Why will the adoption of Infinite Universe Theory be the “Last Cosmological Revolution”?

PSI Blog 20180815 Why will the adoption of Infinite Universe Theory be the “Last Cosmological Revolution”?

In his fine YouTube review of my Blog on why the universe exists, David de Hilster objected to the implication that Infinite Universe Theory [1]would be the last of the cosmological revolutions. Normally, in science, we can have no “last” or “ultimate” theories. That is because all theories have finite components and all are subject to impacts from the infinite macrocosm, which then force necessary revisions. A good example is my revision of Newton’s laws of motion after I assumed infinity.[2] An “ultimate” theory would have to contain an infinite number of factors—an impossible feat.

We then need to review the nature of revolution. “Revolution” is actually a misnomer implying a complete rotation. Instead, the word usually describes a 180-degree or half rotation, such as when those on top are displaced by those on the bottom. Similarly, a revolution in thought occurs when one abandons a particular viewpoint to adopt its opposite. The First Cosmological Revolution occurred when we abandoned the Earth-centered universe in favor of the heliocentric one. The second was when we realized our Sun was only one of the billions of stars in the Milky Way. The third was when those fuzzy objects in the night sky thought to be “island universes” actually were a few of the 2 trillion galaxies now observed.

Through all that time, we stood steadfast in our assumption that the universe was finite. Logically, that meant that the universe had a beginning and would have an end, just like each of the things within it. However, when we assume just the opposite—infinity, we produce a revolution in thought. When applied to the entire universe Infinite Universe Theory amounts to the “Last” cosmological revolution. Sure, the theory will be revised and modified as more and more infinite detail is discovered, but the revolutionary aspect of the theory will never change. We can never really go back to the idea that the universe is finite. Sure, one can assume either finity or infinity. There never can be a complete, final proof of such a fundamental assumption.[3] We never can go to the “end of the universe” to answer that question. Logically, we are forced to assume one or the other. My whole project has been to show how the assumption of infinity leads to answers to the many paradoxes and contradictions plaguing today’s “modern” physics and cosmology. Sure, there will be counter-revolutionary attempts, but eventually all will fail.

[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 325 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].

[2] The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions.

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


Why does the universe exist? An update.

PSI Blog 20180808 Why does the universe exist? An update.

See the original, as revised at PSI Blog 20180718.


Believers gotta believe: The Shroud of Turin and its falsification

PSI Blog 20180801 Believers gotta believe: The Shroud of Turin and its falsification

In the 14th Century, the Catholic Church in what is now Turin, Italy fell short of funds. It was left to some Einsteinian-type genius to come up with some way to get folks to renew the faith and fill the coffers. This was achieved by preparing a shroud, or cloth upon which was impressed an image remarkably similar to the one imagined by many and seen in artwork of the time. Ever since, this “Shroud of Turin” has been visited by the devout and prayed over as if it actually was Christ’s burial cloth.

The debate over authenticity was finally settled when a tiny piece of the cloth was carbon dated at between 1260 and 1390 A.D., falsifying the authenticity of the shroud and proving it was a fake.[1] That did not end the debate. There are many “scientists” who have continued to root for authenticity. There is even one fellow who claims that carbon dating is not valid—this despite the fact that we have thousands of C-14 dates nearly identical to dates obtained in other ways. For instance, redwood trees with 2000 rings began growing about 2,000 years ago according to C-14. Believers gotta believe and the church in Turin continues to call the shroud “holy” and to display it occasionally, presumably to benefit financially from the miseducation of the gullible.

Recently, the shroud has entered the news again, with an analysis of some of the stains that make up the image.[2] Once again, the conclusion from the new investigation is that it is indeed a fake. That, of course, will not satisfy those who wish with all their heart that it wasn’t so. Believers gotta believe.[3]

For those opposed to the current cosmogony, there is a clear lesson here with regard to the nature of falsification. Because the universe is infinite, scientific theories cannot be completely proven, although they can be falsified. That is, it only takes one observation or experiment (like C-14 dating) to prove a theory false. To save a theory from such reprehensible collisions with reality, we often invent ad hocs, which are exceptions that, if included, help the theory fit the data at hand. The ad hocs eventually may prove to be valid—infinite universal causality being what it is, one can always include an additional factor that might just do the trick. More likely, they just make the theory more cumbersome, challenging Ockham’s razor and often stretching believability. Still, believers gotta believe.

We see this with regard to the Big Bang Theory, which is founded on the interpretation that the universe is expanding. That is based on Einstein’s Untired Light Theory, which is based on eight ad hocs[4] needed to explain why the imagined light corpuscles did not behave like the classical particles falsified by Sagnac[5] and by de Sitter.[6]  These particles, subsequently called “photons,” are truly miraculous. They are massless, always travel at the same velocity, do not collide with each other, never take on the motion of the source, etc. Unlike other particles, photons supposedly travel for billions of years through the idealist’s completely empty space without losing energy, in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Nothing we know of, whether particle or wave can travel from point A to point B without losing energy. That, of course, is what we observe with the cosmological redshift—light waves become longer as they lose energy. And yet, regressive physicists assume the increase in wavelength is due to the “Doppler Effect” or the assumed “expansion of empty space” and the resulting assumed galactic recession. They are not bothered by the violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Believers gotta believe…

[1] Damon, P. E. and others, 1989, Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin: Nature, v. 337, no. 6208, p. 611-615. [https://doi.org/10.1038/337611a0].

[2] David, Ariel, 2018, CSI Study of Shroud of Turin Proves Again: Jesus Relic Is Fake, Accessed 0719 [http://go.glennborchardt.com/shroudofturin2018].

[3] For an extensive review of the fiasco, see Wikipedia, 2018, Shroud of Turin.

[4] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 325 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].

[5] 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.

[6] 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].


Why does the universe exist?

PSI Blog 20180718 Why does the universe exist?

The universe exists because it cannot not 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. The universe produces an infinite number of things, but it cannot produce perfectly empty space. Production requires the convergence of other “things”. “Perfectly empty space” is not a thing, so the convergence of “nothing” to form more “nothing” is oxymoronic. However, when we consider “space” as matter, it fits our definition of matter as an abstraction for all things.[1] Also, according to infinity[2] , all things contain other things. That is why we have never been able to find any perfectly empty space[3]; and why perfectly solid matter is impossible.[4]

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. Again, the scientific answer to why the universe exists is simply that it is impossible for it not to exist. When folks ask: “Why is there something instead of nothing?” they are sensing “something,” but only imagining “nothing.”

Idealists inclined to ask these questions are unlikely to be satisfied by the answer provided by Infinite Universe Theory. That is because idealists tend to think in absolute terms. For them, space is empty and matter is solid. By its nature, the infinite universe always “passes the buck.” They will continue to ask the question: “But where did it all come from?” Each thing in the infinite universe is a complex formed from still other things in the universe. The nice, tidy finite universe of the Big Bang Theory appeals because everything we have observed had a beginning. To finally realize those observations do not apply to the universe as a whole is a grandiose step. It is to finally reject cosmogony[5] and to join the Last Cosmological Revolution. 

[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The Ten Assumptions of Science: Toward a new scientific worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, p. 17 [http://go.glennborchardt.com/TTAOS].

[2] The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions.

[3] Absolute zero (0oK) cannot be obtained and the “vacuum” of outer space contains enough matter to yield a temperature of 2.7oK.

[5] The study of the origin of the universe. Cosmogony, of course, assumes that the universe is finite and that it had an origin, with the additional implication that it will have an ending (see also “Blog 20160330 The death of heat death”).


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.