don't hold your breath...








[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, CA, Progressive Science Institute, 324 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook]. (See Chapter 7).



20180214

Review of de Climont 's list of critics of regressive physics and cosmogony

PSI Blog 20180214 Review of de Climont 's list of critics of regressive physics and cosmogony

Among the many citations I have in Infinite Universe Theory is this very important resource for those of us opposed to the Big Bang Theory:

de Climont, Jean, 2018, The worldwide list of alternative theories and critics [http://go.glennborchardt.com/declimont16dissidentlist].

Here is my review:

Congrats to Jean de Climont for such a wonderful compilation of those of us involved in what is destined to be the last Cosmological Revolution. While the accuracy of the descriptions of the various theories and theorists has much to be desired, it is still a magnificent achievement. Trying to figure out what some of these folks are proposing is no easy task. As Jean mentions, the variations in theory seem overwhelming—indicating, of course, that the opposition to the Big Bang Theory, relativity, and quantum mechanics is in even more disarray than the regressive physicists and cosmogonists promoting the mainstream propaganda. One suggestion: It would be a big improvement if those listed could have an easy way of correcting what was written about them and their ideas.


20180207

You too can join the Cosmological Revolution

PSI Blog 20180207 You too can join the Cosmological Revolution

Keep up with our progress ridding the universe of the Big Bang Theory by joining our email list. Benefits include updates on Blog entries, podcasts, videos on our forthcoming YouTube channel, and the availability of various freebies including free books and a planned audio file of "Infinite Universe Theory." You too can be part of the last Cosmological Revolution. Just subscribe by clicking here.

20180131

Borchardt video interview

PSI Blog 20180131 Borchardt video interview

Here is a repeat of a neat 30-minute video of an interview I did with Tom Palmer of the Sane Society in Berkeley. It was done 5 years ago, but in reviewing it again, I was struck by his interest in Infinite Universe Theory. My story has not changed much since then except for one item. See if you can find it. The prize will be a free copy of my new book, Infinite Universe Theory, which you could give to a friend.








20180124

Doppler Effect explained

PSI Blog 20180124 Doppler Effect explained

Abhishek Chakravartty asks a good question:

“On page 33 of IUT, you wrote that when the train is coming toward us, the sound of its whistles have short wavelength and when it is going away from us, the sound of its whistles have long wavelength. Can you explain why?”

[First, the Doppler Effect only occurs in a medium, which has an existence relatively independent of whatever microcosm moves through it. Second, a microcosm exhibiting cyclic behavior will disturb the macrocosm of the medium at regular intervals.

As an example, suppose you are a drummer on an open-air train that is stationary. If you hit the drum every second, the surrounding atmosphere will conduct the sound of that drum at 1-second intervals. People both fore and aft will measure an interval of 1 second. However, when the train is moving, the “fore” people will measure (e.g., hear) a shorter interval than the “aft” people. This is because, after the first drum beat, the train will be closer to the “fore” people when the second drum beat occurs. The travel path will be reduced. The opposite happens at the rear of the train. This is because, after the first drum beat, the train will be farther from the “aft” people when the second drum beat occurs. The travel path will be increased.

Travel path shortening produces a decrease in wavelength and an increase in frequency otherwise known as a “blueshift.” Travel path lengthening produces an increase in wavelength and a decrease in frequency otherwise known as a “redshift.”[1]

These effects were observed in Sagnac’s classic experiment confirming the existence of the aether (IUT[2], Ch. 15.1). They were reconfirmed in the Hafele-Keating experiment in which cesium beam clocks were flown around Earth in opposite directions (IUT, Ch. 15.6). Note that, because regressive physicists assume there is no aether medium, the redshifts encountered in the so-called “proofs of relativity” are interpreted as evidence for “time dilation.” This is unfortunate because time is motion and motion cannot dilate—only things can dilate.]


Figure 53 from "Infinite Universe Theory." The microcosm in the center is moving left.





[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, CA, Progressive Science Institute, 324 p. [ http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook ]
[2] Ibid. Otherwise known as IUT.



20180117

Borchardt interview with de Hilster on Infinite Universe Theory

PSI Blog 20180117 Borchardt interview with de Hilster on Infinite Universe Theory

David de Hilster, President of the Chappell Natural Philosophy Society, had a nice interview with me about my new book (Infinite Universe Theory). It is an hour long, with David asking some pertinent questions:



20180110

Regressives all set to bend time!

PSI Blog 20180110 Regressives all set to bend time!

Here is a heads-up from Jessie, who says: “It simply boggles the mind the stupidity they put into print and money and intellect going down this dead end journey down the Einsteinian rabbit hole. How much insanity can they take before they take stock and change course?:


Well said Jessie. This stems from Einstein’s objectification of motion.[1] It all fits with our claim that a regressive physicist, by definition, does not know what time is. Time is motion[2] and cannot be bent. Only things can be bent. The imagined perfectly empty space would have no properties and could not be bent. The imagined space-time could not be bent either. This fantasy is where the much ballyhooed “wormholes” come from. Egads! This is what it takes to get into CERN?




[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Einstein's most important philosophical error, in Volk, Greg, Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 18th Conference of the NPA, 6-9 July, 2011: College Park, MD, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, v. 8, p. 64-68 [ http://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3436.0407 ].

20171227

Infinite Universe Theory Overview by de Hilster

PSI Blog 20171227 Infinite Universe Theory Overview by de Hilster



"Infinite Universe Theory" was released as a color eBook on December 25. You can order it for only $9.99 at http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook

David de Hilster, President of the Chappell Natural Philosophy Society, already has some wonderful comments in this short YouTube video:









20171220

Infinite Universe Theory-Table of Contents

PSI Blog 20171220 Infinite Universe Theory-Table of Contents


As mentioned last week, "Infinite Universe Theory" will be released as a color eBook on December 25. You can preorder for $9.99 at http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook

Here is the Table of Contents:

Acknowledgements
List of Tables
List of Figures
Preface
Introduction
Part I: What is wrong with the Big Bang Theory?
Chapter 1
Immensity
Chapter 2
Galaxies in Collision
Chapter 3
Galaxy Clusters in Collision
Chapter 4
Elderly Galaxies at the Edge of the Universe
Chapter 5
Elderly Galaxy Clusters at the Edge of the Universe
Chapter 6
Solipsism and Perception
Chapter 7
Einstein’s “Untired Light Theory”
Chapter 8
Space-time Salvation
Part II: Infinite Universe Theory
Chapter 9
The Ten Assumptions of Science
Chapter 10
Progressive Physics
Chapter 11
Neomechanics
Chapter 12
Univironmental Analysis
Part III: Questions resolved by Infinite Universe Theory
Chapter 13
Scientific Philosophy
13.1 Does curiosity portend Infinite Universe Theory?
13.2 Does calculus portend Infinite Universe Theory?
13.3 Does univironmental determinism presage Infinite Universe Theory?
13.4 What is a BS meter and why do you need one?
13.5 Does Infinite Universe Theory resolve the “Who Created God” question?
Chapter 14
Regressive Misconceptions
14.1 Did MMX prove that aether did not exist?
14.2 Is the speed of light constant?
14.3 Does energy have mass?
14.4 Does “dark energy” exist?
14.5 Does the “god particle” exist?
14.6 Is string theory valid?
14.7 Does space-time exist?
14.8 Is matter a result of quantum fluctuations?
14.9 Does the double-slit experiment prove light is both a wave and a particle?
14.10 Does Infinite Universe Theory mean everything is possible?
14.11 Is the “Twin Paradox” Resolvable without Relativity?
Chapter 15
Tests of Relativity
15.1 Did the Sagnac Experiment prove the existence of aether? (1913)
15.2 Did de Sitter prove aether exists? (1913)
15.3 Did Eddington prove space was curved? (1919)
15.4 Did Eddington prove light is affected by gravitation? (1919)
15.5 Does the gravitational redshift confirm relativity? (1960)
15.6 Did the clocks flown around Earth confirm relativity? (1972)
15.7 Did LIGO prove there are gravitational waves? (2016)
Chapter 16
Progressive Physics
16.1 Why can there be no matter without motion?
16.2 What is aether?
16.3 What causes gravitation?
16.4 Where does matter come from?
16.5 What is the cause of charge?
16.6 What is the cause of magnetism?
16.7 Why do satellites stay in orbit?
16.8 Why is there so much spookiness in quantum mechanics?
16.9 Why does matter prevent the transmission of certain aether waves?
16.10 Why would a finite particle be impossible?
16.11 Does dark matter exist?
16.12 Is matter lost during atomic fission?
Chapter 17
Cosmology
17.1 Is the universe expanding?
17.2 Can the Doppler Effect occur without a medium?
17.3 What causes the cosmological redshift?
17.4 Are there galaxies more than 13.8 billion years old?
17.5 What causes the Shapiro Effect?
17.6 Will the universe suffer “heat death”?
17.7 Why is a finite universe impossible?
Part IV: Conclusions
Chapter 18
18.1 Predictions of Infinite Universe Theory
18.2 Paradigmatic Persistence and Requiem for the Big Bang Theory
References
Glossary
Appendix

20171213

Infinite Universe Theory to be released on December 25

PSI Blog 20171213 Infinite Universe Theory to be released on December 25

After 10 long years, IUT will be available in color as an eBook for holiday gifts. You can preorder today at Amazon for delivery to cell phones, tablets, Kindles, and computers on December 25: 

The price is only $9.99

Here is the book pitch:

Infinite Universe Theory presents the ultimate alternative to the Big Bang Theory and the common assumption that the universe had an origin. Author Glenn Borchardt starts with photos of the “elderly” galaxies at the observational edge of the universe. These contradict the current belief that the universe should have increasingly younger objects as we view greater distances. He restates the fundamental assumptions that must underlie the new paradigm. Notably, by assuming infinity he is able to adapt classical mechanics to “neomechanics” and its insistence that phenomena are strictly the result of matter in motion. He shows in detail how misinterpretations of relativity have aided current flights of fancy more in tune with religion than science.

Borchardt demonstrates why only Infinite Universe Theory can provide answers to questions untouched by currently regressive physics and cosmogony. His new modification of gravitation theory gets us closer to its physical cause without calling upon attraction or curved spacetime or “immaterial fields.”

This is the book for you if you have doubts about the universe exploding out of nothing and expanding in all directions at once, that the universe has more than three dimensions, or that light is a massless wave-particle that defies the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Borchardt has put forth a solid case for an Infinite Universe that extends in all directions and exists everywhere and for all time.

 “What a great read! Thanks so much for a book full of great ideas. I love the Q&A format; it’s very satisfying to have good answers to clearly stated questions.” -Rick Dutkiewicz

 “Truly brilliant.” -Jesse Witwer

 “A radical, daring, and innovative demolition of regressive physics, from the creation of ‘something out of nothing’ to the ‘God Particle.’” -William Westmiller

"Glenn Borchardt's book uses the hammer of Infinity to explain and destroy the junk theories that plague 'Official' physics today. This is a book that should be used in college courses, to give students a basic understanding of how physics is done. Physics has 'gone off the rails' for a century and it is books like Borchardt's that will return physics from its current unscientific and anti-materialist base and back on to a scientific and materialist road." -Mike Gimbel

 “What a fascinating read!” -Juan Calsiano