20131218

Is the Infinite Universe Regenerative?


Letter from a colleague working on Infinite Universe Theory:

Dear Glenn,

I hope you remember me from the NPA conference of July 2011 in Maryland.  Thanks for sending the notice about your new Facebook page.

Your work and your websites are spot-on in recognizing the need to veer away from both religious and academic/political problems in the quest for a more comprehensive and honest cosmology.  Nearly every previous attempt at Big History, which endeavors to integrate the sciences into 'one story', accepts the supposed authority of the big bang theory without question.

I've been working on a synthesis that builds as strong a case as I can find for proposing an alternative to the big bang.  It's certainly similar to the work you've done in recognizing that the universe environment is infinite.  It is not necessary to violate what is known about comprehensive thermodynamics and fluid dynamics in order to create the next cosmology.  An elaborate recycling scenario emerges, based on many states of matter, and respecting environments, boundary conditions, and structures of many kinds.

Some things of interest:

- Have you come across recent information about Large Quasar Group Environments (2012-13) which are the largest structures found in human history (reaching up to about 4 billion light years across)?  Huge-LQG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This surely puts a hurt on time frames proposed by the big bang (as if the generation times of supercluster complexes were not enough to do this already).

[Rob:

Glad to hear from you again and that you are well on your way with Infinite Universe Theory. Thanks for the heads up on the Huge Large Quasar Group. At 4 billion light years, that certainly outdoes the galaxy superclusters, which are only about 0.5 billion light years wide. Looks like we will have to include that as the largest known structure in the revision of our “Big History” book ("Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe" [UCT])[1]. The 4 billion light year wide void we mentioned in that book and on the Facebook cover page for PSI appears to be a similar contradiction of the Big Bang Theory. That is an awful lot of territory for the imagined explosion to miss.

With regard to your theory, you wrote: “an elaborate recycling scenario emerges.” That seems to fit nicely with our The Sixth Assumption of Science, complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things.). At one time, I used to believe in the recycling theory. Now, I am not so sure. The infinite hierarchy that Steve discovered and included in UCT implies that may not be viable. The hierarchy is compatible with our Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). Thus, the universe does not recycle back to a particular form, but has infinitely small particles and infinitely large agglomerations. Our Ninth Assumption of Science, relativism (All things have characteristics that make them similar to all other things as well as characteristics that make them dissimilar to all other things), assumes that, if there indeed is a recycled form, it will not be exactly the same as previous ones.

Although the universe is infinite and eternal, each portion of it has a beginning via convergence and an ending via divergence (per complementarity). That is, each microcosm is finite and temporal. The vortices described in our book have lifetimes from milliseconds to trillions of years, but theoretically, they all have lifetimes. The proton, for instance, is so long-lived that its half-life must be greater than “1.29×1034 years via positron decay” (Wikipedia). Because proton decay has not been observed, its recycling is not obvious. In our recent books and papers, we speculate that baryonic matter (such as electrons and positrons) forms from aether-1 particles.[2][3][4]

Recycling at that level in the hierarchy would mean a return from baryonic matter to aether-1 as happens during electron-positron “annihilation,” which I mentioned at the end of the E=mc2 paper. I have no doubt this occurs for protons too, but apparently it does not occur on a time scale we have so far observed.

Another problem with the regeneration idea involves the ages of cosmological bodies in the observable universe. Many are very young. For instance, it will take “37,000 trillion years for the Milky Way to mature.”[5] Theoretically, red dwarf stars should evolve into white dwarf stars, but astronomers expect the process to take more than a trillion years. If the age calculations are any way near correct, we see no trillion-year old microcosms in the observable universe. If infinite regeneration was occurring in the observable portion, we would expect to see microcosms of all ages, from the newly born to those at the end of their multi-trillion-year lives. If nearly infinitely old microcosms had been observed, then the infinite universe would be obvious. The Big Bang Theory would have arrived stillborn. We see no evidence of this, so even if the Big Bang Theory is not the answer, we much search for the reason.

On the other hand, we need to accept that, like any other portion of the infinite universe, any microcosm we can observe also had a beginning and will have an end—just not in the way envisioned by the Big Bangers. The observable universe, like all microcosms, is born of the macrocosm. It had a beginning (but not by an explosion) and will have an end. One way of viewing this is shown on the cover of UCT, in which we show the observable universe as a tiny portion of the next vortex, which we dubbed the “Local Mega-Vortex.”

From UCT, the “regenerative” aspect of the universe is pretty much WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get). Microcosms come into being and go out of being; like all microcosms, we are born and we die. However, each of us is so unique that we can never be regenerated in the exact form that we once were. And so it is for every other microcosm. No reproduction or “regeneration” ever repeats itself exactly. Per relativism, every microcosm is unique. I used to think that galaxies might be the one microcosm that was regenerated endlessly. Their various submicrocosms would come together for a while, and then diverge to form nearly identical galaxies elsewhere. However, since writing UCT with Steve, I have been disposed of that idea. His most perceptive question was: If there is no smallest microcosm, how can there be a largest microcosm? Each microcosm in the hierarchically infinite universe is always part of a still larger and older microcosm—as demonstrated by galaxy clusters, superclusters, and the Huge Large Quasar Group you mentioned. Picking on any one of these or any other favorite microcosm for regenerating the universe cannot possibly work. Such an attempt at perfect regeneration would be to assume finity instead of infinity. It is no better than the oxymoronic notions of multiverses and parallel universes.]



[1] Puetz, Stephen J., and Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Universal cycle theory: Neomechanics of the hierarchically infinite universe: Denver, Outskirts Press ( www.universalcycletheory.com  ), 626 p.

[2]  Ibid.

[3] Borchardt, Glenn, 2009, The physical meaning of  E=mc2 ( http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/The%20Physical%20Meaning%20of%20E%20=%20mc2.pdf  ): Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, v. 6, no. 1, p. 27-31.


[4] Borchardt, Glenn, and Puetz, Stephen J. , 2012, Neomechanical gravitation theory ( http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6529.pdf  ), in Volk, G., Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 19th Conference of the NPA, 25-28 July: Albuquerque, NM, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, v. 9, p. 53-58.


[5] Puetz and Borchardt, 2011, p. 172.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thanks so much for your comment. Be sure to hit "Preview" to see if it will publish correctly. Then hit "Publish". Include your email address if you wish to receive copies of your comment as well as all other published comments to this Blog.

For those having trouble getting this comment section to work:

Nitecruzr writes:

[FAQ] Why can't people post comments on my blog?

The Blogger / Google login status, and the ability to post comments, is sensitive to both cookie and script filters. Your readers may need to enable (stop filtering) "third party cookies", in their browser and on their computer. The effects of the newly unavoidable CAPTCHA, and the Google "One account" login, requires third party cookies, even more than before.

http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/11/the-google-one-account-login-and-cookie.html

http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/10/comments-and-cookie-filters-october-2014.html

http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/10/the-new-commenting-captcha-is.html

Third party cookies filtering, in a browser setting, is the most common solution, overall - but your readers may have to search for other filter(s) that affect their use of Blogger / Google.

Any filters are subject to update, by the creator. If the problem started a few days ago, your readers may have to look on their computers, and find out what product or accessory was updated, a few days ago.

http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/01/almost-nobody-controls-their-own.html