Crisis in cosmology by Eric Lerner

PSI Blog 20200803 Crisis in cosmology by Eric Lerner

Thanks to Don Briddell for this heads-up:


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

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

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

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


Infinite Universe Theory Free at Last!

PSI Blog 20200729 Infinite Universe Theory Free at Last!

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

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

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



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


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

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

This from Pierre:

“Hello, Glenn!

Here is another one.

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


Pierre Berrigan”

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

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


Even Galileo “Proves Einstein Right Again”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


Perfectly Empty Space Meets an Overdue Death--Again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Here are just a few things he gets right:

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

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


Death of the Universe Nonsense Again

PSI Blog 20200615 Death of the Universe Nonsense Again

Nerissa Escanlar/Earth-Life Science Institute

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

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

Read more: 

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

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

Some quotes from cosmogonist Katie Mack:

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

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

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

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

Right—it surely must have been a miracle.

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

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

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

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

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

[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 327 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook]. Figure 8.
[3] H. Teplitz and M. Rafelski (IPAC/Caltech), A. Koekemoer (STScI), R. Windhorst (Arizona State University), and Z. Levay (STScI).
[4] Borchardt, Glenn, 2008, Resolution of the SLT-order paradox, Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance: Albuquerque, NM, v. 5 [10.13140/RG.2.1.1413.7768].


Backwards Parallel Universe?

PSI Blog 20200608 Backwards Parallel Universe?

Here’s another nutty one from regressive physics and cosmogony:

We may have spotted a parallel universe going backwards in time

“Strange particles observed by an experiment in Antarctica could be evidence of an alternative reality where everything is upside down”

A mystery particle spotted by ANITA in 2016 could be evidence of a parallel universe. Ryan Nichol (UCL Physics & Astronomy)

The contraption above was said to have found a “right-handed neutrino” as evidence in support of these crazy ideas. This is what New Scientist wrote about it:

“Yet there is potentially a spanner in the works. If ANITA has indeed caught the right-handed neutrino that the anti-universe idea predicts, common sense dictates that other neutrino observatories ought to have caught it, too. Towards the end of last year, the neighbouring IceCube experiment – which continuously watches for flashes of light generated as the decay-products of neutrinos blast through a cubic kilometre of Antarctic ice – announced that it had found no high-energy neutrinos coming from the direction claimed by ANITA.

This isn’t a killer blow for the anti-universe. Anchordoqui points out that the track of a high-energy tau neutrino can be mistaken for that of a lower-energy muon neutrino, of which IceCube has spotted at least one. It is a controversial view, but it suggests that both ANITA and IceCube may have discovered tantalising evidence for a parallel universe.”

Nothing like finding one of something to make grand pronouncements about the universe. Can’t imagine who would support such stuff with a straight face, but they should realize the interpretation violates at least two important assumptions of science:

Seventh Assumption of Science, irreversibility (All processes are irreversible).

Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions).

Of course, the indeterministic opposites are: reversibility and finity.

Regressives who assume “time can flow backwards” invariably must also assume finity, which requires an ignorance of the macrocosm (environment) in which the observed phenomenon is occurring. True reversibility cannot occur in the Infinite Universe. Lab experiments we consider reversible are not really so. That is why we always get a slightly different result each time we run an experiment.

The oxymoronic “parallel universe” trope is only a tiny, misguided step away from finity. It is perhaps the archetype of reformist physics and cosmogony. It erroneously assumes, along with Einstein and Big Bang Theory, that the observed universe is expanding. Evidence is gathering that indicate galaxies are being pushed toward massive cosmological objects outside the observed universe.[1] According to Infinite Universe Theory,[2] that is exactly what is expected. Reformists invented the silly “multiverse” ad hoc to save the Big Bang Theory and its equally silly claim the observed universe is expanding in all directions at once. The Infinite Universe cannot expand, for it exists everywhere and for all time (which is not, and never was reversible).

[1] Kashlinsky, A., Atrio-Barandela, F., Ebeling, H., Edge, A., and Kocevski, D., 2010, A New Measurement of the Bulk Flow of X-Ray Luminous Clusters of Galaxies: The Astrophysical Journal Letters, v. 712, no. 1, p. L81-L85. [http://doi.org/10.1088/2041-8205/712/1/L81].

Kashlinsky, A., Atrio-Barandela, F., Kocevski, D., and Ebeling, H., 2008, A measurement of large-scale peculiar velocities of clusters of galaxies: Results and cosmological implications: The Astrophysical Journal, v. 686, p. L49–L52.

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


Coronavirus Hates the Outdoors

PSI Blog 20200601 Coronavirus Hates the Outdoors

Pardon the teleology, but I just had to do a little off-topic speculation on our current predicament. It is becoming clearer every day that air-borne viruses do not do well in the outdoors. Mom’s advice to “get some fresh air” seems well-taken. The energy-saver’s advice to tighten up every window and door seal might just give those little buggers plenty of time for you to breathe them in. The advice to put on that mask when you leave the building might be backwards—maybe you should put it on when you go inside. Instead of “sheltering in place,” maybe we should “shelter out place.”

There now are plenty of data showing that being inside with carriers during a pandemic is not a good idea. The coronavirus is spread many ways, but it looks more and more like the finest aerosols (less than 5 um) are the top culprits in most cases. The mainstream press is finally waking up to the aerosol problem.[1]

A choir practice in Washington State was the site of a huge outbreak and offers one of the strongest pieces of evidence for airborne transmission. Satoshi-K/E+ via Getty Images

1.    The first indication ignored for far too long was the 2.5-hr Skagit County, WA choir practice in which 53 of 61 singers became infected with COVID-19 by a single carrier.[2] The time from exposure to onset was 3 days, 12 days for hospitalization, and 14 days to death for the two that died.
2.    A single carrier in Guangzhou, China dining at a restaurant infected four at her own table along with five others at adjoining tables.[3]
3.    A single carrier in South Korea partied at three nightclubs, infecting 54 people.[4]
4.    In another incident, a “super spreader” in South Korea infected 37 people in a church.[5]
5.    After an employee got the virus, a huge grocery in China had 8,244 shopper visits and only 2 (0.02%) infections, while the 120 employees had 11 infections (9%), showing that duration and closeness of contact was important.[6]
6.    Two buses in China “brought people to the same temple, where they mixed and mingled. But who was most at risk of getting sick? Those who rode the bus with an infected person. Twenty-four out of 67 people on that bus got sick. No one on the other bus did.”[7] Lesson: Close quarters and duration.

Meanwhile, “in a study of 1,245 cases that occurred across China from January 4 to February 11, only two cases were traced to contact with an infected person out of doors.”[8]

To get infected, you only have to be exposed to someone’s breath for less than the 15 minutes. The breath aerosol can stay in the air for hours. Where ventilation is poor, as in a bar or bus, that aerosol remains in the air and is replenished continually by the infected person. Six feet of separation is not enough, particularly when the air is continually stirred up by the motion of others in a small enclosed space. “Super-spreaders” typically do not cough or sneeze on every one, they simply breathe, filling the trapped air with tiny particles that take a long time to settle even when not stirred. A runner or biker going fast past you is extremely unlikely to do that.

Conclusion: Ventilation

Indoor air bad; outdoor air good. That is why we have many more colds and flu in winter than in summer—it is not simply due to the temperature—it is what the temperature makes us do to ourselves—breathe bad indoor air. Being with a large group outside on a windy day would be much less risky than being with the same group on a calm day.  Athletics played outdoors would be much less risky than those played indoors, etc. Voting in a well-used booth verges on suicide, while voting at a table outside might be as safe as mailing a ballot; teaching classes outside would be safer than teaching inside; political demonstrations outside would be safer than those inside.

Again, the key to all this simply is ventilation, and plenty of it. Note that in the restaurant case, there was an exhaust fan on the left side of the room and an air conditioner on the right (Figure). It was 79oF outside [9] and the investigators assumed the air conditioner was on even though swabs of the conditioner and the exhaust fan indicated no virus. The infection pattern does not support air flow from right to left. My conclusion: The air conditioner either was turned off or was insufficient. Looks like we need more powerful ventilators before we get sick so we won't need them later.

In sum: We should avoid breathing used air.

Figure. Sketch showing arrangement of restaurant tables and air conditioning airflow at site of outbreak of 2019 novel coronavirus disease, Guangzhou, China, 2020. Red circles indicate seating of future case-patients; yellow-filled red circle indicates index case-patient. Modified from: Lu and others (2020) https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0764_article#tnF1.

[2] Hamner, Lea, and others, 2020, High SARS-CoV-2 Attack Rate Following Exposure at a Choir Practice — Skagit County, Washington, March 2020: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, v. 69, no. 19, p. 606-610 [Here is the summary: https://go.glennborchardt.com/Skagit-summary]
[7] Ibid.


Vortex Formation of a Planet's Birth

PSI Blog 20200525 Vortex Formation of a Planet's Birth


I usually don’t do gee-whiz science, but this one is too good to pass up. In our book "Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe" Steve and I emphasized Descartes' Vortex Theory.[1] Vortices form when macrocosmic pressures force small microcosms to be pushed toward large ones, with the intervening space providing protection from the onslaught of the macrocosm.  The rotation occurs because collisions are never perfect—there always are glancing blows, forcing both the large microcosm and the small microcosm to rotate on their axes. This occurs throughout the infinite hierarchy, from the largest galaxy cluster to the tiniest aether duo.[2]

And so, I was especially interested in seeing what appears to be a picture of the birth of an exoplanet. Normally, the associated star is so bright that such planets cannot be seen easily. Although there are 4,260 exoplanets, this seems the first to be little more than a rotating dust cloud. But through a special technique in which the parent star’s light was blocked, the photo could be taken. This appears to be a magnificent confirmation of Descartes’ Vortex Theory:[3]

[1] 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/]. 
[2] See Chapter 16.4 Where does matter come from? in Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 337 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].
[3] Descartes, Rene, 1644 [1991], Principles of Philosophy: Boston, MA, Kluwer Academic, 324 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/Descartes1644].