Why does the universe exist?

PSI Blog 20180718 Why does the universe 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.

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.


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].


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].


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:


The Physical Cause of Gravitation

PSI Blog 20180620 The Physical Cause of Gravitation


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.


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:


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.


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.


Special Book Promotion for IUT

PSI Blog 20180525 Special Book Promotion for IUT

To all subscribers:

Here is the chance for your colleagues, friends, and family to get a great deal on a copy of Infinite Universe Theory. Kindle will be offering the ebook on a countdown basis for 3 days. A countdown works like this: The price will increase from $0.99 by $3 increments over 3 days:

So, if everyone alerts their associates, it looks like IUT will be back on top as the #1 best seller in Kindle Cosmology books by the end of this promotion. It might even make it by Monday morning.

Just forward this email and have them click the link below on Sunday (or Monday, or Tuesday):

They don’t have to be subscribers, but that would be nice:



How to have great ideas in a deterministic world

PSI Blog 20180523 How to have great ideas in a deterministic world

Thanks to reader joogabah for the comment:

Can linguistic determinants be reduced to the motion of matter, or does human subjectivity create an emergent, superordinate domain of causation?

[GB: Progressive scientists assume the universe has only two phenomena: matter and the motion of matter. Causes are defined by microcosmic collisions per Newton's Second Law of Motion. Human subjectivity involves some of the most infinitely complicated emergent interactions.]

Is this what is confused with "free will" - because it provides a secondary, inherited information system (words rather than DNA) that is absent in all other species?

[GB: Because causality is infinite, almost anything we do can be confused with “free will.” Dawkins called culturally inherited ideas “memes,” which could be passed from generation-to-generation. Words are used to carry those ideas forward. Words and ideas, of course, are emergent—they evolve together (I have had to invent some myself). Without certain words, we can’t have certain ideas (one reason I put a glossary at the end of my scientific consulting reports). We learn of words and ideas through our senses, storing that info in our brains. All this involves matter in motion—nothing magical or mysterious about it.

Animals are not lacking words, just like they are not lacking consciousness. The sounds they make are limited and poorly understood by most of us, but those sounds are clearly useful for communicating with the external world. I bet that robin outside your window is not singing just for you.]   

Everything is still determined, but in this human context it is largely determined by ideas, instead of biological processes, chemical reactions and the physical motion of matter.

[GB: Sorry, but ideas cannot exist without “biological processes, chemical reactions and the physical motion of matter.” Any idea you or I might have will disappear when we no longer display “biological processes, chemical reactions and the physical motion of matter.” Unique ideas of solitary individuals die with them. That is why we communicate them to others. That is why we write books. Good ideas survive, while bad ideas do not. That is why Infinite Universe Theory will survive and Big Bang Theory will not. Of course, there is a time and place for each idea. The BBT survives because it fits the current univironment. Future generations will be amused, wondering: “What were they thinking?”

Ideas are becoming increasingly important for our species, but they will never be divorced from matter and motion of matter (see Ch. 13 on “The Myth of Exceptionalism” in "The Scientific Worldview"). The upshot is that no idea simply pops up out of nowhere. In the Infinite Universe all things, including ideas, evolve from other things. If you wish to have great ideas, you will have to learn complicated words and read or hear about other great ideas. You will have to combine the best parts of those ideas that help you to understand and navigate the external world.]


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.


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.
Unlike other particles, his light particle always traveled at the same velocity—it never slowed down.
Unlike other particles, it attained this velocity instantaneously when emitted from a source.
Unlike other particles, it would not take on the velocity of its source.
Unlike other particles, it was massless.
Unlike other particles, light particles did not lose motion when they collided with other light particles.
Unlike other particles, any measurement indicating light speed was not constant had to be attributed to “time dilation”—another especially egregious ad hoc.
Time had to be considered something other than motion, for motion cannot dilate.
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.


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:


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. "


Coping with Determinism

PSI Blog 20180425 Coping with Determinism

From Jesse Witwer:


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.] 


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...


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.