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].