Regressives, by Definition, Don’t Know What Time Is


PSI Blog 20220627 Regressives, by Definition, Don’t Know What Time Is


What is time? The mysterious essence of the fourth dimension




“The true nature of time continues to elude us. But whether it is a fundamental part of the cosmos or an illusion made in our minds has profound implications for our understanding of the universe”


That’s the lament New Scientist[1] is still pushing on a mostly unaware public. This trope is showing lots of wear, but it will not disappear until Einstein worship becomes passé.


Time is motion.


That simple fact escaped Einstein and his regressive followers. It is supposed to escape all students of physics—or else. As the referenced article above demonstrates, regressives can get a lot of mileage out of spreading the usual obfuscation. If you can get folks to believe time is mysterious, an illusion, or a 4th dimension, you can get them to believe all sorts of nonsense. After all, the “theoretical physicists” admired by New Scientist are smarter than the rest of us. And besides, aren’t wormholes and explosions out of nothing fun?


Readers: Please take a look at this article. After recovering from your headache, please send me your analysis of which of the Ten Assumptions of Science were violated. The best analysis will be included as a Guest Blog and will receive a free PSI book.




[1] New Scientist promotes itself as the most popular weekly science and tech magazine in the world. [http://www.cpst.org/10-science-magazines.html]



Imaginary or Real?

PSI Blog 20220620 Imaginary or Real?


Abhishek asks:


Whom do you call a superintelligent being in the following sentence?:


"Laplace illustrated his view of determinism by hypothesizing a super intelligent being that has come to be known as Laplace’s Demon."


[GB: Abhi, your question illustrates how difficult it is for religious folks to distinguish between the imaginary and the real. Obviously, Laplace's Demon was not real. It was only hypothesized—in other words, simply imagined. He was not thinking of a devil or a god that actually existed (i.e., had XYZ dimensions and location with respect to other real things).


As I explained in "Religious Roots of Relativity,"[1] religion is imaginary, while science is real. Laplace’s Demon is imaginary in the same way gods, souls, heaven, and hell are imaginary. None of those exist in the real world, although most folks tend to believe they do. In the book, I presented “The Ten Assumptions of Religion” as the dialectical opposites of "The Ten Assumptions of Science." Remnants of those religious assumptions plague physics and cosmology to this day. That is why Einstein was able to imagine and promote light as a massless particle traveling perpetually through perfectly empty space. That imagined particle was accepted in 1905, with it still being accepted today as the foundation of the silly universal expansion hypothesis and the resulting Big Bang Theory. That one regressive step in favor of religion has thrown what is otherwise considered “modern” physics into what I rightly call “regressive” physics.


So how do we distinguish the imaginary from the real? Here is a start:

1.   Real things have XYZ dimensions; imaginary “things” do not.

2.   Real things can be imagined too, but they must be similar to other real things (e.g., all things contain other things, and thus contain matter and have mass).

3.   All real things are in motion, but motion does not exist, it occurs.

4.   “Matterless” motion is an oxymoron still common in regressive physics due to its connection with religious imaginings such as ghosts and spirits.

5.   All real events are the results of collisions between real things per causality.]

[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2020, Religious Roots of Relativity: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 160 p. [ https://go.glennborchardt.com/RRR-ebk ]



The Mind-Brain Problem and the Obstinance of Matterless Motion

PSI Blog 20220613 The Mind-Brain Problem and the Obstinance of Matterless Motion


Abhi writes:


“When you define existence as the xyz portion of the universe occupied by a microcosm after its formation via submicrocosmic convergence and before its destruction via submicrocosmic divergence, I think that you are confusing the meaning of existence with the meaning of tangibility. Tangibility is one type of existence because anything which occupies any xyz portion of the universe indeed can be touched. But tangibility is not the only type of existence. For example, when a person or animal is alive, it is possible to touch the body of that person or animal, but impossible to touch the mind of that person or animal. But this does not mean that when the person or animal is alive, the mind of that person or animal does not exist. This means that the mind of a person or animal is always intangible irrespective of whether the tangible body of that person or animal is alive or dead. When that tangible body of that person or animal dies, the intangible mind of that person or animal becomes the soul of that person or animal.”


[GB: Thanks, Abhi for bringing to our attention another somewhat subtle and very popular connection between science and religion. Philosophers have argued about the “mind-brain problem" for centuries. At the Progressive Science Institute, we solved that one 40 years ago with the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion).[1] Like so many other religiously tainted debates, this one becomes moot when we realize the brain is XYZ matter and the mind is the motion within the brain. What you propose is matterless motion, which by the way, is still popular among regressive physicists. That is, after all, what Einstein meant when he claimed gravitational and magnetic fields to be “immaterial.” It was what he meant when he claimed light to be a matterless particle nonetheless capable of motion.


Your deduction from mind to soul fits with millennia of religious dreams and imagining. It fits with the spirits, ghosts, and gods who likewise are imagined to be matterless motion. It is not based on science, but on the Fourth Assumption of Religion, separability (Motion can occur without matter and matter can exist without motion).[2] Having been religious for almost 20 years, I can sympathize a little bit with your reassuring frame of mind here. You are not the only one who would like to live forever, even if only as a bit of matterless motion. Unfortunately, that will never occur for you or me or anyone else. Your instincts are right: You love this life so much that you do not want it to end. Good thing the universe is infinite and real and not the product of anyone's imagination. There is no end to the discoveries you can make in the meantime.]








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


[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 2020, Religious Roots of Relativity: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 160 p. [ https://go.glennborchardt.com/RRR-ebk ]



Demons Haunting Regressive Thermodynamics

 PSI Blog 20220606 Demons Haunting Regressive Thermodynamics


[GB: While we are on the topic, it behooves us to subject ourselves to the regressive view. Be reminded that all these demons are imaginings still with us years after I published the solution to their demise, albeit in a rather obscure proceedings volume.[1] In short, the resolution to these bedevilments is simply the Sixth Assumption of Science, complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things). Of course, this assumption implies the universe is infinite, which remains a no-no among cosmogonists. The current version of such nonsense is being pushed by our venerable “American Institute of Physics,” and not by the usually suspect rag “New Scientist.” Note: If you actually attend this webinar, please take notes. We would love to have your progressive review of it for a guest blog.]

  Demons Haunting Regressive Thermodynamics

To see a more readable version of the webpage, click on:




[1] 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].


Rick Doogie Responds to the Blog on “Heat Death” Hysteria

PSI Blog 20220530 Rick Doogie Responds to the Blog on “Heat Death” Hysteria




Yes, the “heat death” hysteria.


I’ve had a couple different friends mention that to me, because they knew I liked science. These are friends who never cracked a non-fiction book and have never spoken to me about science matters ever before.


But still they tell me how they saw something on TV that told them the universe will eventually fizzle out into the nothingness from whence it came. I think they want to impress me with their up-to-date knowledge of scientific news.


I try to remain polite while I tell them what I tell other friends who share conspiracy theories about UFOs, beings from other dimensions or beyond the grave, nano-bots in Covid vaccines, and holographic hoaxes by the CIA (not to mention CIA-controlled weather and earthquakes designed to dupe the populace). I tell them that they need to get a better grip on what is science and possible in the real world, and what is science fiction and impossible no matter how advanced the technology. But I get that glazed look in their eyes because they have those religious assumptions, whether they are “churchy" religious or not. They believe in warp drive, food replicators, holodecks, telepathy, transporters, telekinesis, and all that fun Star Trek stuff. 


Pet Peeve and why I don’t like Star Wars. 


Star Wars even goes as far as to make the dead Anakin Skywalker, Obi-Wan Kenobi, and Yoda all appear to Luke at the end of the trilogy. - Why should a suspenseful fight to the death get me excited if everyone is moving on to a higher plane to live forever? I always thought that was f-cked up. I feel the same when extreme fundamentalist friends are overcome with grief at a loved one’s funeral. WTF? I can’t say anything, but shouldn’t they be overjoyed that their loved one is now in the Magic Kingdom, where we’ll all meet up very soon? I mean, … they have reason to be sad at my funeral, because they know I’m going to be barbecued eternally.


If I could convince my friends of just the First Assumption of Science (Materialism), they could begin to separate fact from fiction. We live in a material world! Everything is made of matter. One thing that is firmly implanted in most people’s minds is that E = mc², and if they attach any meaning at all to that sacred equation, they think that it means that matter and energy are interchangeable. On Star Trek, the crew interact with beings who are made of nothing but energy. These advanced beings can “materialize” themselves or other objects out of, not just “thin air”, but from NOTHING!


Thanks for you work,

Rick Doogie



Laplace’s Demon and Infinite Universe Theory

PSI Blog 20220523 Laplace’s Demon and Infinite Universe Theory


Abhishek asks:


What do you mean by Laplace's Demon on page 26 of TTAOS?


[GB: Thanks, Abhi. That was part of my explanation of the Second Assumption of Science, causality (All effects have an infinite number of material causes).[1] That form of causality is the only one consupponible with the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). It is the reason all measurements have a plus or minus. The infinite subdivision of the universe always contains yet another microcosm contributing to any particular event.


Although he did not intend it that way, Laplace’s imaginary demon was an illustration of the colossal failure of the Newtonian assumption of finity. In the imagined finite universe controlled by finity there are finite causes for all events. Thus, a particular event, Y, might involve collisions from three microcosms: Y = A + B + C. There would be no plus or minus. In actuality, the equation would be: Y = A + B + C…∞. This is what the quantum physicists ran into when they studied the smallest objects. Unfortunately, instead of realizing there were an infinite number causes for any event, they assumed a singular cause: probability. That saved their religious assumption of certainty        (It is possible to know everything about some things). Note how Laplace’s visualization fits with both the religious and scientific traditions, with the proclamations of today’s quantum mechanists being no different.]


Here is the section in "The Ten Assumptions of Science" pertaining to Laplace's’ Demon:


Perhaps the best explanation of finite universal causality was given by Pierre Simon Laplace, the philosopher-scientist who, independently of Kant, advanced the nebular hypothesis of the origin of the solar system. Laplace illustrated his view of determinism by hypothesizing a super intelligent being that has come to be known as Laplace’s Demon:

We ought to regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its antecedent state and as the cause of the state that is to follow. An intelligence, who for a given instant should be acquainted with all the forces by which nature is animated, and with the several positions of the beings composing it, if his intellect were vast enough to submit these data to analysis, would include in one and the same formula the movement of the largest bodies in the universe and those of the lightest atom. Nothing would be uncertain for him, the future as well as the past would be present to his eyes.”[2]

As did Einstein, a few old-fashioned “determinists” still hold to this view although it has suffered at the hands of determinists and indeterminists alike. We now recognize that Laplacian determinism is invalid because it contradicts a major Assumption of Science, INFINITY, to which Einstein, of course, did not subscribe. In his fanciful illustration, Laplace was implying that the cause of a particular effect could be determined with absolutely perfect precision, that the motion of a particular body is determined solely by a finite number of the motions of other bodies.

But any concept of knowledge also requires the concept of subject and object. In 1927 Werner Heisenberg presented the Uncertainty Principle, which demonstrated that the knowledge required of some objects, at least, could not be obtained without interfering with those objects. The interference produces changes in motion that, in turn, cannot be evaluated without additional interference with the object. This leads to an infinite progression in which, theoretically, Laplace’s Demon would require infinite time to determine the position and momentum of a single object. The demon would be so busy in this effort, that it would be forced to ignore the rest of the universe. Unobtrusively, the assumption of INFINITY, the materialist theory of knowledge, and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle presided over the death of Laplacian determinism and the theory of finite universal causality.”[3]


[GB: Now, isn’t it strange, ironic, and even silly that our finest brains still believe the imaginings of long ago. But, perhaps not so. Remember how difficult it was for you to give up the belief in finity, a myopic, "common sense" assumption that has been with us for millennia. And what is it with this claim there are an infinite number of causes for a single event? How can that be possible? How could you ever prove that? The truth is that the Infinite Universe, by its very nature, will never allow that to happen. Popper was right although he didn’t know why he was right. The empiricists are slowly learning they will never be able to prove everything because the universe is infinite. So, what do we do with this so-called infinite universal causality? We have no choice; we can only assume it.


Be reminded, however, that fundamental assumptions such as those in "The Ten Assumptions of Science" are derived from the natural world. They are consupponible even though they are not completely provable. Those plus or minuses actually appear whenever we perform more than one suitably precise measurement. There are no two identical snowflakes. No portion of the Infinite Universe is exactly like any other. In spite of the aether denialists, there is no evidence perfectly empty space actually exists. In spite of the cosmogonists, there is no evidence for an “end to the universe” or that it had a beginning without a cause that was not completely imaginary. The upshot is that there is no harm in theoretically assuming an infinite number of causes for any event even though practice allows only a few of them. By doing so, our understanding of the Infinite Universe will be changed forever.]





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

[2] Quoted in Castell, Alburey. An Introduction to Modern Philosophy. 3 ed. New York: Macmillan, 1976, p. 520.

[3] Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The Ten Assumptions of Science: Toward a new scientific worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, pp. 25-26. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/TTAOS].


Front stage at the End-of-the-Universe trope

PSI Blog 20220516 Front stage at the End-of-the-Universe trope


Regressive physicists and cosmogonists invariably assume the Eighth Assumption of Religion, finity (The universe is finite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). Without that critical assumption, the Big Bang Theory could not exist. Without the propaganda provided by equally gullible media, the lay public would be spared such illogical nonsense. Among the chief propagandizers is New Scientist, a popular “science” magazine I have been following for over 4 decades. It has some good stuff, but beware: You better use some good winnowing and sifting.


With the invention of the Internet, the staff has become increasingly aggressive in spreading the Word. Along with their more expensive “New Scientist Academy” the latest is the “BIG THINKERS” lecture series designed to mislead us all down the right path. The example below promotes Katie Mack as the heir-apparent to deGrasse. I hope she replaces him on the Late Show. At least we would get someone new to continue the old BBT BS.


Sorry that this notice is a bit late—you missed your chance to become a “BIG THINKER.” It is a shame for you to miss it if you still don’t believe the Sixth Assumption of Science, complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things). On the other hand, you have not wasted your time and still have the $18.82 that was the cost of admission.



Here is my latest screed on this subject stolen from a chapter in “Infinite Universe Theory”:


“17.6 Will the universe suffer “heat death”?

No. This is a logical offshoot of a misinterpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (SLT) by systems philosophers. The Sixth Assumption of Science, complementarity resolves the SLT-order paradox as I pointed out as early as 1984.[1] The indeterministic assumption is just the opposite: Noncomplementarity. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that all isolated systems eventually run down. In the regressive interpretation, constituent matter supposedly is converted into “energy,” which escapes the isolated system as unusable heat. Another way of stating it from a mechanical viewpoint is that the constituents of the system will diverge or expand into its surroundings via their own momenta. Either way, both interpretations fit the expanding universe of the Big Bang Theory with divergence being assumed greater than convergence.

But, if you have been following my argument in favor of univironmental determinism, you know that no systems are ideally isolated. If they were, then the Second Law of Thermodynamics would not even work. The system’s boundaries would have to be “leaky” or stretchable for the heat or matter to escape its confines. Of course, if one treats the universe as a finite, isolated 3-D system, one could argue it would expand into the perfectly empty surroundings, that, for some reason, escaped the imagined creator’s touch. On the other hand, if one treats the universe as a finite, self-contained 4-D system with no surroundings as the Big Bangers do, one could imagine its expansion without having to imagine its surroundings being empty. In either case, one must use the indeterministic assumptions of finity and noncomplementarity and the deduction divergence could occur without an equal amount of convergence.

There is a bit of truth to the correlation of expansion with death. Except for the Infinite Universe, all microcosms come into being via convergence and undergo death via divergence. The assumptions the universe had a beginning and will have an ending are logically derived from our everyday observations of everything in the universe. The only problem is that they cannot apply to the universe as a whole.

I guess the heat death hysteria may be fading away as the standard Big Bang Theory comes under attack and modifications are suggested to handle some of its major contradictions. Cosmogonists are moving slowly toward Infinite Universe Theory by suggesting oxymoronic solutions called “parallel universes” or “multiverses,” while holding fast to the indeterministic assumption of finity.

Each of those oxymoronic “universes” is based on the expansion hypothesis, which, in turn, is based on Einstein’s Untired Light Theory. These steps out of the cosmogonic box are admirable and perhaps one of them could be the “super great attractor” responsible for the galactic flow discovered by Kashlinsky and others.[2] It is true that, in the future, Infinite Universe Theory always will be subject to change. For instance, Stephen Puetz and I presented a hierarchical version in “Universal Cycle Theory” in which the observed universe revolves around a “Local Mega Vortex.” That is highly speculative, but we consider it superior to the oxymoronic alternatives. Nonetheless, we stand by the view the universe is eternal and extends infinitely in all directions.”[3]


[1]Borchardt, 1984, The scientific worldview. [Early manuscript version of the 2007 book. Also, an early version of the resolution was rejected by Science in 1980 and finally published as Borchardt, 2008, Resolution of the SLT-order paradox.]

[2]Kashlinsky and others, 2010, ibid.

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



Time is Motion and Events are Caused by Collisions

PSI Blog 20220509 Time is Motion and Events are Caused by Collisions

Thanks to Marilyn for this heads up:



By Sam Baron, Associate professor, Australian Catholic University


This short article is worth checking out. It demonstrates two tiny steps on the way for regressive physicists to finally realize time is motion and that all events require collisions. Also, note the agnostical wording here: “might not exist.” This is typical of regressive physicists and of reformists who are still trying to escape the training and propaganda that keeps them in the paradigmatic fold. Like all agnosticism, it is a half-way measure for faint-hearted folks to have feet in two camps as they transition from one to the other when push comes to shove.


The first step was well enunciated by my esteemed colleague Steve Puetz in his objection that stimulated my highly popular “Time is Motion” blog post written on 20111130:


“I still disagree with the statement....  Time is motion.  To be more precise, it should be worded as....   "Time is an aspect of motion."  According to almost all conventional descriptions of motion, it has three aspects -- an object, a path, and time.  To suddenly state that motion only has one aspect (time) is confusing to many readers, including me.”


By that time Steve and I had already finished our book on “Universal Cycle Theory.” It takes a long time to change paradigms. Of course, some come around faster and earlier than others, depending on how intense the indoctrination was. For instance, here are the last of about a hundred comments we got on that blog:


April 20, 2021 at 2:34 PM 

Unknown said...

Well, I'm not sure if I understood everything as I've always been incapable of apprehending physics and maths to an even basic level. But when I was young, probably around the age of 13, while watching a cartoon where they "froze" time, I realised that what actually happened is that all movement stopped, and that time was the measure of specific movements (astrological or atomic for example). I'm happy that more than a decade later, what I thought to be obvious although contrary to the popular idea, is backed by people far cleverer than I am and with a much finer understanding of this universe.

April 13, 2022 at 2:54 PM 

Glenn Borchardt said...


Congratulations on your most astute observation at the age of 13. You were way ahead of me. As far as I can tell, I did not write the phrase "time is motion" until sometime between 19800607 and 19810418 when I was 38. You probably had trouble with modern physics for the reason I did: It was a mishmash that made no sense.

April 13, 2022 at 8:05 PM


The second point brought up in Baron’s article, is the growing realization that all events are the results of collisions per Newton's Second Law of Motion. In recent discussions with Steve, it was obvious that he still has problems with the Second Law—so much so that I had to decline co-authorship on a recent manuscript. That is not particularly usual, as Newton himself had the same problem. Over 300 years ago, he realized gravitation was an acceleration but did not realize there had to be an equivalent deceleration. When I pointed out that necessity in the intro to “Aether Deceleration Theory,”[1] it was met by reviewers with a resounding thud. They already knew the cause of gravitation was Einstein’s magical “space-time.”


So, dear readers, we are left with today’s radical and now “progressive” ideas that time definitely does not exist (it occurs) and that events are caused by things colliding with things (whether or not you can actually see the colliders). Let us all enjoy watching the great ship christened by Hoyle as the “Big Bang Theory” as it gradually sinks into the garbage heap of history.