tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22020929882085835502024-03-18T16:26:42.539-07:00The Scientific WorldviewThis is a blog that takes the name of my magnum opus on scientific philosophy called "The Scientific Worldview." Reviewers have called it “revolutionary,” “exhilarating,” “magnificent,” “fascinating,” and even “a breathtaking synthesis of all understanding.” There is very little math in it, no religion, no politics, no psycho-babble, and no BS. It provides the first outline of the philosophical perspective that will develop during the last half of the Industrial-Social Revolution.Glenn Borchardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.comBlogger710125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-86482891181530302402024-03-18T05:00:00.000-07:002024-03-18T16:26:10.513-07:00<p><span style="font-size: large;"> PSI Blog 20240318 Big Bang Theory and the “Bandwagon Fallacy”</span></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: large;">Cosmogony is afflicted with a logical disease formally known
in philosophy as Argumentum ad Populum.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><br /></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-no-proof: yes;"><v:shapetype coordsize="21600,21600" filled="f" id="_x0000_t75" o:preferrelative="t" o:spt="75" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" stroked="f">
<v:stroke joinstyle="miter">
<v:formulas>
<v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0">
<v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0">
<v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1">
<v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2">
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth">
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight">
<v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1">
<v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2">
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth">
<v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0">
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight">
<v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0">
</v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:formulas>
<v:path gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect" o:extrusionok="f">
<o:lock aspectratio="t" v:ext="edit">
</o:lock></v:path></v:stroke></v:shapetype><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_2" o:spid="_x0000_i1025" style="height: 254.25pt; mso-wrap-style: square; visibility: visible; width: 381pt;" type="#_x0000_t75">
<v:imagedata o:title="" src="file:///C:/Users/gborc/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.png">
</v:imagedata></v:shape></span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjDZ1G6ooJJh-7W45IjEezx9DgcAFviOeltebEMOzScHwcPoVATj3Ga5zNF_NC-Xc4hNXR7VG5SMaG4PYNCej1QE2GINkd6qawY6dF5rvdrYN2mJMqRH8Qx546X2MG24ieDH_I6KNKiW6Yk4dBcBTaWAymEEbU1MpNW4TljLUaP0iGQY2yRrR-WQ-uAAEFt" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="529" data-original-width="794" height="286" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjDZ1G6ooJJh-7W45IjEezx9DgcAFviOeltebEMOzScHwcPoVATj3Ga5zNF_NC-Xc4hNXR7VG5SMaG4PYNCej1QE2GINkd6qawY6dF5rvdrYN2mJMqRH8Qx546X2MG24ieDH_I6KNKiW6Yk4dBcBTaWAymEEbU1MpNW4TljLUaP0iGQY2yRrR-WQ-uAAEFt=w429-h286" width="429" /></a></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #6b6b6b; font-family: sohne, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Photo Credit: Dr. Douglas Giles, Philosopher</span></div></span><p></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Just because an idea is popular does not mean it is
correct. In science, we are supposed to determine truth through observation and
experimentation on the external world—not by the popularity of the conclusions.
Prof. Giles has this excellent short bit on truth (which may not be popular)
and lies (which might make us feel socially acceptable):</span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: x-large;"> <a href="https://dgilesphilosopher.medium.com/the-most-pernicious-logical-fallacy-0d88550f2b75"><b>The Most Pernicious Logical Fallacy</b></a></span><b style="font-size: x-large;"><o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: large;">Humanity has jumped from one myth to another throughout
history. Even those who believe in <i>acausality</i>, still seek answers, the
causes for events, such as: Why did I get a stomach ache? Could it have been
something I ate? Any popular myth must build on a previous myth. As I explained
in my book, "Religious Roots of Relativity,<a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020240318%20Big%20Bang%20Theory%20and%20the%20%E2%80%9CBandwagon%20Fallacy%E2%80%9D.docx#_edn1" name="_ednref1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>"
Einstein was a genius at doing so, suggesting light was a massless particle
containing perfectly empty space traveling perpetually through perfectly empty
space. Without the magical photon and the four dimensions of General Relativity
Theory, the expanding universe misinterpretation would have been impossible.
There would have been no “Last Creation Theory” that became ever popular and supremely
durable.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<h2><span style="font-size: large;">Paradigm Shift<o:p></o:p></span></h2>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: large;">The Argumentum ad Populum is especially important for
understanding paradigms. It was not until the 20<sup>th</sup> Century that the
word “paradigm” “began to be used in the more specific philosophical sense of ‘logical
or conceptual structure serving as a form of thought within a given area of
experience,’ especially in Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions" (1962).<a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020240318%20Big%20Bang%20Theory%20and%20the%20%E2%80%9CBandwagon%20Fallacy%E2%80%9D.docx#_edn2" name="_ednref2" style="mso-endnote-id: edn2;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>”
Kuhn famously pointed out that the popularity of a paradigm prevents its practitioners
and promoters from making revolutionary changes to it. They are ipso facto
inevitably unqualified to do so.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: large;">Again, scientific conclusions are not supposed to be
based on popularity. Unfortunately, that is not always true. For instance, the
testimony of expert witnesses can be disregarded if it flies in the face of
“scientific consensus.” New forensic techniques need confirmation by other
scientists before they can be accepted in court. The “scientific consensus” is
that the universe is expanding. Unfortunately, that is not true even though it
is extremely popular.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: large;">Being on the outside looking into the cosmogonical
paradigm does not generate much popularity. <a name="_wsQV_"></a>The incessant
propaganda in favor of relativity and the Big Bang Theory makes <a name="wsKB"></a>the
10,000 of us who question the dogma <a name="wsKK"></a>highly unwelcome. None of
that is a <a name="_wsQP_"></a>conspiracy or some kind of nefarious plot. It is
simply a result of traditional choices favoring certain unprovable fundamental
assumptions that always have opposites according to Collingwood.<a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020240318%20Big%20Bang%20Theory%20and%20the%20%E2%80%9CBandwagon%20Fallacy%E2%80%9D.docx#_edn3" name="_ednref3" style="mso-endnote-id: edn3;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: large;">Neither Kuhn nor Collingwood said what those assumptive choices
were. As a curious scientist, I got busy discovering them and found all were
centered on the choice between <b><i>infinity</i></b> and <i><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;">finity</span></i><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;">.<a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020240318%20Big%20Bang%20Theory%20and%20the%20%E2%80%9CBandwagon%20Fallacy%E2%80%9D.docx#_edn4" name="_ednref4" style="mso-endnote-id: edn4;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a></span>
That went right to the heart of cosmogony, with its surreptitious,
unacknowledged assumption the universe was finite and had a beginning. Some
have demurred, saying that if neither of opposed assumptions are completely
provable, then it does not matter which one you choose. But that is definitely
not the case. It makes all the difference on whether you assume the universe
exploded out of nothing and had a beginning or you assume the Infinite Universe
is everywhere and has existed forever.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: large;">The ultimate paradigm shift from the Big Bang Theory to Infinite
Universe Theory is a really big deal—the biggest humanity will ever undergo. In
view of the current popularity of religious <i>Dreams and Imaginings</i><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">™</span> I
predict it will be at least another three decades before theoretical physics
and cosmology questions and acknowledges the underlying assumptions that are
becoming more clear by the day. <a href="https://gborc.com/BBTfals">Falsifications
of the BBT</a> continue to be ignored by regressive physicists and cosmogonists
even as the James Webb Space Telescope shows no evidence for a beginning. Great
shifts in science and philosophy like this one depend on a global crisis. You
can see that coming with the rise of fascism and the desperation with which
so-called “traditional values” are being promoted—even violently. The struggle
over the world’s resources will intensify as global population growth slows and
its associated economic growth declines. My guess is that the old assumptions
and traditional ways of thinking, including the ones that brought us the Big
Bang nonsense, will be replaced by those concordant with I<a name="wsK1"></a>nfinite
Universe Theory.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-size: large;">PSI Blog 20240318<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-size: large;">Thanks for reading
Infinite Universe Theory! On Medium.com you can subscribe for free to receive
new posts and be part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution.” There you
can support PSI financially by clapping 50 times and responding with your
questions.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<div style="mso-element: endnote-list;"><!--[if !supportEndnotes]--><span style="font-size: large;"><br clear="all" />
</span><hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<div id="edn1" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020240318%20Big%20Bang%20Theory%20and%20the%20%E2%80%9CBandwagon%20Fallacy%E2%80%9D.docx#_ednref1" name="_edn1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""><span class="MsoSubtleReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoSubtleReference">[1]</span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span class="MsoSubtleReference">
Borchardt, Glenn, 2020, Religious Roots of Relativity: Berkeley, California,
Progressive Science Institute, 160 p. [<a href="https://go.glennborchardt.com/RRR-ebk"><span style="color: #5a5a5a; mso-themecolor: text1; mso-themetint: 165; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">https://go.glennborchardt.com/RRR-ebk</span></a>] <o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</div>
<div id="edn2" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020240318%20Big%20Bang%20Theory%20and%20the%20%E2%80%9CBandwagon%20Fallacy%E2%80%9D.docx#_ednref2" name="_edn2" style="mso-endnote-id: edn2;" title=""><span class="MsoSubtleReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoSubtleReference">[2]</span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span class="MsoSubtleReference">
<a href="https://www.etymonline.com/word/paradigm"><span style="color: #5a5a5a; mso-themecolor: text1; mso-themetint: 165; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">https://www.etymonline.com/word/paradigm</span></a> [See especially: Kuhn,
T.S., 1962, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: Chicago, The University of
Chicago Press, 210 p.]<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</div>
<div id="edn3" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020240318%20Big%20Bang%20Theory%20and%20the%20%E2%80%9CBandwagon%20Fallacy%E2%80%9D.docx#_ednref3" name="_edn3" style="mso-endnote-id: edn3;" title=""><span class="MsoSubtleReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoSubtleReference">[3]</span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span class="MsoSubtleReference">
Collingwood, R.G., 1940, An Essay on Metaphysics: Oxford, Clarendon Press, 354
p. [<a href="https://gborc.com/Collingwood"><span style="color: #5a5a5a; mso-themecolor: text1; mso-themetint: 165; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">https://gborc.com/Collingwood</span></a>].<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</div>
<div id="edn4" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020240318%20Big%20Bang%20Theory%20and%20the%20%E2%80%9CBandwagon%20Fallacy%E2%80%9D.docx#_ednref4" name="_edn4" style="mso-endnote-id: edn4;" title=""><span class="MsoSubtleReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span style="font-size: large;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoSubtleReference">[4]</span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span class="MsoSubtleReference"><span style="font-size: large;">
Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The Ten Assumptions of Science: Toward a New Scientific
Worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p. [<a href="https://gborc.com/TTAOS"><span style="color: #5a5a5a; mso-themecolor: text1; mso-themetint: 165; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">https://gborc.com/TTAOS</span></a>; <a href="https://gborc.com/TTAOSpdf"><span style="color: #5a5a5a; mso-themecolor: text1; mso-themetint: 165; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">https://gborc.com/TTAOSpdf</span></a>].</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>Glenn Borchardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-90878469614570044442024-03-14T05:00:00.000-07:002024-03-15T08:33:06.637-07:00Pi Day and the Infinite Universe Theory<p><span style="font-size: large;">PSI Blog 20240314 Pi Day and Infinite Universe Theory</span></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: large;">What does 3.14159… have to do with <b><i>infinity</i></b>?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-no-proof: yes;"><v:shapetype coordsize="21600,21600" filled="f" id="_x0000_t75" o:preferrelative="t" o:spt="75" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" stroked="f">
<v:stroke joinstyle="miter">
<v:formulas>
<v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0">
<v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0">
<v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1">
<v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2">
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth">
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight">
<v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1">
<v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2">
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth">
<v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0">
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight">
<v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0">
</v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:formulas>
<v:path gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect" o:extrusionok="f">
<o:lock aspectratio="t" v:ext="edit">
</o:lock></v:path></v:stroke></v:shapetype><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_2" o:spid="_x0000_i1025" style="height: 210.75pt; mso-wrap-style: square; visibility: visible; width: 315.75pt;" type="#_x0000_t75">
<v:imagedata o:title="" src="file:///C:/Users/gborc/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.png">
</v:imagedata></v:shape></span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></o:p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggbn6p4MBWVKva1sEhdPcX9iGw0SAw-7gEDhAIrfqO5OISi8z_2w0x5BP1HrpOJonIUYyg41JW7lfaoP7WocK1Gmh8-5MMXcWBvXvmlkQYA3pkD6xiUt6vzthSxyU0N60UTnDodpw-ZBAJAPkFn3fMEugsmqJmKm1pKXqIygwMPrxm4eJXqd2RnPd3Ioj3/s684/20240314%20header-for-pi-day-computer-and-pi_tcm25-694762.webp" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="456" data-original-width="684" height="273" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggbn6p4MBWVKva1sEhdPcX9iGw0SAw-7gEDhAIrfqO5OISi8z_2w0x5BP1HrpOJonIUYyg41JW7lfaoP7WocK1Gmh8-5MMXcWBvXvmlkQYA3pkD6xiUt6vzthSxyU0N60UTnDodpw-ZBAJAPkFn3fMEugsmqJmKm1pKXqIygwMPrxm4eJXqd2RnPd3Ioj3/w411-h273/20240314%20header-for-pi-day-computer-and-pi_tcm25-694762.webp" width="411" /></a></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: x-large; text-align: left;"><br /></span><p></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p><span style="font-size: large; text-align: left;">Today’s celebration of math was invented by Larry Shaw, a
physicist employed at San Francisco’s Exploratorium, which was founded by Frank
Oppenheimer (J. Robert’s brother). It is a good illustration of infinity, as
pointed out by Soumya Karlamangla of the New York Times:</span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: large;">“Pi has fascinated mathematicians for thousands of years,
not least because it is an irrational number — its digits seem to go on forever
without falling into a repeating pattern, a tantalizing glimpse of infinity. It
is the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter, and circles
themselves tend to hold some mystery, as perfect shapes with no beginning or
end, according to Samuel Sharkland, senior program director at the
Exploratorium.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: large;">Pi has been calculated to over 62.8 trillion digits with
no end in sight. This is akin to what we get when we attempt to perform precise
measurements in the real world. Per the Third Assumption of Science, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;">uncertainty</span></i></b>,
it is impossible to know everything about anything. The infinite nature of the
universe is why no two measurements are ever identical and why every scientific
measurement has a plus or minus. It is why no two snowflakes are alike. It is
why the counterpart to <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;">uncertainty</span></i></b> is the Second
Assumption of Science, <b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;">causality</span></i></b>
(All effects have an infinite number of material causes). It is why
Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle overthrew the finite universal causality
assumed in classical mechanics and relativity.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: large;">Pi attests to the “irrational” messiness necessary for
the universe to exist. A universe filled with Plato’s ideal spheres and
Democritus’s ideal finite identical “atoms” could not exist. Events occur as
the result of collisions. But the imagined collisions between perfectly and
necessarily identical spheres would produce nothing at all. There would be no
reason for identical aether particles to produce the complexes we see all
around us as ordinary matter in our I<a name="wsK1"></a>nfinite Universe. Today
is the day to raise <a name="_wsQP_"></a>a toast to 3.14159… at precisely (sort
of) 1:59 pm like they do in San Francisco!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Also, you will love this Pi, Pi, Pi parody of NSYNC’s rock song “Bye, Bye, Bye”:</span></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="e07f"><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvW5uqzHDAo" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvW5uqzHDAo" rel="nofollow noopener noopener" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: x-large;">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvW5uqzHDAo</span></a></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></o:p></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-size: large;">PSI Blog 20240314<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-size: large;">Thanks for reading
Infinite Universe Theory! On Medium.com you can subscribe for free to receive
new posts and be part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution.” There you
can support PSI financially by clapping 50 times and responding with your
questions.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p> </o:p></p>Glenn Borchardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-83430836724573524772024-03-11T05:00:00.000-07:002024-03-11T05:00:00.129-07:00Why the 1887 Michelson-Morley Experiment did not Disprove Aether<p><span style="font-size: x-large;">PSI Blog 20240311
Why the 1887 Michelson-Morley Experiment did not Disprove Aether</span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: large;">They only proved “ether” was not fixed.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></o:p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjHxeDsUBk0USjQ0rLn6qmTzYTR4FOvpBtEeHvppCj_votUHGDE2hpSSqc4nySHYzWiAHV9ed-G6QPLIEnrmO7zGZDCU8xlxehY5KSTsi6bB_d1EOLTuuB6mATsa6vwVdRbciv1JoCaNp1JOeuxIjP8G0vBj33iGamNyB6YNi0UMD6v3m_Nbj4H1pq0iEFh" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="623" data-original-width="869" height="296" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjHxeDsUBk0USjQ0rLn6qmTzYTR4FOvpBtEeHvppCj_votUHGDE2hpSSqc4nySHYzWiAHV9ed-G6QPLIEnrmO7zGZDCU8xlxehY5KSTsi6bB_d1EOLTuuB6mATsa6vwVdRbciv1JoCaNp1JOeuxIjP8G0vBj33iGamNyB6YNi0UMD6v3m_Nbj4H1pq0iEFh=w414-h296" width="414" /></a></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p><span style="text-align: left;">Figure 42 Interferometer measurements of Earth’s velocity
around the Sun as determined at various altitudes above mean sea level. The
three data points in red at high altitude are projections and are yet to be
performed. The other data are from Galaev</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020240311%20Why%20the%201887%20Michelson-Morley%20Experiment%20did%20not%20Disprove%20Aether.docx#_edn1" name="_ednref1" style="text-align: left;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">[1]</span></span></span></a><span style="text-align: left;">,
who seems to be the first to show this relationship (Borchardt, 2017</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020240311%20Why%20the%201887%20Michelson-Morley%20Experiment%20did%20not%20Disprove%20Aether.docx#_edn2" name="_ednref2" style="text-align: left;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">[2]</span></span></span></a><span style="text-align: left;">).</span></div></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: large;">Many thanks to Prof. Steve Ruis for this comment:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: large;">“I suspect that most people, as I did, believe that the
experiment disproved the existence of an aether. If you are looking for a topic
to write on, explaining why that isn't so and the follow-up experiments would
help people understand. Thanks for all you do!”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: large;">Through a series of notable missteps, this celebrated
experiment, also known as MMX, led to the Big Bang Theory. This clever, yet
naïve attempt to measure Earth’s motion around the Sun has been called the
“most famous null experiment of all time.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: large;">MMX was clever because it attempted to detect the
velocity of light in two different directions: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 0.1in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">1.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->In
the same direction of Earth’s travel.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 0.1in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">2.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Perpendicular
to Earth’s travel<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: large;">It was naïve because Michelson and Morley based the
experiment on four erroneous assumptions:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 0.1in; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">1.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Ether<a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020240311%20Why%20the%201887%20Michelson-Morley%20Experiment%20did%20not%20Disprove%20Aether.docx#_edn3" name="_ednref3" style="mso-endnote-id: edn3;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>
is fixed and Earth simply moves through it. They expected to observe an “ether
wind” similar to the wind in your face when you run down the street.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 0.1in; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">2.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->The
above was ironic since Lucretius, Galileo, Einstein, and many others assumed
all things in the universe were in motion with respect to other things: An
assumption otherwise known as “relativity.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 0.1in; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">3.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Not
being in motion, fixed ether particles could not accelerate ordinary matter.
Newton's Second Law of Motion (F=ma) would not apply to them.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 0.1in; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">4.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->The
ubiquitous ether permeated everything, with ordinary matter moving through it.
This assumption became especially clear in their selection of where to perform
the experiment: the basement of a campus dormitory.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: large;">In reality, this would be like trying to measure the jet
stream in your backyard at sea level. They did not imagine aether might
form an “aetherosphere” that surrounded the Earth and was attached to Earth
just like our atmosphere. Then there could be no differential motion between
Earth and the aether that was moving along with it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: large;">Nonetheless, their apparatus was cleverly designed to
observe the fringe (fuzziness) when the two perpendicularly intersecting beams
of light met after traveling identical distances. The assumed light
“corpuscles” would have recorded an “ether wind” of 30 km/s—the velocity of
Earth around the Sun. Light traveling perpendicular to the direction of Earth’s
motion would be unaffected. There actually was a fringe, but it was tiny and
generally ignored by budding regressive physicists as experimental error. The final
interpretation: a null result. <b><i>MMX proved there was no fixed ether</i></b>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: large;">But was there a more reasonable aether<a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020240311%20Why%20the%201887%20Michelson-Morley%20Experiment%20did%20not%20Disprove%20Aether.docx#_edn4" name="_ednref4" style="mso-endnote-id: edn4;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>
that was not fixed? Why should aether particles be unlike other portions of the
universe, being in motion with respect to other things? Why wouldn’t aether
particles interact with ordinary matter by colliding with it, undergoing
acceleration and deceleration per Newton's Second Law of Motion? The truth is
that real aether particles have all those properties and then some. Most of the
research on aether is in dissident literature where it is ignored by regressive
physicists, who are, after all, are defined by “aether denial,” which appears
necessary for graduation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: large;">After MMX, subsequent measurements that used improved
technology showed they were a function of altitude (Figure 42 above). The MMX
measurements were at low attitude (about 210 m at Cleveland, Ohio). They only
made 36 crude measurements, but thousands have been performed and interpreted
by numerous investigators at various altitudes. None have been especially
simple because Earth rotates as it revolves around the Sun. The results change
minute-by-minute and the complete width of the fringes have not always been included
in the measurements, especially by MMX. In addition, the solar system’s
rotation around the center of the Milky Way at about 230 km/s may or may not be
a factor.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: large;">I think Figure 42 is evidence for an “aetherosphere,”
which, like our atmosphere, surrounds Earth and moves along with it. I also
have concluded it is a result of the accumulation of aether particles that were
decelerated after colliding with Earth during the acceleration we call
gravitation. Consequently, the density of the aether medium is greatest near
Earth, becoming less dense though more active and less sluggish with distance
from Earth. Thus, the full 30-km/s motion Michelson and Morley were trying to detect
only can be measured at a great distance from Earth—probably beyond the
troposphere.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: large;">The readoption of the aether medium results in data
interpretations that are more logical than the “anti-common sense” we were taught.
Among these are: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 0.1in; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo3; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">1.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Abandonment
of the perfectly empty space idealization and the false assumption that nonexistence
is possible.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 0.1in; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo3; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">2.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Abandonment
of Einstein’s false assumption light was a massless particle containing
perfectly empty space traveling perpetually through perfectly empty space.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 0.1in; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo3; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">3.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Its
source does not contribute velocity to light because light is not a
particle.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 0.1in; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo3; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">4.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Light
velocity is constant because light is a wave whose velocity is, like all waves,
controlled by the medium as long as the properties of the medium remain
unchanged. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 0.1in; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo3; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">5.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->The
so-called “gravitational redshift” is a result of slight changes in the medium as
a function of altitude. Distal increases in aether pressure cause light waves
to speed up, lengthening the distance between waves.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 0.1in; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo3; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">6.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Both
clock speed and mass increase due to increases in aether pressure with
increases in altitude.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 0.1in; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo3; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">7.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Einstein’s
“gravitational waves” are shock waves that travel through the aether medium at
the same velocity as light waves. They have nothing to do with gravitation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 0.1in; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo3; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">8.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->The
acceleration of gravitation is produced by high-velocity local aether particles
that become decelerated upon colliding with ordinary matter.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 0.1in; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo3; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">9.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->The
“Dark Matter” contributing to the mass of rotational galaxies probably is
decelerated aether like the aetherosphere surrounding Earth.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-size: large;">PSI Blog 20240311<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-size: large;">Thanks for reading
Infinite Universe Theory! On Medium.com you can subscribe for free to receive
new posts and be part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution.” There you
can support PSI financially by clapping 50 times and responding with your
questions.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<div style="mso-element: endnote-list;"><!--[if !supportEndnotes]--><span style="font-size: large;"><br clear="all" />
</span><hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<div id="edn1" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020240311%20Why%20the%201887%20Michelson-Morley%20Experiment%20did%20not%20Disprove%20Aether.docx#_ednref1" name="_edn1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> <span lang="EN-GB">Galaev,
Y.M., 2002, The measuring of ether-drift velocity and kinematic ether viscosity
within optical waves band (English translation): Space-time & Substance, v.
3, no. 5, p. 207-224. [</span><a href="http://go.glennborchardt.com/Galaevaether"><span lang="EN-GB">http://go.glennborchardt.com/Galaevaether</span></a><span lang="EN-GB">].</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="edn2" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020240311%20Why%20the%201887%20Michelson-Morley%20Experiment%20did%20not%20Disprove%20Aether.docx#_ednref2" name="_edn2" style="mso-endnote-id: edn2;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory:
Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 337 p. [<a href="http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook">http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook</a>]. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="edn3" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020240311%20Why%20the%201887%20Michelson-Morley%20Experiment%20did%20not%20Disprove%20Aether.docx#_ednref3" name="_edn3" style="mso-endnote-id: edn3;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> I use “ether” as the proper spelling for fixed ether
and for the class of organic chemicals. The “aether” spelling has precedent
with Descartes (1844) who suggested it was the ubiquitous medium responsible
for light transmission, gravitation, and the formation of ordinary matter.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="edn4" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020240311%20Why%20the%201887%20Michelson-Morley%20Experiment%20did%20not%20Disprove%20Aether.docx#_ednref4" name="_edn4" style="mso-endnote-id: edn4;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> See above.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>Glenn Borchardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-8786576544944728222024-03-04T05:00:00.000-08:002024-03-04T05:00:00.144-08:00Recovering from the Loss of Free Will<p><span style="font-size: large;"> <span style="text-indent: 0in;">PSI Blog 20240304 Recovering from
the Loss of Free Will</span></span></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-indent: 0in;"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-size: large;">Belief in free will: One reason
regressive physics and cosmogony has been so durable.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></o:p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgmz9DV_GvG7LPpJj_PEUIFYZIwgVZjwe8xRbcdPOzEBbPfzr1ddlJgOblYBL5z30I_VWbqxwEajDP3QQCZXAkzANfKZkmIbM1iGr46BomZ-GKSS11wVOUWNEL6XmbHZzYoU2h61GyZncWBTryaGkxwNlwhuD8RxMzvPjll_vseEYDk3kTlE-a0pOcFT5mB" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="3456" data-original-width="5184" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgmz9DV_GvG7LPpJj_PEUIFYZIwgVZjwe8xRbcdPOzEBbPfzr1ddlJgOblYBL5z30I_VWbqxwEajDP3QQCZXAkzANfKZkmIbM1iGr46BomZ-GKSS11wVOUWNEL6XmbHZzYoU2h61GyZncWBTryaGkxwNlwhuD8RxMzvPjll_vseEYDk3kTlE-a0pOcFT5mB=w400-h266" width="400" /></a></span></div><p></p><p align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-size: large;">Photo
by <a href="https://unsplash.com/@coopery?utm_content=creditCopyText&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=unsplash">Mohamed
Nohassi</a> on <a href="https://unsplash.com/photos/silhouette-of-person-standing-on-rock-surrounded-by-body-of-water-odxB5oIG_iA?utm_content=creditCopyText&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=unsplash">Unsplash</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-indent: 0in;"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span>In "Religious Roots of Relativity" I pointed
out why Einstein and the Big Bang Theory became so popular. You were born
without religion, but it is unlikely you were raised without believing in free
will. Most of the 4000+ religions have taken advantage of this, emphasizing
that you are entirely responsible for all your decisions. Even in a secular
society, we must hold people responsible for their behavior. <o:p></o:p></span><span>Intelligence involves
the response to the environment. Society has the means to handle inappropriate
responses regardless of anyone’s belief or n</span><a name="_wsQP_"></a><span>onbelief in “free
will.”</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: large;">None of this becomes much of a problem unless you take
physics and the rest of science seriously. It really comes to the fore in the
advent of Infinite Universe Theory and the coming demise of the “Last Creation
Myth.” Mere acknowledgement that univironmental determinism is the universal
mechanism of evolution is enough to push one into what I call “deterministic
realization” and the rejection of free will. This strikes folks in varying ways
ranging from an epiphany, shock, depression, or elation. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: large;">In this regard, I just received this pertinent question
from Jesse, who obviously is a deep thinker and understands my scientific
philosophy:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><blockquote><p class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Did the realization that you
do not have free will bother you at all? The contemplation that ultimately your
decisions aren't really decisions but simply predictable outcomes from your
biological machinery when facing the exact forms of motion that you face?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">It bothered me at first. Gave
me that sinking feeling in my stomach like I was in free fall.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">But then, like many things, I
accepted it with this philosophy. "If I act and live my life like I
believe in free will, does it really matter if I actually believe in it or
not?"<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Another take would be that
free will is what we call the emergent phenomenon of infinity vs our brains and
bodies. This phenomenon clearly occurs, the physical mechanism being
microscopic infinity instead of divine spirit is frankly not important?</span></p></blockquote><p class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><a name="_Hlk120519693"></a><a name="wsKB"></a>Jesse:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">Nice to hear from
you. With regard to free will, I had this to say in the Preface to "The
Scientific Worldview":<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">The univironmental idea had an intense personal
impact. In my experiments I had always considered myself outside the reactions
I was observing. Now I was a crucial, historical part of them. My
physicochemical model of the world ran wild. For more than a week I was in a
fatalistic daze as I thought, still somewhat narrowly, but certainly not
conventionally, “We are all chemicals and all our behaviors are chemical
reactions.” This was a giant, if somewhat clumsy, step outside systems
philosophy. In this new way of thinking, whether we consider ourselves
chemicals, systems, microcosms, or just plain folks made little difference—all
are influenced by both the within and the without. Behavior was simply the
motion of one portion of the universe with respect to other portions. This
simple yet profound conception was radically different from anything I had
known. The dictionary didn’t even have a word for it. I gradually recovered by
savoring the newfound perceptiveness. I would never look at anything in the same
way again.<a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020240304%20Recovering%20from%20the%20Loss%20of%20Free%20Will.docx#_edn1" name="_ednref1" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><b><span style="color: #404040; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">[1]</span></b></span></span></a></span></blockquote><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020240304%20Recovering%20from%20the%20Loss%20of%20Free%20Will.docx#_edn1" name="_ednref1" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><b><span style="color: #404040; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"></span></b></span><!--[endif]--></span></a><o:p></o:p></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">Looks like the
“deterministic realization” had a similar effect on you. Folks have said that
The Scientific Worldview “blew their minds,” etc. It turns out that most people
never think that deeply about anything and therefore can never know what the
Infinite Universe is really all about. Of course, us newly edified, eventually
get over it like you did and continue to act mostly as if we actually had free
will. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">It is impossible to
consider the trillions of causes involved in your next decision. On the other
hand, you might want to know about a few of them, as I demonstrate below.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">I remember displaying
a cursory rejection of free will as a freshman in college in my debates with
liberal arts students. By then I had a little bit of science, but the major
reason I was a believer in “there are causes for all effects” stemmed from my
hands-on farm background. That probably was why I could not accept Einstein’s massless
particles, time dilation, and 4-D spacetime, getting a C in Physics 1a for my
trouble. Despite all that, I did not get the “deterministic realization” until
I began "The Scientific Worldview" from the standpoint of the
determinism-indeterminism philosophical struggle. By then, I had witnessed some
vehement arguments among scientists who espoused opposing views over the
interpretation of data. I found out soon that these always occurred at the
frontier of science—no one needed to debate or get excited about stuff that was
already settled.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">In the ‘70s we
studied a lot of dialectics and the meaning of contradictions. That helped me
to focus on the frontier. I read New Scientist magazine, which was pushing a
lot of Big Bang Theory stuff that seemed silly to me. After all, there was no
cause ever given for the effect that supposedly resulted in the explosion of
the entire universe out of nothing.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">So now that we have
surpassed the “deterministic realization,” what do we do? As a scientist, it is
relatively easy. I am particularly interested in what causes what effects.
Unless you are a regressive physicist, you will want to know what is colliding with
what. That also implies the overall importance of history in producing the
present. That is why even otherwise naïve scientists document their work by
citing those who came before. It is why I have accumulated over 9,000
literature references in the last six decades. I want to know where my ideas
came from so I can get more of them and avoid the ones that fail observation
and experiment.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">Human progress has
accumulated a hugh database containing evidence that should not be ignored or
contradicted, along with false, self-serving claims that should be pointed out,
challenged, and forgotten. It is fun being part of that and knowing we all get
to “change the world” even though we know also that each event follows from the
infinite nexus of previous events.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">Be reminded,
however, that the determinism-free will debate always will be with us, commencing
with the birth of each child. Most folks, particularly theologians,
philosophers, regressive physicists, and cosmogonists cling to the free will
assumption as if their life depended on it. They are probably right, especially
with regard to their continued employment. Remnants of our religious birthright
remain to produce the stickiness that is evident in the popularity of the Big
Bang Theory. Even scientists who have given up the assumption of free will,
such as evolutionist Jerry Coyne, still cling to the BBT. “Compatibilists,”
such as philosopher Daniel Dennett, have moderated the contradiction by
accepting a passé form of causality in tune with the fundamental assumption of <i>finity</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<h2><span style="font-size: large;">Causality<o:p></o:p></span></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">It turns out my own
youthful assumption that “there are causes for all effects” was insufficient. I
subsequently discovered there were two types of causality:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left: 0.3in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: large;">1.<span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span><!--[endif]-->Finite
universal causality <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-left: 0.3in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: large;">2.<span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span><!--[endif]-->Infinite
universal causality<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">Number one assumes
a finite number of causes can produce an effect. Mathematics tends to require
that and it was the basis of Newton’s classical mechanics. The best
demonstration of it was “Laplace’s Demon," a theoretically omniscient
being that could predict and postdict effects without error. That was destroyed
by Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, although he and his compatriots failed
to recognize its grand significance.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">Number two is
founded on my Second Assumption of Science, <b><i><span lang="EN-GB">causality</span></i></b> (All effects have an
infinite number of material causes). That may be hard to understand until you
assume, with <b><i>infinity</i></b>, that matter is infinitely subdividable. The
proof of this is the fact all repeat measurements have a plus or minus error
associated with them. It is the basis for my “neomechanics,” which simply is
classical mechanics with the inclusion of <b><i>infinity</i></b>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">Next, I had to
discover exactly what was a cause. The hint was Newton's Second Law of Motion
in which the motion of the collider decreases as the motion of the collidee
increases. In other words, all causes involve collisions. This demand went by
the wayside with the arrival of regressive physics. Thus, for instance, regressive
physicists were allowed to promote the centuries' old and worthless assumption
of “attraction” and Einstein was able to promote his mysterious 4-D “spacetime”
assumption as the causes of gravitation. Actually, I found out the physical
cause of gravitation is as simple as Newton’s Second Law.<a name="wsK1"></a> It
is obvious that gravitation is an acceleration. What has always been missing is
the accelerant, which like the air we breathe, is invisible to us. I was able
to revive Einstein’s rejected aether in devising my “Aether Deceleration Theory
of Gravitation.”<a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020240304%20Recovering%20from%20the%20Loss%20of%20Free%20Will.docx#_edn2" name="_ednref2" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> I was impressed by all the evidence for
aether, which was necessarily being summarily rejected by regressive theoretical
physics. It turns out that the “free will” trope and Einstein’s perfectly empty
space trope were birds of a feather. Both led the march toward the “Last
Creation Theory.”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">
</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">In conclusion, “deterministic realization” will strike many
of us as we dismantle those silly theories. Everything that happens is part of
an infinite univironmental chain of events, with the abandonment of free will being
part of humanity’s growth. Despite the unyielding demands of physics, we still
can have the necessary “feeling of freedom,” while rejecting any notion of <a name="_wsQP_"></a>free will itself.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: large;">PSI Blog 20240304<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: large;">Thanks for reading
Infinite Universe Theory! On Medium.com you can subscribe for free to receive
new posts and be part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution.” There you
can support PSI financially by clapping 50 times and responding with your questions.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<div><!--[if !supportEndnotes]--><span style="font-size: large;"><br clear="all" />
</span><hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<div id="edn1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020240304%20Recovering%20from%20the%20Loss%20of%20Free%20Will.docx#_ednref1" name="_edn1" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> Borchardt,
Glenn, 2007, The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein: Lincoln, NE,
iUniverse, 411 p. [<a href="https://go.glennborchardt.com/TSW">https://go.glennborchardt.com/TSW</a>].<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><span style="font-size: large;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="edn2">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020240304%20Recovering%20from%20the%20Loss%20of%20Free%20Will.docx#_ednref2" name="_edn2" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> Borchardt, Glenn, 2018, The Physical Cause of Gravitation: <a href="http://vixra.org/abs/1806.0165">viXra:1806.0165</a>.<a name="wsKK"></a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div><div style="mso-element: endnote-list;"><div id="edn2" style="mso-element: endnote;">
</div>
</div>Glenn Borchardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-66890020244703973502024-02-26T05:00:00.000-08:002024-02-26T08:06:33.963-08:00Largest Cosmological Object Found—So Far<p><span style="text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-size: large;">PSI Blog 20240226 Largest
Cosmological Object Found—So Far</span></span></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-indent: 0in;"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><i>Infinity</i></b> assumes
the Infinite Universe has no “largest object.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgZ6umcjbsJ4sQlFyUUExnYLEF464txuv5RaU95L-DA-irrnPi2ZQNGZ6HRtYCAIf476avdHi_MupuQcIHe939621pdWIc-qEqG932B-fnnwJVx3HdoubL8gYCSXLlSo0HOP3rcOXupn_JQ_sN7pfwInSAGnTr69ocd5doKPuV46b0MZvQonA85z8s942ar" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="420" data-original-width="747" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgZ6umcjbsJ4sQlFyUUExnYLEF464txuv5RaU95L-DA-irrnPi2ZQNGZ6HRtYCAIf476avdHi_MupuQcIHe939621pdWIc-qEqG932B-fnnwJVx3HdoubL8gYCSXLlSo0HOP3rcOXupn_JQ_sN7pfwInSAGnTr69ocd5doKPuV46b0MZvQonA85z8s942ar=w401-h225" width="401" /></a></span></div><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk120519693;"><span style="font-size: large;">“An illustration of
the recording-breaker quasar J059-4351, the bright core of a distant galaxy
that is powered by a greedy supermassive black hole. (Image credit: ESO/M.
Kornmesser)”<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk120519693;"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk120519693;"><span style="font-size: large;">With <b><i>infinity</i></b>,
the Eighth Assumption of Science, we claim the universe is infinite, both in
the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions. In other words, not only are the
constituents of the Infinite Universe infinitely divisible (as Aristotle
claimed), but they also are infinitely integrable (additive). The records we
keep are made to be broken, and Infinite Universe Theory predicts this will not
long remain the largest cosmological object.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk120519693;"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk120519693;"></span><a href="https://www.space.com/brightest-quasar-ever-powered-black-hole-solar-mass-accretion-disk"><b>“Brightest
quasar ever seen is powered by black hole that eats a 'sun a day.'”</b></a></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk120519693;"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk120519693;"><span style="font-size: large;">Here is a quote
from Robert Lea’s article:<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk120519693;"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk120519693;"><span style="font-size: large;">“A newly discovered
quasar is a real record-breaker. Not only is it the brightest quasar ever seen,
but it's also the brightest astronomical object in general ever seen. It's also
powered by the hungriest and fastest-growing black hole ever seen — one that
consumes the equivalent of over one sun's mass a day.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk120519693;">The </span><a href="https://www.space.com/17262-quasar-definition.html"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk120519693;">quasar,</span></a><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk120519693;"> J0529-4351, is located so far from Earth that its light
has taken 12 billion years to reach us, meaning it is seen as it was when the
13.8 billion-year-old universe was just under 2 billion years old.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk120519693;">The </span><a href="https://www.space.com/supermassive-black-hole"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk120519693;">supermassive black hole</span></a><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk120519693;"> at the heart of the quasar is estimated to be between 17
billion and 19 billion times the mass of the sun; each year, it eats, or
"accretes" the gas and dust equivalent to 370 solar masses. This
makes J0529-4351 so luminous that if it were placed next to the sun, it would
be 500 trillion times brighter than our brilliant star.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk120519693;"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk120519693;"><span style="font-size: large;">Of course, this is
just another case of an “Elderly Galaxy” being discovered in the cosmogonical
crib falsifying the Big Bang Theory. A black hole 18 billion times the mass of
the Sun and 500 trillion times as bright: Just imagine how long it would take
for that to form! In order to fit the Big Bang Theory, the claim here is for it
to be less than 2 billion years old. Our own 13.6-billion-year-old Milky Way has
a black hole with a mass equivalent to 4.3 million Suns—which means that the black hole in this
so-called “quasar” is 4186 times as big. At the Milky Way accretion rate, this
would mean J0529-4350 is about 57 trillion years old!<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk120519693;"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk120519693;">One could invent an
ad hoc assuming the accretion rate for this quasar was over 4186 times faster
than the one for the Milky Way. That seems unlikely in view of what it takes to
form a cosmological object in the first place. Like all objects in the I<a name="wsK1"></a>nfinite Universe, it would have to exist in an environment
containing sufficient ingredients. In general, those ingredients are complexes
of matter formed from aether particles as explained in my “Infinite Universe
Theory.”</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020240226%20Largest%20Cosmological%20Object.docx#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk120519693;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk120519693;"> Although the densities of the aether medium
vary somewhat, I doubt it is anywhere near the 4186 times needed in this
instance. The formation of anything proceeds one converging aether particle at
a time. That is a lengthy process characteristic of evolution in general: the
bigger a microcosm is, the longer it has taken to agglomerate. Cosmologists and
other evolutionists observe this all the time. Thus, for instance, the tree in
your backyard may form a 1-cm thick ring each year. But you would be shocked to
find a 4186-cm thick <a name="_wsQP_"></a>ring after cutting it down. Cosmogonists
are simply being super naïve in hypothesizing super-fast galactic development. Looks
like they need to get out the office more. </span>Barring that, maybe reading “Infinite Universe Theory” wouldn’t
be a bad idea.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk120519693;"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk120519693;"></span>
</span><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-size: large;">PSI Blog 20240226<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-size: large;">Thanks for reading
Infinite Universe Theory! On Medium.com you can subscribe for free to receive
new posts and be part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution.” There you
can support PSI financially by clapping 50 times and responding with your
questions.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<div style="mso-element: footnote-list;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span style="font-size: large;"><br clear="all" />
</span><hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<div id="ftn1" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020240226%20Largest%20Cosmological%20Object.docx#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> Borchardt,
Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive
Science Institute, 337 p. [<a href="http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook">http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook</a>].
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>Glenn Borchardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-69438488137811178402024-02-19T05:02:00.000-08:002024-02-19T05:02:00.226-08:00“JWST Sees More Galaxies than Expected”<p><span style="font-size: x-large;"> <span style="text-indent: 0in;">PSI Blog 20240219 “JWST Sees More
Galaxies than Expected”</span></span></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-indent: 0in;"><o:p><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Excuses being made up for the “elderly
galaxies” being found in the cosmogonical crib.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgCrGAM0ZuBfelFfBQ_Tactigq25jOJxf4eVGv3W9Su22gY3h36j-qjuC8UBBki8FJh2hCsXSoVbKr5FIFbVTOejHkpD_wnCY7gNqg6bcSsWinlzSeYLAMRz4yTBUEHu3VJa_7FVYQpjjtLrAt3-EYiDwjom6xtX_14P09xJLI0N0Eeh0hzQV_UxnBJN-Sw" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><img alt="" data-original-height="775" data-original-width="830" height="317" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgCrGAM0ZuBfelFfBQ_Tactigq25jOJxf4eVGv3W9Su22gY3h36j-qjuC8UBBki8FJh2hCsXSoVbKr5FIFbVTOejHkpD_wnCY7gNqg6bcSsWinlzSeYLAMRz4yTBUEHu3VJa_7FVYQpjjtLrAt3-EYiDwjom6xtX_14P09xJLI0N0Eeh0hzQV_UxnBJN-Sw=w339-h317" width="339" /></span></a></div><p></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><span style="mso-no-proof: yes;"><v:shapetype coordsize="21600,21600" filled="f" id="_x0000_t75" o:preferrelative="t" o:spt="75" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" stroked="f">
<v:stroke joinstyle="miter">
<v:formulas>
<v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0">
<v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0">
<v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1">
<v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2">
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth">
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight">
<v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1">
<v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2">
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth">
<v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0">
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight">
<v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0">
</v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:formulas>
<v:path gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect" o:extrusionok="f">
<o:lock aspectratio="t" v:ext="edit">
</o:lock></v:path></v:stroke></v:shapetype><v:shape alt="Figure caption" id="Picture_x0020_1" o:spid="_x0000_i1025" style="height: 372pt; mso-wrap-style: square; visibility: visible; width: 398.25pt;" type="#_x0000_t75">
<v:imagedata o:title="Figure caption" src="file:///C:/Users/gborc/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.png">
</v:imagedata></v:shape></span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: x-large;">The galaxy CEERS-93316 was originally determined to date
from 250 million years after the big bang. Astrophysicists have since revised
this number to 1.2 billion years after the big bang. Photo credit: S. Jewell
and C. Pollock/University of Edinburgh.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Thanks to George Coyne
for this heads up. He says: “I thought you would find the recalculation of the age
of the galaxy to be as amusing, unjustified and silly as I did.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><a href="https://physics.aps.org/articles/v17/23?fbclid=IwAR1spJLTCBicncmQMv6Lc9lG_-1JX_vqMiOK357KNSelpeszC-uX8S8uk7Y"><span style="mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">https://physics.aps.org/articles/v17/23?fbclid=IwAR1spJLTCBicncmQMv6Lc9lG_-1JX_vqMiOK357KNSelpeszC-uX8S8uk7Y</span></a><span style="mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">As most readers
know, the Big Bang universe is supposed to be younger and younger as we look
back in time. Not so…<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">More serious ad
hocs (theoretical add-ons designed to save a faltering theory) are now
appearing. First you do some recalculations. Then you hypothesize some
never-before seen special properties to help maintain what is left of your
theoretical mess. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Remember that is
what Einstein did in his famously well received hypothesis that light was a
particle and not a wave. The result was his “Untired Light Theory,” which
assumes light is a massless particle filled with perfectly empty space
traveling perpetually through perfectly empty space. There is no evidence for
any of that, but it remains the foundation of the ridiculous expanding universe
interpretation. The cosmological redshift is mostly a result of energy loss
over distance, with very little of it being a result of the Doppler effect and
none of it being the result of the magical ><b><i>c</i></b> expansion of perfectly
empty space.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">It's not my theory,
so I haven’t studied the recalculations used to drop the redshift from what was
once thought to be z=16.7 to z=4.9. But here is a salient quote from Katherine
Wright’s article:<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">“So far, only about
10 of the high-redshift galaxies found in the initial JWST images have had
spectroscopic follow-ups. Among them is CEERS-93316. That more detailed view
led Donnan and his colleagues to revise the galaxy’s redshift down to 4.9,
which came as a relief to the researchers. ‘If CEERS-93316 had kept its high
redshift, that would have been very difficult to reconcile with the models,’<a name="_wsQP_"></a> says Pablo Arrabal Haro, the lead researcher…”<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Let’s all hope the “more
detailed view” doesn’t lead to a recalc of our own Milky Way, which has been a
proud 13.61 Ga (billions of years old) for quite some time.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><span style="mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">We now have </span><a href="https://medium.com/@glennborchardt/list-of-falsifications-of-the-big-bang-theory-f5097445a5bf"><span style="mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">23 falsifications of the Big Bang Theory</span></a><span style="mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">. Most of those are ad hocs like the first one
I listed,<a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020240219%20%E2%80%9CJWST%20Sees%20More%20Galaxies%20than%20Expected%E2%80%9D.docx#_edn1" name="_ednref1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>
which is a violation of </span>the Fifth Assumption of Science, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">conservation</i></b>
(Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed). The ad
hoc is the Fifth Assumption of Religion, <i>creation</i> (Matter and motion can
be created out of nothing).<a name="_Hlk120519693"><o:p></o:p></a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk120519693;"><o:p><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk120519693;"></span>
</span><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">PSI Blog 20240219<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Thanks for reading
Infinite Universe Theory! On Medium.com you can subscribe for free to receive
new posts and be part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution.” There you
can support PSI financially by clapping 50 times and responding with your
questions.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<div style="mso-element: endnote-list;"><!--[if !supportEndnotes]--><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br clear="all" />
</span><hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<div id="edn1" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020240219%20%E2%80%9CJWST%20Sees%20More%20Galaxies%20than%20Expected%E2%80%9D.docx#_ednref1" name="_edn1" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>
[That is the one David Balogun used to best Neil deGrasse Tyson in a short
debate.] <a href="https://medium.com/@glennborchardt/nine-year-old-genius-calls-out-cosmogonist-neil-degrasse-tyson-on-the-falsity-of-the-big-bang-ec9ee58a27e5">https://medium.com/@glennborchardt/nine-year-old-genius-calls-out-cosmogonist-neil-degrasse-tyson-on-the-falsity-of-the-big-bang-ec9ee58a27e5</a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>Glenn Borchardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-50552375373413167632024-02-12T05:00:00.000-08:002024-02-12T07:33:50.880-08:00Aliens, Faster than Light Travel, and the Mysterious “Zero-point Energy”<p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> PSI Blog 20240212 Aliens, Faster than Light Travel, and
the Mysterious “Zero-point Energy”</span></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">A PSI member has some popular questions. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhdRsfl4EAdC188_N-YZm7Raz-aGvclkMs1RQQP2xlIinFiwWFYJ-f1YvKQn0EWD-h5oEjtt5h4iIaonm9nmDvKcpi7GwKVd2ScRfT7P3d3mNpLKRD4QnPPgu6poWbNMvFPz8QWeSDO5O9Y8AVBAQE14-DNLR_CA0gM4rfMS4hYDKpjBA4ssczBqO2DnVAL" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="605" data-original-width="968" height="262" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhdRsfl4EAdC188_N-YZm7Raz-aGvclkMs1RQQP2xlIinFiwWFYJ-f1YvKQn0EWD-h5oEjtt5h4iIaonm9nmDvKcpi7GwKVd2ScRfT7P3d3mNpLKRD4QnPPgu6poWbNMvFPz8QWeSDO5O9Y8AVBAQE14-DNLR_CA0gM4rfMS4hYDKpjBA4ssczBqO2DnVAL=w420-h262" width="420" /></a></span></div><p></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">Oumuamua, a 400-m long cosmological object best avoided
during high-speed interstellar flight. Photo credit: NASA.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">Thanks to Rick
Doogie for his comment:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">“Thanks for your
work. It's always a pleasure to read your articles, especially when you are
interacting with someone new who has questions for you.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">Two suggestions;
Here's a popular "science" topic. What do you have to say about
zero-point energy? And how about faster-than-light travel and/or communication?
My conspiracy-minded friends love suggesting that the government has this
technology that it is keeping secret. Of course, they reverse-engineered it
from crashed alien spacecrafts. (I laugh to think that aliens have the tech to
traverse many light-years, but they crash easily once they are in the Earth's
atmosphere.)”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">Aliens<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">Ever since the
first stranger was sighted, humans have been curious and fearful about
strangers: Was that new creature good or evil? Peaceful or warlike? That was
nothing new. You only have to take a walk in the woods to observe animals in
the wild who are always on the lookout for who or what might get them. It is
why we now have door cameras and we look out our windows to see what other
folks are up to. It is why some folks are fearful of anything “alien,” with immigrants
or those who look different being good examples.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">The alien hysteria
that received great impetus after World War II seems to have been stimulated by
the great fearfulness that continues today. It is no wonder. That war killed 60
million of us. Cosmological observations and communications have broadened our
horizons. With an estimated 20 trillion galaxies, each containing upward of one
trillion stars, it is a near certainty that there are aliens on other
“Goldilocks” planets. We just won’t be meeting any of them soon.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">So far, there is no
concrete evidence that such visits have occurred during the last 3.8 billion
years that the earth has existed. That includes a lot of observations of the
sedimentary rocks all over the globe. Not a single crash site or other evidence
of alien contact has been confirmed. All the UFO<a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020240212%20Aliens,%20Faster%20than%20Light%20Travel,%20and%20the%20Mysterious%20%E2%80%9CZero-point%20Energy%E2%80%9D.docx#_edn1" name="_ednref1" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference">[1]</span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
sightings, tall tales, science fiction, “superheroes saving humanity movies,” and
conspiracies are simply products of our usual <i>Dreams and Imaginings</i>™. We have been examining
our sister planets, with no sign of life on any of them so far. SETI has been a
big disappointment—seems no one even wants to talk to us. Still, someday those
efforts <a href="https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?shva=1#inbox/FMfcgzGwJvgZcqDmVjDsWgCFWPXbmjPB">might succeed</a>, providing a huge shock to those who still think everything in the
universe was created just for us.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">The nearest star,
Alpha Centauri, is over four light years away and we don’t even know if any of
its planets contain life, much less, being capable of sending some of it here. It
would take our fastest, long distance rocket (Voyager) 74,000 years to get
there.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">Faster
Than Light Speed<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">That’s what it
would take to make a trip to the nearest star possible in reasonable time. I
don’t subscribe to Einstein’s “speed limit,” because that is only for wave
motion through the aether medium. We are talking particles here, that is,
rocket ships. I am no rocket scientist, but it seems the main problem is that
traveling at anything near or greater than <b><i>c</i></b> would be disastrous
for a rocket that collides with even a small cosmological object. That could be
why <a name="_wsQV_"></a>we have not been visited yet by an alien ship.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">What
the Heck is Zero-Point Energy?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">Wikipedia has the
answer here: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">That’s a pretty
long and sophisticated answer from folks who don’t even know what energy is.
Truth be told, energy simply is a calculation we use to describe the motion of
matter. It neither exists (like matter) nor occurs (like motion). The subject
comes up in theoretical physics most often with regard to quantum mechanics and
Einstein’s assumed perfectly empty space.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">It is somewhat
hopeful that the wiki article mentions aether, which has been banned from
theoretical physics ever since Einstein. His treatment of Maxwell’s E=mc<sup>2</sup>
as the conversion of matter into some kind of ghostly matterless motion
underlies the confusion, as I explained in:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"><a name="_Hlk120519693"></a><a name="_Hlk36374389">Borchardt,
Glenn, 2009, The physical meaning of E=mc<sup>2</sup></a>,
Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance: Storrs, CN, v. 6, no. 1, p.
27-31 [<a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221706054_The_physical_meaning_of_Emc2">10.13140/RG.2.1.2387.4643</a>].<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">In brief, the motion of submicrocosms within a
microcosm (portion of the universe) can be transferred to its surroundings. The
surroundings can be anything, but the aether is especially important, as
indicated by the bi-directional use of the velocity of light in the equation.
There is nothing magical, mysterious, or difficult to understand about it. It
is simply the transfer of the motion of internal matter to external matter. Without
the aether particles in the aether medium, the equation would not work much of
the time.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">Note that the equation works in reverse, such
as when the motion of aether particles in light waves is transferred to the
submicrocosms in a microcosm. That is the approach Maxwell used in developing
the E=mc<sup>2</sup> equation in 1862 to understand the absorption of light by
plants and the otherwise unfathomable increase in some of the mass.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">Remember Martin Gardner’s wise dictum: “When
the coffee cools, mass is lost.” As with Maxwell, the reverse is true: When the
coffee is heated, mass is gained. Also remember that mass is the resistance to
acceleration by already existing matter. That “already existing matter” is
assumed by the Fifth Assumption of Science, <b><i>conservation</i></b> (Matter and
the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed), which underlies
Infinite Universe Theory.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">Back to
zero-point energy. As in my study and eventual explication of the E=mc<sup>2</sup>
equation, I suspect most of the mystery surrounding that concept involves the
motions of aether particles. Much of the consternation involves philosophy
because most theoretical physicists are afflicted with aether denial. Theories
breaking away from that are unlikely to be accepted without some surreptitious,
back-door maneuvers never mentioning the word “aether.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">Thus, we have
claims of “energy” coming in and out of existence. We have claims of “virtual”
particles magically appearing and disappearing to produce the universe out of
nothing.<a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020240212%20Aliens,%20Faster%20than%20Light%20Travel,%20and%20the%20Mysterious%20%E2%80%9CZero-point%20Energy%E2%80%9D.docx#_edn2" name="_ednref2" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference">[2]</span><!--[endif]--></span></a> Some have thought the imaginary Big Bang
itself was produced by one big quantum fluctuation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">So, what to make
of zero-point energy? Individual aether particles in the aether medium
obviously are in motion—possibly as great as 1.5<b><i>c</i></b>. In any case,
Einstein’s imagined perfectly empty space does not exist. If it did, the intergalactic
temperature would have been 0 degrees instead of the 2.7 degrees Kelvin that was actually measured. Temperature, of course, is the motion of matter. Any
fluctuations in temperature are due to those motions. I suspect quantum
fluctuations simply are the result of collisions with unseen matter, with
aether particles being likely at the smallest scale. Like other microcosms,
aether particles accelerate other microcosms, becoming decelerated in the
process, producing fluctuations with each collision. In any case, quantum
fluctuations cannot be the result of matterless motion in perfectly empty
space.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">Rick, thanks
again for the interesting questions. I enjoyed your humorous contradiction
involving imagined crash sites of high-tech visitors smart enough and desperate
enough to travel over 4 light years to visit us. Hope your friends stop being
afraid of aliens and don’t interfere with top secret military inventions that
inevitably have a few mishaps during development.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">PSI Blog 20240212<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">Thanks for reading
Infinite Universe Theory! On Medium.com you can subscribe for free to receive
new posts and be part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution.” There you
can support PSI financially by clapping 50 times and responding with your
questions.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<div><!--[if !supportEndnotes]--><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"><br clear="all" />
</span><hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<div id="edn1">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"><a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020240212%20Aliens,%20Faster%20than%20Light%20Travel,%20and%20the%20Mysterious%20%E2%80%9CZero-point%20Energy%E2%80%9D.docx#_ednref1" name="_edn1" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference">[1]</span><!--[endif]--></span></a> I like West’s invention of LIZ (Low Information Zone)
for this. He points out that to be designated “unidentified,” observations of
an object must be at the limit of resolution. Cameras and telescopes have
improved, but, each time, the improved equipment produces photos of UFOs that are
always fuzzy [West, Mick, 2023, Inventing skeptical language: Skeptical
Inquirer, v. 47, no. 4, p. 28-30]. This is predicted from I<a name="wsK1"></a>nfinite
Universe Theory, which in particular, is founded on the Third Assumption of
Science, <b><i><span lang="EN-GB">uncertainty</span></i></b> (It is impossible to know everything about anything,
but it is often possible to know more about anything). Because the universe is
infinite, there always will be causes for effects we will not be able to
explain. Nonetheless, the whole UFO nonsense was put to bed by the Condon
report over a half century ago [Boffey, P.M., 1969, UFO study: Condon group
finds no evidence of visits from outer space: Science, v. 163, p. 260-262.] The
most recent investigation pushed by the latest gang of conspiracy theorists
came to the same conclusion [Kirkpatrick, Sean, 2024, Here’s What I Learned as
the U.S. Government’s UFO Hunter: A forthcoming investigational report from an
office of the Pentagon has found no evidence of aliens, only allegations
circulated repeatedly by UFO claim advocates, Scientific American, Accessed
20240128 (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heres-what-i-learned-as-the-<a name="_wsQP_"></a>u-s-governments-ufo-hunter/).]<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div id="edn2">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"><a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020240212%20Aliens,%20Faster%20than%20Light%20Travel,%20and%20the%20Mysterious%20%E2%80%9CZero-point%20Energy%E2%80%9D.docx#_ednref2" name="_edn2" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference">[2]</span><!--[endif]--></span></a> Krauss, L.M., 2012, A Universe from Nothing: Why
There is Something Rather Than Nothing: New York, Free Press.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div><div style="mso-element: endnote-list;"><div id="edn2" style="mso-element: endnote;">
</div>
</div>Glenn Borchardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-25793216627262675622024-02-05T05:00:00.000-08:002024-02-05T05:00:00.247-08:00Why Everything Must be in Motion if the Universe is Infinite<p></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><a name="_wsQV_"></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 18pt; text-indent: 0in;">PSI
Blog 20240205 Why Everything Must be in Motion if the Universe is Infinite</span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">But
not necessarily in motion if it is finite.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-no-proof: yes;"><v:shapetype coordsize="21600,21600" filled="f" id="_x0000_t75" o:preferrelative="t" o:spt="75" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" stroked="f">
<v:stroke joinstyle="miter">
<v:formulas>
<v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0">
<v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0">
<v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1">
<v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2">
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth">
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight">
<v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1">
<v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2">
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth">
<v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0">
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight">
<v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0">
</v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:formulas>
<v:path gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect" o:extrusionok="f">
<o:lock aspectratio="t" v:ext="edit">
</o:lock></v:path></v:stroke></v:shapetype><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_1" o:spid="_x0000_i1025" style="height: 296.25pt; mso-wrap-style: square; visibility: visible; width: 468pt;" type="#_x0000_t75">
<v:imagedata o:title="" src="file:///C:/Users/gborc/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.jpg">
</v:imagedata></v:shape><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhR6bCNn0YumJZh_u-x4KpNiz_NIpzEdsTm1hzqyjRmwLA9gUwHiJ1Ln1ApR7tRQLHKXRpFcNyAU32uOh--4-kWu0xmuVClb8Ui21v4xOgqHUhCI1yFHOOnuKXwLD3Q0DhksUELJOPpA4YOHILOyKWC7JwCT92F-0dHJy299G4rpi0zYHZq52KGvt26GRz_" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="617" data-original-width="975" height="229" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhR6bCNn0YumJZh_u-x4KpNiz_NIpzEdsTm1hzqyjRmwLA9gUwHiJ1Ln1ApR7tRQLHKXRpFcNyAU32uOh--4-kWu0xmuVClb8Ui21v4xOgqHUhCI1yFHOOnuKXwLD3Q0DhksUELJOPpA4YOHILOyKWC7JwCT92F-0dHJy299G4rpi0zYHZq52KGvt26GRz_=w361-h229" width="361" /></a></div><br /> <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 18pt; text-indent: 0in;">Portion
of Photo by </span><a href="https://unsplash.com/@gabriellemeschini?utm_content=creditCopyText&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=unsplash" style="text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">Gabrielle Meschini</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 18pt; text-indent: 0in;"> on </span><a href="https://unsplash.com/photos/a-view-of-a-city-through-a-chain-link-fence-0h9yAiOCHm8?utm_content=creditCopyText&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=unsplash" style="text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">Unsplash</span></a><p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">Thanks to Rex Kerr for this claim:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">“It's a thought experiment illustrating how you could
have a lack of relativity (e.g. because a fixed ether<a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020240205%20Why%20Everything%20in%20the%20Universe%20Must%20be%20in%20Motion%20if%20it%20is%20Infinite.docx#_edn1" name="_ednref1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>
provides a universal reference frame) regardless of whether the universe was
finite. A thought experiment is sufficient to disprove your claim linking
infinity and relativity.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">I don't actually mean that there's ether, as per the
Michelson-Morely experiment.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">Inperiments<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">A thought experiment ("inperiment"<a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020240205%20Why%20Everything%20in%20the%20Universe%20Must%20be%20in%20Motion%20if%20it%20is%20Infinite.docx#_edn2" name="_ednref2" style="mso-endnote-id: edn2;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>)
is a hypothesis suggesting what results would be obtained if an experiment could
be performed. It actually is an oxymoron, with the “thought” being internal and
the “ex” being external. Inperiments prove nothing until the experiments have
been carried out. They often are used when that is impossible. Inperiments are
fine as long as they do no not violate the "The Ten Assumptions of Science."<a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020240205%20Why%20Everything%20in%20the%20Universe%20Must%20be%20in%20Motion%20if%20it%20is%20Infinite.docx#_edn3" name="_ednref3" style="mso-endnote-id: edn3;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">Rex, in hypothesizing that ether might be fixed, you
are assuming the Fourth Assumption of Religion, <i>separability</i> (Motion can
occur without matter and matter can exist without motion).<a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020240205%20Why%20Everything%20in%20the%20Universe%20Must%20be%20in%20Motion%20if%20it%20is%20Infinite.docx#_edn4" name="_ednref4" style="mso-endnote-id: edn4;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>
There is no evidence for either of those although neither <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">inseparability</i></b> nor </span><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">separability</span></i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">, being
fundamental assumptions, are completely provable in the same way neither <b><i>infinity</i></b>
nor <i>finity</i> are completely provable.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">Relativity<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">Relativity is the principle that all things in the
universe are in motion. Variations of the idea were mentioned by Aristotle,
Lucretius, Newton, Galileo, and others who looked at the night sky
systematically. The use of the telescope in support of Copernicus set cosmology
on a never-ending confirmation of relativity and <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">inseparability</i></b>. We may
disagree with most of Einstein’s claims, but not his popularization of the
principle of relativity, with which his name resides. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">The relationship between <b><i>infinity</i></b> and <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">inseparability<o:p></o:p></i></b></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">Now let me go through the logic of how the principle
of relativity can be derived from <b><i>infinity</i></b>. First, there are two
kinds of infinity: macro and micro. Second, my assumption logically includes
both kinds as the Eighth Assumption of Science, <b><i>infinity</i></b> (The
universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). In
other words, scale is irrelevant, as <b><i>infinity</i></b> implies there is no
beginning or end to the progression in either direction. Each portion of the
Infinite Universe contains other portions within and without, ad infinitum. As
with all fundamental assumptions this never can be completely proven in the
same way we can never completely prove there are causes for all effects.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><b><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">Infinity</span></i></b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"> seems especially difficult
for most folks to understand, although both ends of the spectrum continually receive
confirmation. The JWST photos of elderly galaxies at the current limit of
observation support macro infinity and accelerators support micro infinity with
no end in sight.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">Interconnection</span></i></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"> </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">The Tenth Assumption of Science, <b><i>interconnection</i></b>
(All things are interconnected, that is, between any two objects exist other
objects that transmit matter and motion) is consupponible<a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020240205%20Why%20Everything%20in%20the%20Universe%20Must%20be%20in%20Motion%20if%20it%20is%20Infinite.docx#_edn5" name="_ednref5" style="mso-endnote-id: edn5;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[5]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>
with <b><i>infinity</i></b>, being easily deduced therefrom. Objects continually
subject to such transmission (i.e., collisions) obviously cannot be without
motion. Thus, <b><i>infinity</i></b> implies <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">inseparability</i></b>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">Similarly, <i>finity</i> implies </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">the Tenth
Assumption of Religion, <i>disconnection</i><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>(There
may be perfectly empty space between any two objects). This, in turn, is </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">consupponible with the Fifth Assumption of Religion, <i>creation</i>
(Matter and motion can be created out of nothing). Einstein’s popularity and
the popularity of its derivative, the Big Bang Theory, was set in motion with
his rejection of aether and his assumption light was a massless particle filled
with perfectly empty space traveling perpetually through perfectly empty space.
Although there is no evidence in support of this “Untired Light Theory,” its
acceptance and promulgation by regressive physicists fits humanity’s
evolutionary pattern.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">Being myopic and self-centered, humanity unconsciously
and necessarily began emphasizing matter, but downgrading motion. First there
was the supposed creation of all things one could see, with the unmoving Earth created
just for us being surrounded by the stars fixed upon a rotating celestial
sphere. Remnants of those assumptions remain with us today, with a few folks
still believing in geocentrism and flat-earth theories. Others even have
hypothesized a fixed ether with each particle considered to be absolutely
motionless. Some have realized that particular absurdity, building an imaginary
framework to keep the particles from moving around,<a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020240205%20Why%20Everything%20in%20the%20Universe%20Must%20be%20in%20Motion%20if%20it%20is%20Infinite.docx#_edn6" name="_ednref6" style="mso-endnote-id: edn6;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[6]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>
which is not much better. Others have thought of ether as an imaginary
immovable solid or as a liquid. In I<a name="wsK1"></a>nfinite Universe Theory we
consider aether to be a theoretically necessary quasi-gaseous medium for wave
transmission. It must have interparticle motion akin to everything else in the
universe described by the relativity principle and the Ten Assumptions of
Science. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">PSI Blog 20240205<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">Thanks for reading Infinite Universe Theory! On
Medium.com you can subscribe for free to receive new posts and be part of the
“Last Cosmological Revolution.” There you can support PSI financially by
clapping 50 times and responding with your questions.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="mso-element: endnote-list;"><!--[if !supportEndnotes]--><br clear="all" />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<div id="edn1" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020240205%20Why%20Everything%20in%20the%20Universe%20Must%20be%20in%20Motion%20if%20it%20is%20Infinite.docx#_ednref1" name="_edn1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"> Note there have
been two different spellings used for the luminiferous medium. The proper
spelling that I now use derives from Descartes and begins with an “a.<a name="_wsQP_"></a>” I reserve the ether spelling for the fixed version
Michelson and Morley essentially proved nonexistent.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="edn2" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020240205%20Why%20Everything%20in%20the%20Universe%20Must%20be%20in%20Motion%20if%20it%20is%20Infinite.docx#_ednref2" name="_edn2" style="mso-endnote-id: edn2;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"> My suggested
replacement for the phrase.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="edn3" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020240205%20Why%20Everything%20in%20the%20Universe%20Must%20be%20in%20Motion%20if%20it%20is%20Infinite.docx#_ednref3" name="_edn3" style="mso-endnote-id: edn3;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The Ten Assumptions of Science: Toward a New
Scientific Worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p. [<a href="https://gborc.com/TTAOS">https://gborc.com/TTAOS</a>; <a href="https://gborc.com/TTAOSpdf">https://gborc.com/TTAOSpdf</a>].</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="edn4" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020240205%20Why%20Everything%20in%20the%20Universe%20Must%20be%20in%20Motion%20if%20it%20is%20Infinite.docx#_ednref4" name="_edn4" style="mso-endnote-id: edn4;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"> Borchardt, Glenn,
2020, Religious Roots of Relativity: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science
Institute, 160 p. [<a href="https://go.glennborchardt.com/RRR-ebk">https://go.glennborchardt.com/RRR-ebk</a>]
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="edn5" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020240205%20Why%20Everything%20in%20the%20Universe%20Must%20be%20in%20Motion%20if%20it%20is%20Infinite.docx#_ednref5" name="_edn5" style="mso-endnote-id: edn5;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[5]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"> A word coined by
R.G. Collingwood for fundamental assumptions that don’t contradict one another.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="edn6" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020240205%20Why%20Everything%20in%20the%20Universe%20Must%20be%20in%20Motion%20if%20it%20is%20Infinite.docx#_ednref6" name="_edn6" style="mso-endnote-id: edn6;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[6]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"> Grantham, RG,
2010, The fabric of space as an electron-positron lattice and its implications
for GRT. ver2. Aug2010: [<a href="https://vixra.org/abs/2112.0150">https://vixra.org/abs/2112.0150</a>].<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div><br /><p></p>Glenn Borchardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-44271274017573475122024-01-29T05:00:00.000-08:002024-01-29T05:00:00.133-08:00NPR: “James Webb Telescope detects earliest known black hole — it's really big for its age”<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">PSI
Blog 20240129 NPR: <a name="wsKB"></a><a name="_wsQV_"></a>“James Webb Telescope
detects earliest known black hole — it's really big for its age”<a name="wsKK"></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">Yet
another elderly object is found in the cosmogonical crib.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWb_FsbOsS0OiEgeDW4KHzGSC1hB0eJoJUDc-JoYEPhzrhGAzTHEsIUQAHUnNchclUnNHJEWXAI-QDe6on6qhx7ExdxkEa7Lv00pd-KPJaNnBg1nu9BOeVw_jGYF-u1bhy6YE8BfvPeyzn7MWJKOO40dw2thqa9JYgGkllW7XholnUYLcDLWN3BeqhIsxZ/s615/20240129%20Elderly%20BH.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="426" data-original-width="615" height="284" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWb_FsbOsS0OiEgeDW4KHzGSC1hB0eJoJUDc-JoYEPhzrhGAzTHEsIUQAHUnNchclUnNHJEWXAI-QDe6on6qhx7ExdxkEa7Lv00pd-KPJaNnBg1nu9BOeVw_jGYF-u1bhy6YE8BfvPeyzn7MWJKOO40dw2thqa9JYgGkllW7XholnUYLcDLWN3BeqhIsxZ/w410-h284/20240129%20Elderly%20BH.jpg" width="410" /></a></div><br /><p></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-no-proof: yes;"><v:shapetype coordsize="21600,21600" filled="f" id="_x0000_t75" o:preferrelative="t" o:spt="75" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" stroked="f">
<v:stroke joinstyle="miter">
<v:formulas>
<v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0">
<v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0">
<v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1">
<v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2">
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth">
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight">
<v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1">
<v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2">
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth">
<v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0">
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight">
<v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0">
</v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:formulas>
<v:path gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect" o:extrusionok="f">
<o:lock aspectratio="t" v:ext="edit">
</o:lock></v:path></v:stroke></v:shapetype><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_1" o:spid="_x0000_i1025" style="height: 324pt; mso-wrap-style: square; visibility: visible; width: 467.25pt;" type="#_x0000_t75">
<v:imagedata o:title="" src="file:///C:/Users/gborc/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.jpg">
</v:imagedata></v:shape></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">“This
image shows a 'close-up' of the galaxy GN-z11 as imaged by the Hubble Space
Telescope, superimposed on top of another image marking the galaxy's location
in the sky.” <i>NASA<o:p></o:p></i></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></i></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">Here
we go again: As we look increasingly distant into what cosmologists assume to
be the Big Bang universe, we are supposed to see increasingly young
cosmological structures. Not so. Black holes are the nuclei of galaxies. They
becoming increasingly large when their associated stars are pushed therein.
This takes an extremely long time.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">Our
own Milky Way has an extremely tiny black hole, containing an equivalent of “only”
4.3 million solar masses. With an estimated 400 billion stars, that is about
0.001% of the mass of the entire galaxy. The Milky Way is 13.61 Ga (i.e., 13.61
billion years old). At that rate, it looks like it would take trillions of
years for all those stars to be pushed into the nucleus.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;"><a href="https://www.npr.org/2024/01/17/1225153504/james-webb-telescope-detects-earliest-known-black-hole-its-really-big-for-its-ag"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 36.0pt;">“James Webb
Telescope detects earliest known black hole — it's really big for its age”</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 36.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><a href="https://www.npr.org/2024/01/17/1225153504/james-webb-telescope-detects-earliest-known-black-hole-its-really-big-for-its-ag"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">https://www.npr.org/2024/01/17/1225153504/james-webb-telescope-detects-earliest-known-black-hole-its-really-big-for-its-ag</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">You
might like this link for it has a podcast to go along with the transcript. Here
are a few telling quotes from Ari Daniel, the interviewer:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">“When
the Hubble Space Telescope first spotted the galaxy </span><a href="https://science.nasa.gov/missions/hubble/hubble-team-breaks-cosmic-distance-record/"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">GN-z11</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> in 2016, it
was the most distant galaxy scientists had ever identified. It was ancient,
formed 13.4 billion years ago — a mere 400 million years after the Big Bang.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">Daniel
quotes the author: "It is essentially not possible to grow such a massive
black hole so fast so early in the universe," Maiolino says.
"Essentially, there is not enough time according to classical theories. So
one has to invoke alternative scenarios."<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 24.0pt;">Ad
Hoc Time<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">Then
come the ad hocs we have been waiting for. Daniel says:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">“Here's
scenario one — rather than starting out small, perhaps supermassive black holes
in the early universe were simply born big due to the collapse of vast clouds
of primordial gas.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">“Scenario
two is that maybe early stars collapsed to form a sea of smaller black holes,
which could have then merged or swallowed matter way faster than we thought,
causing the r<a name="_wsQP_"></a>esulting black hole to grow quickly.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">“Or
perhaps it's some combination of both.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">These
perhaps are no more absurd than the numerous ad hocs already used to save the
Big Bang Theory. Like the others, if repeated enough they might become the
illusory truth. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">PSI Blog 20240129<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">Thanks for reading Infinite Universe Theory! On
Medium.com you can subscribe for free to receive new posts and be part of the
“Last Cosmological Revolution.” There you can support PSI financially by
clapping 50 times and responding with your questions.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 18pt; text-indent: 0in;"> </span> </p>Glenn Borchardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-12556290634173940682024-01-22T05:00:00.000-08:002024-01-22T05:00:00.315-08:00BBC: “Huge Ring of Galaxies Challenges Thinking on Cosmos”<p> <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 18pt; text-indent: 0in;">PSI
Blog 20240122 BBC: “Huge Ring of Galaxies Challenges Thinking on Cosmos”</span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">Infinite
Universe Theory predicts there is no end to the size of astronomical structures.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjj9BXZtuLuzJt6_93T2lLd-3ZO7JXpwvGc2UEkDSCuw1Sojd1uOOTTpCoVMERs5_h4MpoyQh2ebEssQPn1Q4PGzpy0gNNBmlgur8amNPyACJZmqmeWknoJYGgxlPLIlNbg8WJuVrUvREIhk9SURZRYGSL5rf7vH_oHqbBiFbz_llcQmVA0H889HCgne9bt/s926/2024-01-13%20Big%20Ring%20and%20Giant%20Arc.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="508" data-original-width="926" height="261" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjj9BXZtuLuzJt6_93T2lLd-3ZO7JXpwvGc2UEkDSCuw1Sojd1uOOTTpCoVMERs5_h4MpoyQh2ebEssQPn1Q4PGzpy0gNNBmlgur8amNPyACJZmqmeWknoJYGgxlPLIlNbg8WJuVrUvREIhk9SURZRYGSL5rf7vH_oHqbBiFbz_llcQmVA0H889HCgne9bt/w474-h261/2024-01-13%20Big%20Ring%20and%20Giant%20Arc.jpg" width="474" /></a></div><p></p><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">Photo credit Pallab Ghosh: “An artist's impression highlighting the
positions of the Big Ring (in blue) and Giant Arc (shown in red) in the sky.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;"><a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-67950749"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 36pt;">Huge ring of
galaxies challenges thinking on cosmos</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 36pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">Astute
readers know Infinite Universe Theory is founded on the Eighth Assumption of
Science, <b><i>infinity</i></b> (The universe is infinite, both in the
microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). This means, of course, that there is
no largest object, just as there is no smallest object.<a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/PC/Downloads/PSI%20Blog%2020240122%20BBC--Huge%20ring%20of%20galaxies%20challenges%20thinking%20on%20cosmos%20(1).docx#_edn1" name="_ednref1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">With
regard to the Big Ring, the latest discovery, Pallab Ghosh writes: “It is 1.3bn
light-years in diameter and appears to be roughly 15 times the size of the Moon
in the night sky as seen from Earth.” <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">And:
“The Big Ring was identified by Alexia Lopez, a PhD student at the University
of Central Lancashire (UCLan), who also discovered the Giant Arc - a structure
spanning 3.3bn light-years of space.” <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">Even
that is not the largest structure so far discovered. According to Ghosh: “the
biggest single entity scientists have identified is a supercluster of galaxies
called the Hercules-Corona Borealis Great Wall, which is about 10 billion
light-years wide.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">So,
what makes a cosmological structure such as a supercluster? Like everything in
the Infinite Universe, each is a microcosm containing submicrocosms in
association. <a name="_wsQV_"></a>Also, like all microcosms, they form via
convergence, having been pushed together via gravitation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">As
Ghosh implied in the BBC article, these hugh structures are a grand falsification
of the “Cosmological Principle.” They are not supposed to exist because the
universe is supposed to be homogeneous like a normal explosion would be. Of
course, the Cosmological Principle was destroyed long ago when the first
structures were observed. The cosmological cognitive dissonance grows with each
new discovery. If anything, convergence is at least as great as the divergence produced
by the assumed universal expansion for which <a href="https://medium.com/@glennborchardt/falsification-20-of-the-big-bang-theory-intergalactic-distance-unchanged-over-time-2dc07d025dd0">there
is no evidence</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">Cosmogonists
still believe gravitation is caused by “attraction.” It was a way out of the
contradiction whenever things came together in a universe otherwise assumed to
be coming apart. The 13.8-Ga age of the supposed Big Bang universe lacks enough
time for the galaxies in such large structures to gravitate toward each other. The
Great Wall itself is <a href="https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercules%E2%80%93Corona_Borealis_Great_Wall">ten
billion light years away from us</a>. The light from that structure thus took
10 billion light years to reach us. Obviously, the structure we see now had to come
together prior to that time. The same goes for the newly discovered Big Ring,
which is over 9 billion light years away. The Big Bang Theory claims
astronomical structures should look younger and younger with distance. Looks
like Alexia’s discoveries confirm yet another falsification of the theory.<a name="_wsQP_"></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">The
upshot of all this just forms a progression leading to the eventual demise of
cosmogony and the “Last Creation Myth.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">PSI Blog 20240122<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">Thanks for reading Infinite Universe Theory! On
Medium.com you can subscribe for free to receive new posts and be part of the
“Last Cosmological Revolution.” There you can support PSI financially by
clapping 50 times and responding with your questions.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="mso-element: endnote-list;"><!--[if !supportEndnotes]--><br clear="all" />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<div id="edn1" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/PC/Downloads/PSI%20Blog%2020240122%20BBC--Huge%20ring%20of%20galaxies%20challenges%20thinking%20on%20cosmos%20(1).docx#_ednref1" name="_edn1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 16pt;">Puetz, S.J., and
Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the
Hierarchically Infinite Universe: Denver, Outskirts Press, 626 p.
[https://go.glennborchardt.com/UCT].<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>Glenn Borchardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-13936796113088674352024-01-15T05:00:00.000-08:002024-01-15T05:00:00.130-08:00Is Time Velocity?<p><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; text-indent: 0in;">PSI Blog 20240115 </span></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 24px;">Is Time Velocity?</span></p><p><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 24px;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 24px;">How Einstein’s Relativity obscured a simple concept.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 24px;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 24px;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; text-indent: 0in;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-size: 18pt; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; text-indent: 0in;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyPo0cHev0FDQYQfWG-cwEgPMjyVl3Xc80eGjKLEE6FkZIwZRllEd81tNXUoXgUkPuCbe3rZmpVRfQ_LJPEjGo3KOPD527f8tmh44zs1UaidpNBmWXSK9ca89BMB-NR2sE7avb-lznFPuVVOW02SjoIkusc6GZF3BAFm37i37pivhQDNl_6M6FxDZfysI2/s1158/20240108%20Auto%20motion.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="772" data-original-width="1158" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyPo0cHev0FDQYQfWG-cwEgPMjyVl3Xc80eGjKLEE6FkZIwZRllEd81tNXUoXgUkPuCbe3rZmpVRfQ_LJPEjGo3KOPD527f8tmh44zs1UaidpNBmWXSK9ca89BMB-NR2sE7avb-lznFPuVVOW02SjoIkusc6GZF3BAFm37i37pivhQDNl_6M6FxDZfysI2/w399-h266/20240108%20Auto%20motion.jpg" width="399" /></a></span></div><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">Photo
by </span><a href="https://unsplash.com/@robinpierre?utm_content=creditCopyText&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=unsplash"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">Robin Pierre</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> on </span><a href="https://unsplash.com/photos/high-angle-photography-of-road-at-nighttime-dPgPoiUIiXk?utm_content=creditCopyText&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=unsplash"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">Unsplash</span></a><span class="MsoHyperlink"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p><span style="text-decoration: none;"> </span></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 18pt; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;">Good
question from responder David Thomson:</span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">“Is
t=v?” In other words, is time equal to velocity?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">The
simple answer is NO.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">However,
the question gives me a chance to explain what relativity really is and the
difference between time/motion and the measurement of such. With all things in
the Infinite Universe being in motion with respect to all other things we must
realize all motions are relative (Lucretius and Galileo).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">You
could be driving your auto at a velocity of 68 mph (0.03 km/s) when you
calculate that measurement with reference to some point on Earth. You also
would have a velocity of 30 km/s in your motion around the Sun and 240 km/s
around the center of the Milky Way. So the measure of velocity always is
relative—to something else. That something else is what we call a “referent” or
“reference frame.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">BTW:
This is one of the ways in which Einstein fell on his own petard. By theoretically
eliminating the medium for light (aether), he had to make wild claims for light’s
velocity. He said that <b><i>c</i></b> would be constant for all observers
(referents). Whenever measurements turned out differently, he then had to claim
time was like an object that could be dilated or compressed. This was silly,
since time is motion and motion cannot be dilated or compressed.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">Actually,
light, like sound, has a constant velocity because, like sound, it is a wave in
a medium (aether) with its velocity being controlled by that medium. If an
observer gets a different measurement for the velocity either for light or
sound it is because the medium has changed or the motion of the observer has
changed. We don’t speak of “time dilation” in the case of sound and we should
not do it in the case of light.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><a name="_wsQP_"></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">The measurement of time itself is relative. We use the
rotation of Earth to calculate what we regard as seconds, hours, years, etc.
Thus, when we calculate velocity, we must divide the distance something moves
(d) by, in effect, another distance something moves (t). Both distances are
relative and, in each case, we must remember there always must be a referent. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">Of
necessity all this must be circular similar to the way in which we must answer
other questions concerning the I<a name="wsK1"></a>nfinite Universe. <b><i>Infinity</i></b>
always “passes the buck.” For instance, when we ask where did the ingredients
that produced a particular thing come from, the answer is always the same: From
somewhere else.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">One
way to remember the difference between time and the measurement of time is
this: The dinosaurs experienced time (the motion of matter), but they did not
measure it. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">Another
good question, this time from Anon:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">“With
infinity and motion of microcosmic and macrocosmic particles, there is a
natural unit at every level…<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Wouldn't
there be a natural unit for motion [that parallels the one for] matter?”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">Strictly
speaking, we only can measure things and their effects. Things have XYZ
dimensions and exist. Motion does not, so it is impossible to measure without
using things in the measurement. As far as I am aware, the best attempt at
achieving what you suggest was Planck’s constant involving what he considered
“the smallest unit of motion.” In my own calculations, I speculated that would
be the motion occurring when an aether particle collided with other matter. That
is how I used Planck’s constant to estimate a highly speculative maximum mass
of 10<sup>-47</sup> g for aether particles.<a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020240115%20Is%20Time%20Velocity.docx#_edn1" name="_ednref1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>
Of course, <b><i>infinity</i></b> implies there are even smaller particles, but
I doubt we would ever be able to measure an even smaller “unit of motion.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">PSI Blog 20240115<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">Thanks for reading Infinite Universe Theory! On
Medium.com you can subscribe for free to receive new posts and be part of the
“Last Cosmological Revolution.” There you can support PSI financially by
clapping 50 times and responding with your questions.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 16pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="mso-element: endnote-list;"><!--[if !supportEndnotes]--><br clear="all" />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<div id="edn1" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020240115%20Is%20Time%20Velocity.docx#_ednref1" name="_edn1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 16pt;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 16pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 16pt;"> Borchardt, Glenn,
2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science
Institute, Appendix. [</span><a href="http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 16pt;">http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 16pt;">]. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>Glenn Borchardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-88492958836316104042024-01-12T17:13:00.000-08:002024-01-12T17:13:33.615-08:00Unmoderated Posts Released at Last!<p><span style="font-size: large;"> Hi all:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">On Jan 8 I found out that I was not notified by Blogger to moderate 278 comments from as long ago as 2014. So, I just released them without moderation. If you have questions I never answered please resend them and I will try to answer if you send me a copy via email so I will know where to find your comment. Also, feel free to comment on any other comments that may show up. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">So sorry. It won't happen again.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Glenn</span></p>Glenn Borchardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-49224688757257143282024-01-08T05:00:00.000-08:002024-01-08T05:00:00.247-08:00Why it is so Difficult to Understand Time is Motion<p> <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 18pt; text-indent: 0in;">PSI
Blog 20240108 Why it is so Difficult to Understand Time is Motion</span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">How
Einstein’s Relativity obscured a simple concept.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiBozSGD5jy5BYHerUGz53o5asbH3lRRMWXkRSkuSMOAG0GGPs6jXQXvi_qU7pY2t_9KVztriOI-7z_Bk-2RaNZFmCPJSJf2c9jN4p4B-6tin7nOKxV13iBEMZ2Is1ZVcnTArcNeVdSaxN-SsvxXfuWes6jhqyU5qThUeEk_BZBd4-fnsovbrcUdn78VaOt" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="526" data-original-width="789" height="309" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiBozSGD5jy5BYHerUGz53o5asbH3lRRMWXkRSkuSMOAG0GGPs6jXQXvi_qU7pY2t_9KVztriOI-7z_Bk-2RaNZFmCPJSJf2c9jN4p4B-6tin7nOKxV13iBEMZ2Is1ZVcnTArcNeVdSaxN-SsvxXfuWes6jhqyU5qThUeEk_BZBd4-fnsovbrcUdn78VaOt=w465-h309" width="465" /></a></div><p></p><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 18pt; text-indent: 0in;">Photo
by </span><a href="https://unsplash.com/@robinpierre?utm_content=creditCopyText&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=unsplash" style="text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">Robin Pierre</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 18pt; text-indent: 0in;"> on </span><a href="https://unsplash.com/photos/high-angle-photography-of-road-at-nighttime-dPgPoiUIiXk?utm_content=creditCopyText&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=unsplash" style="text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">Unsplash</span></a></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">Despite one of my most popular posts, “</span><a href="https://medium.com/me/stats/post/1cb1d47a0e78"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">Time is
Motion</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">,” folks still seem to have a great deal of trouble
understanding what is really a simple concept. Many seem to think time is an
illusion or a measurement or a dimension or a substance or an object or a
mystery. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">A lot of the modern-day confusion stems from
Einstein’s Special Relativity Theory in which he erroneously and
surreptitiously substituted length, l, for time, t. This initiated a tendency
that became overt when he declared time to be a 4<sup>th</sup> dimension in
General Relativity Theory. The resulting curved 4-D spacetime is supposed to
cause gravitation. Those of us with any lick of sense have trouble with that,
being told repeatedly in school to abandon our common sense. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">But it goes deeper than Einstein’s confused math. It
involves fundamental assumptions, which can never be completely proven and
always have opposites. I think I should have done a better job of explaining
this with respect to time in "Religious Roots of Relativity." If you
have read that book, you <a name="_wsQV_"></a>will be reminded that the First
Assumption of Religion is <i>immaterialism</i> (Material things have no
objective existence, strictly being products of consciousness). Thus, if one
denies the existence of matter, then one also is denying the occurrence of the motion
of matter. For those who cannot stomach a wholesale belief in <i>immaterialism</i>,
there is a way out. It is the subdued, contradictory variation I call the
Fourth Assumption of Religion, <i>separability</i> (Motion can occur without
matter and matter can exist without motion). Many folks do not think deeply
enough to recognize these fundamental assumptions. Nonetheless, they still may
be influenced by them or their derivatives. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">Even our “smartest genius” was oblivious to them.<a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020240108%20Why%20it%20is%20so%20Difficult%20to%20Understand%20That%20Time%20is%20Motion.docx#_edn1" name="_ednref1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>
As you may know, Einstein’s “immaterial fields” were an example of assumed
“matterless motion.” With the E=mc<sup>2</sup> equation stolen from Maxwell he
claimed matter could be converted into energy, which could fly from the atom as
a sort of ghostly matterless motion. As part of “feral mathematics<a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020240108%20Why%20it%20is%20so%20Difficult%20to%20Understand%20That%20Time%20is%20Motion.docx#_edn2" name="_ednref2" style="mso-endnote-id: edn2;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>,”
he could get away with that without complaints from folks well-trained in
accepting religious assumptions. Since most of us were brought up religious, it
is not surprising we have difficulty understanding both matter and the motion
of matter. Both of those are outside our <i>Dreams and Imaginings,</i>™ which
we subconsciously try to keep separate from the reality staring us in the face.
Sophisticated theologians and our own “reformists” in the dissident movement
try to handle the contradiction with embellishments that are anything but
simple.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">The Infinite Universe involves the motion of each thing
with respect to other things. We measure specific time with various clocks,
while “universal time” or “absolute time” never can be measured due to <b><i>infinity</i></b>.
Above all, <a name="_wsQP_"></a>time is not the measurement, but the motion of
matter that allows the measurement and the math that goes with it. If you still
have trouble realizing time is motion, just consider it so and you will never
be wrong. You might want to read some of the comments of others struggling with
this simple concept:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><a href="https://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2011/11/time-is-motion.html"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">https://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2011/11/time-is-motion.html</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"> 102 comments<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">PSI Blog 20240108<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">Thanks for reading Infinite Universe Theory! On Medium.com you can subscribe for free to receive new posts and be part of the “Last Cosmological
Revolution.” There you can support PSI financially by clapping 50 times and
responding with your questions.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 16.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="mso-element: endnote-list;"><!--[if !supportEndnotes]--><br clear="all" />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<div id="edn1" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020240108%20Why%20it%20is%20so%20Difficult%20to%20Understand%20That%20Time%20is%20Motion.docx#_ednref1" name="_edn1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"> Borchardt, 2020,
Religious Roots of Relativity. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="edn2" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020240108%20Why%20it%20is%20so%20Difficult%20to%20Understand%20That%20Time%20is%20Motion.docx#_ednref2" name="_edn2" style="mso-endnote-id: edn2;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"> What I consider
as mathematics gone wild. Math is an imaginary model of reality, but it is not
reality. It is indispensable in science and engineering for understanding what
amounts to the collisions of one thing with another. When math hypothesizes
events that make no sense, common or otherwise, it becomes necessary to recheck
the assumptions underlying the math. Math that assumes the entire universe
exploded out of nothing is wild. A reality check is necessary.</span> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>Glenn Borchardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-49106298572275287452023-12-25T05:00:00.000-08:002023-12-25T07:40:08.336-08:00Why All Scientific Measurements are Uncertain<p> <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 18pt; text-indent: 0in;">PSI
Blog 20231225 Why All Scientific Measurements are Uncertain</span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">Heisenberg
Uncertainty Principle confirmed once again along with Infinite Universe Theory.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgH1ngPRHyVrldkGwn5ZxugGC2KRDaTfheRHY4TjnRl0PQUk5lm5yIppnkRvzz4nk80oNO204dmOcTpSR5KOYb9fi-v-rv7Ram2MBLmN_sMAehFFW688yPBwT-RsSvnnNRJ0cciYFpsOn-Twn4VAQLZCfyRUNXGNpMahnToHPqbMB84hYqcDNoy22TpSIHv" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="567" data-original-width="379" height="507" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgH1ngPRHyVrldkGwn5ZxugGC2KRDaTfheRHY4TjnRl0PQUk5lm5yIppnkRvzz4nk80oNO204dmOcTpSR5KOYb9fi-v-rv7Ram2MBLmN_sMAehFFW688yPBwT-RsSvnnNRJ0cciYFpsOn-Twn4VAQLZCfyRUNXGNpMahnToHPqbMB84hYqcDNoy22TpSIHv=w338-h507" width="338" /></a></div><p></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">Heisenberg
destroyed finite universal causality. That was Newton’s assumption that there
were a finite number of causes for all effects. Einstein and his regressive followers
never understood the universe-shaking importance of Heisenberg’s claim. Because
of the infinite subdividability of matter, causality really is infinite.
Heisenberg slew Laplace's Demon.<a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020231225%20Why%20All%20Scientific%20Measurements%20are%20Uncertain.docx#_edn1" name="_ednref1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">As
shown in this article by Karmela Padavic-Callaghan from New Scientist, quantum
mechanics still struggles with this. The prevailing view is known as the
“Copenhagen interpretation,” whereby the infinity of unknown causes is lumped
into a factor called “probability.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">During
the preparation of "The Ten Assumptions of Science"<a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020231225%20Why%20All%20Scientific%20Measurements%20are%20Uncertain.docx#_edn2" name="_ednref2" style="mso-endnote-id: edn2;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>
I was able to resolve the quandary that will afflict theoretical physicists as
long as they continue to assume </span><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;">finity</span></i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">. Here is the
logic:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: left; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">1.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">Assume
the Eighth Assumption of Science, <b><i>infinity</i></b> (The universe is
infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: left; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">2.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">Assume
the Second Assumption of Science, </span><b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;">causality</span></i></b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> (All effects have an infinite number of
material causes).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: left; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">3.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">Assume
the Third Assumption of Science, </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;">uncertainty</span></i></b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> (It is impossible to know everything about anything,
but it is often possible to know more about anything).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">Remember
these are fundamental assumptions, that is, they are unprovable, always have
opposites, and must be consupponible.<a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020231225%20Why%20All%20Scientific%20Measurements%20are%20Uncertain.docx#_edn3" name="_ednref3" style="mso-endnote-id: edn3;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>
Fundamental assumptions stimulate interminable debates because <b><i>infinity</i></b>
prevents the possibility of a complete proof for any of them or their religious
opposites.<a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020231225%20Why%20All%20Scientific%20Measurements%20are%20Uncertain.docx#_edn4" name="_ednref4" style="mso-endnote-id: edn4;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>
There is no way for anyone to go to the “end of the universe” to determine
whether it is finite or infinite. Nonetheless, the switch from </span><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;">finity</span></i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> to <b><i>infinity</i></b>
changes everything. It will result in the demise of the Big Bang Theory and the
religious notions supporting it.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">Here
is the article on the slow awakening of the thinking needed for advances in the
technology involving the extremely small portions of the Infinite Universe:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;"><a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/2409067-quantum-physicists-just-got-more-certain-about-quantum-uncertainty/#:~:text=In%20quantum%20mechanics%2C%20it%20is,more%20certain%20about%20their%20uncertainty."><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 24pt;">Quantum physicists
just got more certain about quantum uncertainty</span></b></a><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 24pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">Some
significant quotes:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">“Before
quantum physics was developed, researchers seeking to measure an object more
precisely simply reached for better measuring instruments. But in 1927, Werner
Heisenberg discovered that, when dealing with quantum-scale objects, there is a
fundamental limit on how precisely you can simultaneously measure certain pairs
of values, such as position and momentum.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">But
now, “Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle can apply even when measuring just a
single variable.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">Note
this is essentially what I have been saying for decades, as formalized by </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;">uncertainty</span></i></b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> mentioned above. It applies, not just to
quantum objects, but to all objects, no matter their size. Every measurement
has a plus or minus. That follows from the universal mechanism of evolution: <i>univironmental
determinism</i> (what happens to a portion of the universe depends on the
infinite matter in motion within and without).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">This
bit about the referenced paper is telling:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">The
theoretical physicists “faced the mathematical difficulty of having to carry
out calculations and proofs for a very general idea of position – because it
can take infinitely many values, it must be represented by an infinite grid of
numbers.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">To
get around that, they had to devise a function amenable to being lopped off for
the “final” calculation. That gets <a name="_wsQP_"></a>to the nitty gritty of
what math is all about. No finite equation can give a complete description or
perfect prediction of anything in the I<a name="wsK1"></a>nfinite Universe. Pliny
was right!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 16pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 16pt; text-indent: 0in;">PSI Blog 20231225 </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 16pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 16pt;">Thanks for reading
Infinite Universe Theory! Please subscribe for free to receive new posts and be
part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution.”</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">
</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 16pt;">On Medium.com you
can support PSI financially by clapping 50 times and responding with your
questions.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 16pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style="mso-element: endnote-list;">
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<div id="edn1" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020231225%20Why%20All%20Scientific%20Measurements%20are%20Uncertain.docx#_ednref1" name="_edn1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt;"> The proposition
an all-knowing Demon could predict the future perfectly, assuming there were a
finite number of causes for each event.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="edn2" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020231225%20Why%20All%20Scientific%20Measurements%20are%20Uncertain.docx#_ednref2" name="_edn2" style="mso-endnote-id: edn2;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt;"> Borchardt, Glenn,
2004, The Ten Assumptions of Science: Toward a New Scientific Worldview:
Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p. [</span><a href="https://gborc.com/TTAOS"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt;">https://gborc.com/TTAOS</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt;">; </span><a href="https://gborc.com/TTAOSpdf"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt;">https://gborc.com/TTAOSpdf</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt;">].<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="edn3" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020231225%20Why%20All%20Scientific%20Measurements%20are%20Uncertain.docx#_ednref3" name="_edn3" style="mso-endnote-id: edn3;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt;"> Collingwood, R.G.
1940. <i>An Essay on Metaphysics</i>. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 354 p.<o:p></o:p></span> [According to this word invented by Collingwood, assumptions are consupponible when two or more can be held without contradiction.]</p>
</div>
<div id="edn4" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020231225%20Why%20All%20Scientific%20Measurements%20are%20Uncertain.docx#_ednref4" name="_edn4" style="mso-endnote-id: edn4;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt;"> Borchardt, Glenn,
2020, Religious Roots of Relativity: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science
Institute, 160 p. [</span><a href="https://go.glennborchardt.com/RRR-ebk"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt;">https://go.glennborchardt.com/RRR-ebk</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt;">]</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>Glenn Borchardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-55242788633020479972023-12-18T05:00:00.000-08:002023-12-18T05:00:00.291-08:00Time Travel Nonsense<p> </p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">PSI
Blog 20231218 Time Travel Nonsense<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">Sorry,
but the Infinite Universe does not allow traveling back in time.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlNUihgUH7IIl5QqhjPe_jGUxa_D1oy8XTsTUzr_altebi3hF1b8F4LgWIPk0kC0k9a5VfCZv5uddC-gNrT6-DIOnmifmDsLyWP65jyUsGIo2Mh1OSeF8R0b0rdLelgbwXZdCciv3V4gWOWKuKQ61t4RpOWXge_yIpWjLyv4G4x9oTZOMqUY5qljLg0y98/s1214/20231218%20Time%20travel.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="657" data-original-width="1214" height="232" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlNUihgUH7IIl5QqhjPe_jGUxa_D1oy8XTsTUzr_altebi3hF1b8F4LgWIPk0kC0k9a5VfCZv5uddC-gNrT6-DIOnmifmDsLyWP65jyUsGIo2Mh1OSeF8R0b0rdLelgbwXZdCciv3V4gWOWKuKQ61t4RpOWXge_yIpWjLyv4G4x9oTZOMqUY5qljLg0y98/w429-h232/20231218%20Time%20travel.jpg" width="429" /></a></div><p></p><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">“Researchers
have illuminated the potential of using simulated models of time travel to
solve complex issues that conventional physics cannot.” (Shavit, 2023) (Photo
credit: Creative Commons)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;"><a href="https://www.thebrighterside.news/post/is-time-travel-actually-possible-scientists-make-groundbreaking-discovery"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 26.0pt;">Is time travel
actually possible? Scientists make groundbreaking discovery</span></b></a><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 26.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<div style="mso-element-anchor-horizontal: page; mso-element-anchor-vertical: paragraph; mso-element-frame-height: 36.8pt; mso-element-left: 71.3pt; mso-element-linespan: 2; mso-element-top: 43.3pt; mso-element-wrap: around; mso-element: dropcap-dropped; mso-height-rule: exactly;">
<table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" hspace="0" style="height: 49px;" vspace="0">
<tbody><tr>
<td align="left" height="49" style="padding-bottom: 0in; padding-left: 0in; padding-right: 0in; padding-top: 0in;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 36.8pt; margin-left: 0in; mso-element-anchor-horizontal: page; mso-element-anchor-vertical: paragraph; mso-element-frame-height: 36.8pt; mso-element-left: 71.3pt; mso-element-linespan: 2; mso-element-top: 43.3pt; mso-element-wrap: around; mso-element: dropcap-dropped; mso-height-rule: exactly; mso-line-height-rule: exactly; page-break-after: avoid; vertical-align: baseline;"><br /></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">Thanks
to Marilyn for this heads up:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Astute readers know </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">the Seventh
Assumption of Science, </span><b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">irreversibility</span></i></b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> (All processes are irreversible)
precludes time travel. Everything in the Infinite Universe is in motion with
respect to other things. The arrangement of stars and galaxies is unique each
night. “Going back in time” for even one day would require one to move each of
them back to where they were the day before.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">From
time to time, we get headlines like the above that keeps the old “time travel”
trope alive. Fantasy sells and only shows how little real thinking you have to
do to get funding in theoretical physics. Nonetheless, it makes for a nice
example of a major contradiction that regressive physicists never can resolve.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">You
see, they believe (by definition) that light is a massless particle filled with
perfectly empty space that travels perpetually through perfectly empty space at
a velocity of <b><i>c</i></b>. The contradiction arises when light goes from a
slow medium to a fast one. For instance, how does a light particle traveling at
225 million m/s in water get instantly accelerated to 300 million m/s in air? <o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<h2 align="center" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">How a Low Velocity Collision Can
Produce a High Velocity Wave<o:p></o:p></span></h2>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">The
truth is that light is not a particle, but a wave in a sea of aether particles.
The velocity of a wave is determined by the medium. That is why:<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; text-align: left; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: x-large;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">1.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Light
does not lose velocity over distance like real particles do. (A baseball or a
bullet is a good example.)<a name="_wsQP_"></a><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; text-align: left; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: x-large;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">2.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Light’s
velocity remains constant as long as the medium remains unchanged.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; text-align: left; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: x-large;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">3.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">The
motion of the source producing a light wave contributes no velocity to that
wave. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">A
medium consists of trillions of particles having local interparticle velocities
about 50% greater than the velocity of the waves produced in that medium. Sound
waves, for instance, travel through air at 343 m/s, while the interparticle
velocities of nitrogen and oxygen average 515 m/s. Even a tiny collision with
some of those particles can initiate wave motion. For instance, a drummer can
use a drumstick (traveling at a velocity of 2 m/s) to start a sound wave
traveling at 343 m/s. And you can drop a tiny pebble in a calm lake and it will
initiate a wave traveling at 2.8 m/s. All it takes is to produce a collision
with some of those particles already having high-velocity interparticle motion
or vibration within the medium.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<h2 align="center" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Significant “Milestone?”<o:p></o:p></span></h2>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">According
to author Shavit: “The findings, detailed in the study "Time-varying
media, relativity, and the arrow of time," were published in the </span><a href="https://opg.optica.org/optica/fulltext.cfm?uri=optica-10-10-1398&id=540974" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">journal
Optica</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">,
marking a significant milestone in the annals of theoretical physics.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Yikes!
I don’t think so. In addition to the customary “phontonitis,” here are some of
the other transgressions appearing in the article:<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: left; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: x-large;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">1.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Curved
spacetime (Actually, any evidence for this “Einsteinism” is simply the result
of refraction when light enters a different medium).<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: left; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: x-large;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">2.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Time
dilation (Time is motion and cannot dilate). Einstein’s erroneous substitution
of “l” for “t” in Special Relativity Theory won’t cut it.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: left; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: x-large;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">3.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Length
contraction (Why not “time contraction,” which is just as bad, but would at
least be consistent?).<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: left; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: x-large;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">4.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Still
using the Second Law of Thermodynamics without its complement, which was
resolved long ago, albeit with the assumption of <b><i>infinity</i></b>.<a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020231218%20Time%20Travel%20Nonsense.docx#_edn1" name="_ednref1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><a name="_wsQV_"></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">PSI Blog 20231218<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Thanks for reading
Infinite Universe Theory! Please subscribe for free to receive new posts and be
part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<div style="mso-element: endnote-list;"><!--[if !supportEndnotes]--><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br clear="all" />
</span><hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<div id="edn1" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020231218%20Time%20Travel%20Nonsense.docx#_ednref1" name="_edn1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> <a name="_Hlk103850497">Borchardt, Glenn, 2008,
Resolution of the SLT-order paradox, Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy
Alliance: Albuquerque, NM, v. 5 [</a><a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/10.13140/RG.2.1.1413.7768"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk103850497;">10.13140/RG.2.1.1413.7768</span></a><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk103850497;">]. [The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a
law describing divergence and its complement is a law describing convergence. In
the I<a name="wsK1"></a>nfinite Universe the coming apart of things is equivalent
to the coming together of things.]<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk103850497;"></span>
</span><p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>Glenn Borchardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-73699321301682644432023-11-27T05:00:00.000-08:002023-11-27T05:00:00.141-08:00Why the Infinite Universe is not Evolving<p> <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 18pt; text-indent: 0in;">PSI
Blog 20231127 Why the Infinite Universe is not Evolving</span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">Every
portion of the Infinite Universe is evolving, but the universe is not.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 18pt; text-indent: 0in;"> </span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-j_l1SNbZIyEfhCTrSjElHNkwN3uGL28GPYCNhMjI7AcLvXmUfecDP_UqGMhGEhNIKQtHk7rh-Rfgxw0-ZXBjG_t0z126PFmVC6h2-Uf4euSpFhtfkwyrplo80gYjO-M3nsbsEe-NqDrLvhw0nhdJKwe5IhNnNR0qzbInmdxwnNptVY_MvXlpLWbblidu/s480/Recipe%20for%20a%20Universe.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="298" data-original-width="480" height="199" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-j_l1SNbZIyEfhCTrSjElHNkwN3uGL28GPYCNhMjI7AcLvXmUfecDP_UqGMhGEhNIKQtHk7rh-Rfgxw0-ZXBjG_t0z126PFmVC6h2-Uf4euSpFhtfkwyrplo80gYjO-M3nsbsEe-NqDrLvhw0nhdJKwe5IhNnNR0qzbInmdxwnNptVY_MvXlpLWbblidu/s320/Recipe%20for%20a%20Universe.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">Thanks
to Anon for this question:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">“You
said ‘the Infinite Universe does not evolve over time, with only its individual
parts doing so,’ for this to occur as a whole are you suggesting that there is
an <a name="_Hlk151481253">exogenous or endogenous force that purposely ensures
that the Infinite Universe does not evolve</a>?
That Universal "cancer" could not take place, or that natural
evolution which is seen in all things on earth remains static for the Infinite
Universe? How does the Infinite Universe
not evolve?”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">[GB:
Let me state the answer in a few different ways:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">1.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">According
to the universal mechanism of evolution, univironmental determinism, what
happens to a portion of the universe depends on the infinite matter within and
without. That mechanism does not apply to the Infinite Universe because it has
no “without.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">Another
way of looking at it is this: Evolution is motion. Motion involves a change in
distance with respect to some other thing. There is no thing outside the Infinite
Universe that exists as a referent. Only a finite universe could evolve. That
is probably why neo-Darwinists favor the Big Bang Theory, although the
discovery of “elderly galaxies” at the limit of observation must puzzle them
too.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">3.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">There
certainly is no “exogenous or endogenous force that purposely ensures that the
Infinite Universe does not evolve.” Remember that forces do not exist. They are
simply calculations (F=ma) involving the collisions between objects containing
other objects and thus having mass. Again, there is nothing exogenous to the Infinite
Universe because, by definition, it contains all that exists.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">4.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">Also,
the Infinite Universe has no “purpose” as much as we would like there to be
one. It just is. What exists is what remains after the “destruction of the
unfittest.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><a name="wsKB"></a><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">5.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">I
am sorry, but the idea of a “universal cancer” or a “heat death” for the Infinite
Universe is a non sequitur. Birth is a coming together of ingredients; while
death is a coming apart of those ingredients. Ingredients are necessary for each
portion of the universe, but the Infinite Universe does not have that necessity
because it already contains everything. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">6.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">The
necessity to have ingredients for the production of anything is why the
universe cannot be finite, as I pointed out in more detail </span><a href="https://medium.com/@glennborchardt/why-it-is-impossible-for-the-universe-to-be-finite-5ed03385f86a"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">here</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">.<a name="wsKK"></a>
In essence, each portion of the Infinite Universe forms from ingredients from
elsewhere ad infinitum. No inexplicable explosion out of nothing is required.] <a name="_wsQP_"></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><a name="_wsQV_"></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">PSI Blog 20231127<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">Thanks for reading
Infinite Universe Theory! Please subscribe for free to receive new posts and be
part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgR1QHbGb4ET6avZbIc3urhV6UKbpEaHcdZz4doG3PhuXKADPPPB7ID-1WxmWR1-rdnymS-5Lbk64cSeTQIf4Qm5qhU1-anPB30HR7XPMYHsRvcPRAd_WCHYcNDfMjEVm4vr_Va-FNqLqO8U_iNg8mhZALpQzwemDsd9t782gvNBMdRgtj1tDKUtVJhNm2t/s658/Recipe%20for%20a%20Universe.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><br /></a></div><br /><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><br /><br /></div><br />Glenn Borchardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-58687466569643710412023-11-06T05:00:00.020-08:002023-11-06T09:32:46.563-08:00Science Magazine: “The Universe’s Puzzlingly Fast Expansion May Defy Explanation, Cosmologists Fret”<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><a name="_wsQV_"></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">PSI Blog 20231106 Science Magazine: <a name="_Hlk149918007">“The Universe’s Puzzlingly Fast Expansion May Defy
Explanation, Cosmologists Fret”</a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">“Hubble
Tension” increases cognitive dissonance for the faltering Big Bang Theory.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">Bear
with me on this one as it is a bit more complicated than the first 20
falsifications of the Big Bang Theory that I listed </span><a href="https://medium.com/@glennborchardt/list-of-falsifications-of-the-big-bang-theory-f5097445a5bf"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">here</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">. Recently, what
caught my eye was Science’s belated recognition of what is known as the “Hubble
Tension.” The Hubble Tension is the discrepancy between measurements of the
Hubble coefficient (H<sub>o</sub>) performed in two different ways best
illustrated here:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhyDNI43ECie8vP1wZk-hUghgbWvDBiEMz_oP9_X1KUp-Pm260MlD99Ua4D8fUdXWCXJi2nDig36PQe2jphG3G48CDjh-oMurdceao-FXkZdtiYrjCAoBCbpuuI6mBu1nk4zKs9bneNKetYAZg5Tbf5yx9eAKNcS_88mpblZXupH3DCbilKBMjIV8ps7Izt" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 18pt; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-indent: 0in;"><img alt="" data-original-height="515" data-original-width="975" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhyDNI43ECie8vP1wZk-hUghgbWvDBiEMz_oP9_X1KUp-Pm260MlD99Ua4D8fUdXWCXJi2nDig36PQe2jphG3G48CDjh-oMurdceao-FXkZdtiYrjCAoBCbpuuI6mBu1nk4zKs9bneNKetYAZg5Tbf5yx9eAKNcS_88mpblZXupH3DCbilKBMjIV8ps7Izt=w455-h240" width="455" /></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 18pt; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;">Figure
1. After 2013 it became clear that the Hubble coefficient was 74 instead of the
67 predicted by Big Bang Theory. The “Distance Ladder” from Cepheid Variables supports
Infinite Universe Theory instead of the Big Bang Theory. Image Credit: D’arcy
Kenworthy in Lifson (2023).</span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">The
first (in red) is from the Cosmic Microwave Background, erroneously considered
by cosmogonists to be a remnant from the Big Bang. In Infinite Universe Theory
we consider this background to be the equilibrium temperature (2.7 degrees
Kelvin) for aether and/or baryonic matter. Einstein’s perfectly empty space
would have had no temperature at all. That is because temperature is the
vibration of matter.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">The
second (in blue) is a measurement of distance to Cepheid Variables in various
galaxies. These are stars with masses about 100,000 times as great as the sun.
Unlike smaller stars, they can be seen with powerful telescopes and their
redshifts can be measured. As with any illuminated object (e.g., a flashlight),
the amount of light that reaches us is a direct function of distance.
Cosmogonists <a name="wsKB"></a>erroneously <a name="wsKK"></a>attribute the associated
cosmological redshifts to galactic recession, which supposedly is evidence for
universal expansion. It is no such thing, simply being a result of </span><a href="https://medium.com/@glennborchardt/why-the-universe-is-not-expanding-e7b9a8a55c5a"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">energy loss over
distance</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">The
subheading to the Science article is aptly titled as well:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><a href="https://gborc.com/Hubble-Tension"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 28.0pt;">“The controversial
“Hubble tension” promises deep insight but, like dark matter and dark energy,
could remain just another mystery.”</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 28.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhtYjMbdY04DjTKI3WWIyAb9deDKMAVcFqQN6CZJACAs6kU8YJU3_jYoFYurqjaZUY-dfi2K-qwrJky6Gq1klqXaGeKSewjsWcpvZH3eDV8pGPSAPzmrOGO0whsNhJHoTFnkJXa4mk2pHziC7K3_-5eKaI-zXfTL3rmFVhDyLRODcRyb9N6BePNfjPS4Dza" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="676" data-original-width="975" height="313" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhtYjMbdY04DjTKI3WWIyAb9deDKMAVcFqQN6CZJACAs6kU8YJU3_jYoFYurqjaZUY-dfi2K-qwrJky6Gq1klqXaGeKSewjsWcpvZH3eDV8pGPSAPzmrOGO0whsNhJHoTFnkJXa4mk2pHziC7K3_-5eKaI-zXfTL3rmFVhDyLRODcRyb9N6BePNfjPS4Dza=w451-h313" width="451" /></a></div><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 18pt; text-indent: 0in;">Figure
2. This figure from the article shows the Hubble Tension in a slightly
different way (Cho 2023). Previous ad hocs led to the weird asymptotic curve
requiring huge variations in expansion rates. Image credit: C. Bickel/Science.</span><p></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">Like
so many of the other falsifications of the Big Bang Theory, this one is especially
embarrassing. So much so that Science seems to have ignored it until 2019 when they
reluctantly presented the first of a half dozen articles on it even though it
was completely clear six years earlier (Figure 1). After July 2022, the James
Webb Space Telescope photos confirmed the discrepancy already noted in Hubble
Space Telescope photos, stimulating most of the unacknowledged mea culpas to be.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">The
complications shown in Figure 2 are simply a result of the erroneous assumption
that cosmological redshifts reflect galactic recession. This is why they
include velocity in labeling the Hubble coefficient (H<sub>o</sub>/(km/s)/Mpc).
When that is removed, z values become a simple function of distance, as
suggested by <a name="_wsQP_"></a>Hubble (1953) just before he died: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">“When
no recession factors are included, the law will represent approximately a
linear relation between red-shifts and distance.”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">Recent
reformist work is in agreement (Chen 2020). Here is how the simple math works:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p><h2>Hubble’s Law (without the km/s recession factor)<o:p></o:p></h2><h2 align="center" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">z =
H<sub>o</sub>d<o:p></o:p></span></h2><h2><span style="font-weight: normal;">Where:<o:p></o:p></span></h2><h2><span style="font-weight: normal;"> z
= cosmological redshift, dλ/λ<o:p></o:p></span></h2><h2><span style="font-weight: normal;"> λ
= wavelength, nm<o:p></o:p></span></h2><h2><span style="font-weight: normal;">H<sub>0</sub> = Hubble coefficient (it is
not a constant because it is multiplied, and not added like a constant would be)<o:p></o:p></span></h2><h2><span style="font-weight: normal;"> = 74/Mpc<o:p></o:p></span></h2><h2><span style="font-weight: normal;"> = 74/(3.09
X 10<sup>19</sup> km)<o:p></o:p></span></h2><h2><span style="font-weight: normal;"> d =
distance, km<o:p></o:p></span></h2><h2><span style="font-weight: normal;">Rearranging:<o:p></o:p></span></h2><h2 align="center" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">d =
z/H<sub>o</sub><o:p></o:p></span></h2><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">That
is why the direct measurements called the “Distance Ladder” in Figure 1 are
relatively identical at all distances. I predict that will hold for the extreme
distances to be measured in the future. It also is support for my claim that
the I<a name="wsK1"></a>nfinite Universe does not evolve over time, with only its
individual parts doing so.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">To
find out why the “recession factor” is still included by cosmogonists despite
Hubble’s caveat, read "Religious Roots of Relativity" (Borchardt
2020). <o:p></o:p></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">PSI Blog 20231106<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">Thanks for reading
Infinite Universe Theory! Please subscribe for free to receive new posts and be
part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution.”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">References<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">Borchardt, Glenn,
2020, Religious Roots of Relativity: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science
Institute, 160 p. </span><a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/%5bhttps:/go.glennborchardt.com/RRR-ebk"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">[https://go.glennborchardt.com/RRR-ebk</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">] <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">Chen, Peter, 2020,
A mathematical model for redshift: Applied Mathematics, v. 11, p. 146-156. [<a href="https://gborc.com/Chen-2020">https://gborc.com/Chen-2020</a>].<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">Cho, Adrian, 2023,
The universe’s puzzlingly fast expansion may defy explanation, cosmologists
fret: Science, Accessed 20231103 [</span><a href="https://gborc.com/Hubble-Tension"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">https://gborc.com/Hubble-Tension</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">].<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">Hubble, Edwin,
1953, The law of red-shifts: George Darwin Lecture, delivered by Dr Edwin
Hubble on 1953 May 8: Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, v.
113, no. 6, p. 658-666. [<a href="https://gborc.com/Hubble-1953">https://gborc.com/Hubble-1953</a>].<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><a name="_wsQV_"></a>
</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">Lifson, Shari,
2023, Our mysterious universe still evades cosmological understanding, Accessed
20231104 [</span><a href="https://gborc.com/Hubble-tension-Lifson"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">https://gborc.com/Hubble-tension-Lifson</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">].<o:p></o:p></span></p>Glenn Borchardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-71529602487758654922023-10-23T05:00:00.020-07:002023-10-23T09:49:56.267-07:00Why the Universe is not Expanding<p> <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 18pt; text-indent: 0in;">PSI Blog 20231023 Why the Universe is not Expanding</span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><a name="_wsQV_"></a></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">Einstein’s
Untired Light Theory is at the root of cosmology’s most myopic embarrassment.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> </span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2IxHWP74vSdE1jNd-CEwZ37mkxMekU6lIyc6kw007CNEPfSaMBnW_FFyMMIwMJz_Q07M0aivwZbtVKUEi8dAkPRvtqh6eVyhpS18DLIjHTq-FeaF8Csm4cAbnlU0T6J1GOQ5hgFNR-qDccPP8TIGbHQKKWzrDGmF83mZAAz2qmiGx4Lx8KLbm-ZJkbixf/s1200/20231023%20Rubber%20sheet%20and%20marble.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1200" height="314" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2IxHWP74vSdE1jNd-CEwZ37mkxMekU6lIyc6kw007CNEPfSaMBnW_FFyMMIwMJz_Q07M0aivwZbtVKUEi8dAkPRvtqh6eVyhpS18DLIjHTq-FeaF8Csm4cAbnlU0T6J1GOQ5hgFNR-qDccPP8TIGbHQKKWzrDGmF83mZAAz2qmiGx4Lx8KLbm-ZJkbixf/w419-h314/20231023%20Rubber%20sheet%20and%20marble.jpg" width="419" /></a></div><br /><p></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;"><v:shapetype coordsize="21600,21600" filled="f" id="_x0000_t75" o:preferrelative="t" o:spt="75" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" stroked="f">
<v:stroke joinstyle="miter">
<v:formulas>
<v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0">
<v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0">
<v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1">
<v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2">
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth">
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight">
<v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1">
<v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2">
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth">
<v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0">
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight">
<v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0">
</v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:formulas>
<v:path gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect" o:extrusionok="f">
<o:lock aspectratio="t" v:ext="edit">
</o:lock></v:path></v:stroke></v:shapetype><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_1" o:spid="_x0000_i1025" style="height: 351pt; mso-wrap-style: square; visibility: visible; width: 468pt;" type="#_x0000_t75">
<v:imagedata o:title="" src="file:///C:/Users/gborc/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.png">
</v:imagedata></v:shape><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 18pt; text-indent: 0in;">Modification
of the “Artist concept of Gravity Probe B orbiting the Earth to measure
space-time, a four-dimensional description of the universe including height,
width, length, and time.” Photo credit: NASA.</span></p></blockquote>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">The
Infinite Universe cannot expand because it is already full—it exists everywhere
and for all time. There is no real evidence for universal expansion—the average
<a href="https://gborc.com/fal20-intdist">distance between galaxies</a> has not
changed over time. Nonetheless, that realization escapes today’s cosmogonists
who still surreptitiously assume the universe had a beginning. As I have
pointed out many times, the Infinite Universe forces us to make fundamental
assumptions about it.<a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020231023%20Why%20the%20Universe%20is%20not%20Expanding.docx#_edn1" name="_ednref1" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 18pt;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
The universe is either finite or infinite, although there never will be a complete
proof for either assumption. In tune with their subconscious assumption of </span><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;">finity</span></i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">, cosmogonists mistakenly
interpret the cosmological redshift as solid evidence for universal expansion.
It is no such thing.<a name="wsK1"></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">There
are two possible interpretations of the cosmological redshift:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">1.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">Hubble’s
“Tired Light Theory.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">Einstein’s
“Untired Light Theory.” <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">The
first is correct and the second is not. The claim constantly repeated by
cosmogonists that “Edwin Hubble discovered the universe was expanding” is
false. He denied that until his dying day.<a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020231023%20Why%20the%20Universe%20is%20not%20Expanding.docx#_edn2" name="_ednref2" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 18pt;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">What
I call Untired Light Theory is the main stay of regressive physics and
cosmogony to this day. It essentially assumes light is a special,
unprecedented, massless particle filled with perfectly empty space traveling
perpetually through perfectly empty space. There is no such thing as perfectly
empty space, which is simply an idealization in the same way perfectly solid
matter is an idealization. All real things appear to have properties of both
space and matter. All microcosms (XYZ portions of the universe) contain submicrocosms,
which are responsible for mass. Perpetual travel is impossible. No particle or
wave could go from point A to point B without losing energy. That would be like
having an auto that never required fuel or recharging.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">Perfectly
empty space has been found nowhere, with even the intergalactic regions long
known to be filled with a veritable particle zoo.<a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020231023%20Why%20the%20Universe%20is%20not%20Expanding.docx#_edn3" name="_ednref3" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 18pt;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
But perfectly empty space would be necessary for perpetual travel, which could
not abide any loss of velocity or energy whatsoever.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">So
how and why did Einstein come up with his imaginary massless particle that
nonetheless traveled at <i>c</i> without losing velocity?<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">First,
he worked out the math behind the photoelectric effect, which required particle
collisions involving light. Second, his math had no use for ether, which was considered
the medium for light transmission until the failed Michelson-Morley Experiment.<a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020231023%20Why%20the%20Universe%20is%20not%20Expanding.docx#_edn4" name="_ednref4" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 18pt;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
As I pointed out in Table 6 of “Infinite Universe Theory,” his concoction
required eight ad hocs:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> </span></b></p>
<div align="center">
<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-insideh: 1.0pt solid windowtext; mso-border-insidev: 1.0pt solid windowtext; mso-padding-alt: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184;">
<tbody><tr style="height: 28.15pt; mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-irow: 0;">
<td style="border: 1pt solid windowtext; height: 28.15pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 18.2pt;" valign="top" width="24">
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">1<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: 1pt solid windowtext; height: 28.15pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 342.2pt;" valign="top" width="456">
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">Unlike
other particles, his light particle always traveled at the same velocity—it
never slowed down.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 27.65pt; mso-yfti-irow: 1;">
<td style="border-top: none; border: 1pt solid windowtext; height: 27.65pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 18.2pt;" valign="top" width="24">
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">2<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext; border-left: none; border-right: 1pt solid windowtext; border-top: none; height: 27.65pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 342.2pt;" valign="top" width="456">
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">Unlike
other particles, it attained this velocity instantaneously when emitted from
a source.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 16.45pt; mso-yfti-irow: 2;">
<td style="border-top: none; border: 1pt solid windowtext; height: 16.45pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 18.2pt;" valign="top" width="24">
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">3<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext; border-left: none; border-right: 1pt solid windowtext; border-top: none; height: 16.45pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 342.2pt;" valign="top" width="456">
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">Unlike
other particles, it would not take on the velocity of its source.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 16.45pt; mso-yfti-irow: 3;">
<td style="border-top: none; border: 1pt solid windowtext; height: 16.45pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 18.2pt;" valign="top" width="24">
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">4<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext; border-left: none; border-right: 1pt solid windowtext; border-top: none; height: 16.45pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 342.2pt;" valign="top" width="456">
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">Unlike
other particles, it was massless.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 28.15pt; mso-yfti-irow: 4;">
<td style="border-top: none; border: 1pt solid windowtext; height: 28.15pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 18.2pt;" valign="top" width="24">
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">5<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext; border-left: none; border-right: 1pt solid windowtext; border-top: none; height: 28.15pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 342.2pt;" valign="top" width="456">
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">Unlike
other particles, light particles did not lose motion when they collided with
other light particles.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 39pt; mso-yfti-irow: 5;">
<td style="border-top: none; border: 1pt solid windowtext; height: 39pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 18.2pt;" valign="top" width="24">
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">6<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext; border-left: none; border-right: 1pt solid windowtext; border-top: none; height: 39pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 342.2pt;" valign="top" width="456">
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">Unlike
other particles, any measurement indicating light speed was not constant had
to be attributed to “time dilation”—another especially egregious ad hoc.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 27.65pt; mso-yfti-irow: 6;">
<td style="border-top: none; border: 1pt solid windowtext; height: 27.65pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 18.2pt;" valign="top" width="24">
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">7<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext; border-left: none; border-right: 1pt solid windowtext; border-top: none; height: 27.65pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 342.2pt;" valign="top" width="456">
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">Time
had to be considered something other than motion, for motion cannot dilate.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 62pt; mso-yfti-irow: 7; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes;">
<td style="border-top: none; border: 1pt solid windowtext; height: 62pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 18.2pt;" valign="top" width="24">
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">8<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext; border-left: none; border-right: 1pt solid windowtext; border-top: none; height: 62pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 342.2pt;" valign="top" width="456">
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">The
velocity for wave motion in any medium is dependent on the properties of that
medium. The velocity of sound waves in the atmosphere is constant, but we don’t
claim “time dilation” when the velocity decreases as temperature decreases.<a name="wsKB"></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">None
of these ad hocs is necessary if one considers light to be a wave in a medium
consisting of aether particles. The particulate nature needed for the
photoelectric effect and the quantization necessary for quantum mechanics is
thereby assured. The relative constancy of light velocity and its independence
of source velocity is to be expected for wave transmission in a medium.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">Now,
how does all this affect the interpretation of cosmological redshift used as
evidence for universal expansion?<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">Remember
there are three major types of redshifts: 1) the Doppler effect, 2) gravitational
redshift, 3) cosmological redshift. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">The
Doppler effect is obvious for nearby galaxies, with some of the really close
ones such as M31 in Andromeda actually having a blueshift. This is contrary to
any sort of universal explosion or true universal expansion. The Doppler effect
is similar to the waves produced by a boat moving relative to the shore. Going
toward shore each subsequent wave is a little closer than the waves produced when
the boat is going away from the shore.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">The
gravitational redshift occurs when light travels away from a massive body (like
the earth) and a blueshift occurs when light travels toward the massive body.
We interpret this as a result of slight changes in the activity (i.e.,
pressure) that occurs when aether particles collide with baryonic (ordinary)
matter, becoming decelerated in the process.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">The
cosmological redshift is what is left over after subtracting or adding the
redshifts and blueshifts due to the first two effects. That part of the
redshift simply is a function of distance, with the largest redshift observed
being z=13.2 at a distance of 13.5 billion light years. Cosmogonists, of
course, use z values to calculate what they mistakenly assume to be the
velocities of galaxies receding from us. Unfortunately, a mega problem occurred
when instruments first became good enough to observe galaxies with z values
greater than 1.5. These indicated recession values greater than <b><i>c</i></b>,
presenting a challenge to Einstein’s assumption <b><i>c</i></b> was the
universal speed limit. Guth then produced the inflationary universe as an ad
hoc to save what was left of the Big Bang Theory. The Doppler effect had to be
dropped as the reason for the cosmological redshift, being replaced by still
another ad hoc, the miraculous expansion of perfectly empty space, which was
assumed to carry galaxies away at superluminal velocities.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">The
13.2 z value leaves only 300 million years for the formation of galaxies now
seen at the great distance involved. Some are spirals like our own Milky Way,
which is 13.6 billion years old. Obviously, now is the time for yet another
cosmogonical ad hoc. Even Earth is over 4.5 billion years old. Good luck with that!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">Why
is the cosmological redshift a function of distance?<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> </span></b></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">Not
being the idealist Einstein was, the elder Hubble thought the cosmological
redshift was due to “tired light” rather than universal expansion. He didn’t
know why that occurred, suggesting only that it was because of some unknown
mechanism. Others have proposed some, but none have been accepted. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">In
tune with the general tenor of what I have written above, I follow along with
Hubble in rejecting the idealization that imagines light could travel great
distances without undergoing losses. As mentioned, wave velocity in a medium is
controlled by that medium. The velocity of real particles decreases with
distance, so light cannot be a particle. The only other way for light to lose energy
is through an increase in wavelength, which is what the cosmological redshift
is telling us. One would have to be a rank idealist to assume each subsequent
wave to be a perfect replica of the previous one. That would be a violation of the
Ninth Assumption of Science, </span><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;">relativism</span></i></b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">
(All things have characteristics that make them similar to all other things as
well as characteristics that make them dissimilar to all other things). Waves
are made up of trillions of particles. We do not expect the collisions of the
particles within a wave to occur in exactly the same way twice. The upshot: like snowflakes,
no two waves can be identical.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">In
addition, no matter how fast a wave travels, it still takes time. And, as we
learned in neomechanics, each collision of the particles within a medium results
in an acceleration of the collidee and a deceleration of the collider, along
with some slight internal absorption of the attendant motion. Along with the
absorption, the production of subsequent waves will be delayed, resulting in an
increase in wavelength. Granted, the elasticity of aether particles is so great
that the internal absorption of wave motion generally is minuscule, usually
unnoticed —except for cosmological distances. The upshot of such speculation is
that, no matter</span> <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">how
motion is transferred within a medium, it is naïve to assume it could occur
without energy losses.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">General
Relativity Theory critical for the universal expansion trope<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">The
above shows how Special Relativity Theory is critical for the promoters of
expansion. General Relativity Theory is required as well. Cosmogonists have
found no central point from which their imaginary universal expansion is
occurring. That is why a nonsensical, non-Euclidean fourth dimension was
necessary for the misinterpretation. It is why we have been afflicted with
those silly rubber-sheet demonstrations and why some really smart mathematicians
actually are getting paid to publish junk on string theory, which assumes at
least ten dimensions.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">Why
Einstein is still considered the world’s foremost genius<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">I
find the sociology and politics of all this universal expansion stuff to be
utterly fascinating. Once that misinterpretation disappears, the Big Bang
Theory will crumble. In the meantime, promoters still find it necessary to
exalt Einstein as a genius instead of the physics heretic that he was. I have
delved into this quite a bit, finding the regression in physics was a necessary
part of the war between science and religion.<a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020231023%20Why%20the%20Universe%20is%20not%20Expanding.docx#_edn5" name="_ednref5" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 18pt;">[5]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
Folks gullible enough to actually believe the proclamations of one of the
4,000+ religions, also are likely to enjoy science fiction and the fantasies
stemming from relativity and what amounts to being the “Last Creation Theory.”
With <a href="https://gborc.com/world-religious">84%</a> of the world’s population still believing those <i>Dreams and
Imaginings</i></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">™</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> expect the
universal expansion misinterpretation to be with us for at least a few decades
more.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">PSI Blog 20231023<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">Thanks for reading
Infinite Universe Theory! Please subscribe for free to receive new posts and be
part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution.”<a name="wsKK"></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div><!--[if !supportEndnotes]--><br clear="all" />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<div id="edn1">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020231023%20Why%20the%20Universe%20is%20not%20Expanding.docx#_ednref1" name="_edn1" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Calibri",sans-serif" style="font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> Borchardt,
Glenn, 2004, The Ten Assumptions of Science: Toward a New Scientific Worldview:
Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p. [<a href="https://gborc.com/TTAOS">https://gborc.com/TTAOS</a>;
<a href="https://gborc.com/TTAOSpdf">https://gborc.com/TTAOSpdf</a>].<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn2">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020231023%20Why%20the%20Universe%20is%20not%20Expanding.docx#_ednref2" name="_edn2" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Calibri",sans-serif" style="font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> Sauvé,
Vincent, 2016, Edwin Hubble... and the myth that he discovered an expanding
universe [<a href="https://gborc.com/Sauve16">https://gborc.com/Sauve16</a>].<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn3">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020231023%20Why%20the%20Universe%20is%20not%20Expanding.docx#_ednref3" name="_edn3" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Calibri",sans-serif" style="font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergalactic_dust">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergalactic_dust</a>;
<a href="https://pweb.cfa.harvard.edu/research/topic/intergalactic-medium">https://pweb.cfa.harvard.edu/research/topic/intergalactic-medium</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn4">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020231023%20Why%20the%20Universe%20is%20not%20Expanding.docx#_ednref4" name="_edn4" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Calibri",sans-serif" style="font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> Expected
results were nearly null because aether was entrained (Borchardt, Glenn, 2017,
Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, Ch.
16.2. [<a href="https://gborc.com/IUT17">https://gborc.com/IUT17</a>].)<a name="_wsQP_"></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn5">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020231023%20Why%20the%20Universe%20is%20not%20Expanding.docx#_ednref5" name="_edn5" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Calibri",sans-serif" style="font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[5]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
Borchardt, Glenn, 2020, Religious Roots of Relativity: Berkeley, California,
Progressive Science Institute, 160 p. <a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/%5bhttps:/go.glennborchardt.com/RRR-ebk">[https://go.glennborchardt.com/RRR-ebk</a>] <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>Glenn Borchardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-71645259039641692702023-10-16T08:00:00.024-07:002023-10-16T08:07:10.950-07:00When will the Big Bang Theory be Retracted?<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">PSI
Blog 20231016 When will the Big Bang Theory be Retracted?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">The
number of papers being <a name="_wsQV_"></a>disavowed or <a name="wsKB"></a>removed
<a name="wsKK"></a>from scientific journals is accelerating. Is it cosmogony’s
turn?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> </span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQ7SRfbnPBAvZmgmZ9SWws2CEQ6p1-RXlZeo0AWieh10LD4BMza96KEWrf93RE4Ncm-qmxEx217kbgLqu0VDrFH4CXA4aDVSaMrfkmGSJX7JkHnPHN_5eHl2hsfpScAe_Y5bZn0xzSDv1ywE0ON8hnAXSEkq071NWoaIprHsZlE95UlwtHlXnd105JVqZI/s1280/20231016%20Retraction%20Figure.jpeg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1280" data-original-width="1073" height="522" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQ7SRfbnPBAvZmgmZ9SWws2CEQ6p1-RXlZeo0AWieh10LD4BMza96KEWrf93RE4Ncm-qmxEx217kbgLqu0VDrFH4CXA4aDVSaMrfkmGSJX7JkHnPHN_5eHl2hsfpScAe_Y5bZn0xzSDv1ywE0ON8hnAXSEkq071NWoaIprHsZlE95UlwtHlXnd105JVqZI/w437-h522/20231016%20Retraction%20Figure.jpeg" width="437" /></a></div><p></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">“(A)
Number of retracted articles for specific causes by year of retraction. (B)
Percentage of published articles retracted for fraud or suspected fraud by year
of publication” (Fang et al., 2012).<a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020231016%20When%20will%20the%20Big%20Bang%20Theory%20be%20Retracted.docx#_edn1" name="_ednref1" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 18pt;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">In
this age of “fake news” and rampant misinformation, everyone should be
concerned with </span><a href="https://gborc.com/retraction"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">retraction</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">. Actually, it is
the bright side of our attempts to rid ourselves of the lies that have invaded
our politics and endangered our lives. A single fraudulent medical paper can
result in great harm—even death. For instance, Wakefield’s fraudulent
vaccine-autism study has led to vaccine phobia among gullible parents and an
increase in easily preventable childhood diseases. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">From
</span><a href="https://retractionwatch.com/"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">Retraction Watch</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> (the primary site
concerned with scientific error/fraud):<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">“Our
list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is </span><a href="https://retractionwatch.com/retracted-coronavirus-covid-19-papers/" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">up
to well over 350</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">.
There are more than </span><a href="http://retractiondatabase.org/"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">43,000 retractions
in The Retraction Watch Database</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> — which is now part of Crossref. The
Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker </span><a href="https://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-hijacked-journal-checker/" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">now
contains well over 200 titles</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">. And have you seen our leaderboard
of </span><a href="https://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-leaderboard/" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">authors
with the most retractions lately</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> — or our list of </span><a href="https://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-leaderboard/top-10-most-highly-cited-retracted-papers/"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">top 10 most highly
cited retracted papers</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">? Or </span><a href="https://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-mass-resignations-list/"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">The Retraction
Watch Mass Resignations List</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">?”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">Note
that hijacked journals involve websites copied from legitimate journals.
Predatory journals involve relatively unknown websites that accept all submissions
and do little or no peer review. Both types of fraud exist only to make money,
generally having exorbitant charges for providing open access.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">Possibly
because, as a scientist, I am heavily involved in discovering the truth. I am particularly
incensed by those fraudulent activities, so much so that since 2015 I have been
an advisor on 19 papers highlighting methods to confront them.<a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020231016%20When%20will%20the%20Big%20Bang%20Theory%20be%20Retracted.docx#_edn2" name="_ednref2" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 18pt;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
That is in tune with my outrage at the promotion of the Big Bang Theory.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">But
is what we believe to be the “Last Creation Myth” really fraud? Fraud is
defined as “wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or
personal gain.” But do regressive physicists and cosmogonists realize they are
perpetrating deceptions? I doubt that. It is true the Big Bang Theory has been
falsified at least </span><a href="https://gborc.com/BBTfals"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">20 times</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">. Is ignoring
those contradictions fraudulent?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">According
to Webster, a lie is defined as a) “an assertion of something known or believed
by the speaker or writer to be untrue with intent to deceive” or b) “an untrue
or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker or
writer.” Your choice…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">While
there may be plenty of financial and personal gain involved, I doubt there are
many cosmogonists who believe their claims are untrue. I doubt many of them
even realize they base all their interpretations on the unprovable assumption
the universe had an origin.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">Or
that they are flat-out violating the Fifth Assumption of Science, <b><i>conservation</i></b>
(Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">Or
that, without questioning, they are accepting Einstein’s “Untired Light
Theory,” which assumes light is a massless particle filled with perfectly empty
space traveling perpetually through perfectly empty space.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">And
on and on, as shown in "The Ten Assumptions of Science," "The
Scientific Worldview," “Infinite Universe Theory,” "Religious Roots
of Relativity" and all the papers and posts I have presented over the
decades.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">Back
to the question we started with: Will the Big Bang Theory be redacted? I doubt
it. It will dissipate like all other failed paradigms—one disbeliever at a
time. After all, it is mostly a matter of interpretation. Cosmological data
will survive; the cosmogonical view will not.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">Misinterpretation,
not Fraud: Some Cosmogonical Examples<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">Eddington
interpreted the bending of starlight around the Sun as evidence for Einstein’s erroneous
claim gravitation curved perfectly empty space. The bending actually was a
result of refraction in the Sun’s atmosphere.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">Abbott
and others recently interpreted their results as evidence for Einstein’s erroneous
claim “gravitational waves” would be discovered. That data had nothing to do
with gravitation with the results actually a result of shock waves traveling
through the aether medium at <b><i>c</i></b>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">If
misinterpretation was fraudulent, what would it look like?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">Let’s
assume the second definition for a lie, in which the liar knows he is
misinterpreting evidence. Suppose the liar has an old house that expands in the
heat of the day and contracts in the cool of the night. He then claims the
resulting sounds indicate the house is haunted, selling tickets to gullible
folks who spend the night experiencing the “ghosts” whose existence they always
suspected to be real. That would be fraud.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">I
doubt there are any cosmogonists that fit that definition. Most probably are
like <a href="https://medium.com/@glennborchardt/neil-degrasse-tysons-science-without-philosophy-ad4a525c1597">Neil
deGrasse Tyson who is especially naïve about
scientific philosophy</a><!--[if !supportNestedAnchors]--><a name="wsK1"></a><!--[endif]-->.
He does not seem to realize he is mistakenly assuming the universe is finite
and therefore had a beginning. He apparently is not bothered by his violation
of <b><i>conservation</i></b>, a contradiction pointed out to
him in a <a href="https://medium.com/@glennborchardt/nine-year-old-genius-calls-out-cosmogonist-neil-degrasse-tyson-on-the-falsity-of-the-big-bang-ec9ee58a27e5">debate</a>
won by David Balogun, a<a name="_wsQP_"></a> nine-year old genius from Nigeria.
Like David, the rest of us have a choice: 1) Assume the universe exploded out
of nothing or 2) assume it is infinite.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">PSI Blog 20231016<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">Thanks
for reading Infinite Universe Theory! Please subscribe for free to receive new
posts and be part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> </span></p>
<div><!--[if !supportEndnotes]--><br clear="all" />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<div id="edn1">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020231016%20When%20will%20the%20Big%20Bang%20Theory%20be%20Retracted.docx#_ednref1" name="_edn1" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Calibri",sans-serif" style="font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> Fang,
Ferric C., Steen, R. Grant, and Casadevall, Arturo, 2012, Misconduct accounts
for the majority of retracted scientific publications: Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, v. 109, no. 42, p. 17028-17033.
[10.1073/pnas.1212247109].<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn2">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020231016%20When%20will%20the%20Big%20Bang%20Theory%20be%20Retracted.docx#_ednref2" name="_edn2" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Calibri",sans-serif" style="font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> Andoohgin
Shahri, Mona, Jazi, Mohammad Davarpanah, Borchardt, Glenn, and Dadkhah, Mehdi,
2017, Detecting Hijacked Journals by Using Classification Algorithms: Science
and Engineering Ethics, p. 1-14. [10.1007/s11948-017-9914-2].<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText">Dadkhah, Mehdi, and Borchardt, Glenn, 2016, Guidelines
for selecting journals that avoid fraudulent practices in scholarly publishing:
Iranian Journal of Management Studies, v. 9, no. 3, p. 529-538.
[https://go.glennborchardt.com/Guidelines-2016].</p><p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText">Dadkhah, Mehdi, and Borchardt, Glenn, 2016, Hijacked
Journals: An Emerging Challenge for Scholarly Publishing: Aesthetic Surgery
Journal, p. 1-3. [10.1093/asj/sjw026].<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText">Dadkhah, Mehdi, and Borchardt, Glenn, 2016, Victimizing
Researchers by Phishing: Razavi Int J Med, v. 4, no. 3, p. e40304.
[10.17795/rijm40304].<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText">Dadkhah, Mehdi, and Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Information
Security for All Researchers (1st ed.), 46 p.
[https://go.glennborchardt.com/Infomation-security].<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText">Dadkhah, Mehdi, Borchardt, Glenn, and Lagzian,
Mohammad, 2017, Do You Ignore Information Security in Your Journal Website?:
Science and Engineering Ethics, v. 23, no. 4, p. 1227-1231.
[10.1007/s11948-016-9849-z].<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText">Dadkhah, Mehdi, Borchardt, Glenn, Lagzian, Mohammad,
and Bianciardi, Giorgio, 2017, Academic Journals Plagued by Bogus Impact
Factors: Publishing Research Quarterly, p. 1-5. [10.1007/s12109-017-9509-4].<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText">Dadkhah, Mehdi, Borchardt, Glenn, and Maliszewski,
Tomasz, 2016, Fraud in academic publishing: Researchers under cyber-attacks:
The American Journal of Medicine, v. 130, p. 27-30.
[10.1016/j.amjmed.2016.08.030].<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText">Dadkhah, Mehdi, Kahani, Mohsen, and Borchardt, Glenn,
2017, A Method for Improving the Integrity of Peer Review: Science and
Engineering Ethics [10.1007/s11948-017-9960-9].<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText">Dadkhah, Mehdi, Lagzian, Mohammad, and Borchardt,
Glenn, 2017, Academic Information Security Researchers: Hackers or
Specialists?: Science and Engineering Ethics, p. 1-7.
[10.1007/s11948-017-9907-1].<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText">Dadkhah, Mehdi, Lagzian, Mohammad, and Borchardt,
Glenn, 2017, Identity Theft in the Academic World Leads to Junk Science:
Science and Engineering Ethics, p. 1-4. [10.1007/s11948-016-9867-x].<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText">Dadkhah, Mehdi, Mohammad, Lagzian, and Borchardt,
Glenn, 2016, The Game of Hacking Academic Websites: World Digital Libraries, v.
9, no. 2, p. 131-133. [10.18329/09757597/2016/9210].</p><p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText">Dadkhah, Mehdi, Mohammad, Lagzian, and Borchardt,
Glenn, 2016, Is retraction sufficient for medical papers?: Pol Arch Med Wewn,
v. 126, p. 1017-1018. [10.20452/pamw.3727.].<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText">Dadkhah, Mehdi, Mohammad, Lagzian, and Borchardt,
Glenn, 2017, Information systems in journal management: the ugly duckling of
academic publishing: European Science Editing, v. 43, no. 1, p. 7-10.
[10.20316/ESE.2017.43.032].<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText">Dadkhah, Mehdi, Mohammad, Lagzian, and Borchardt,
Glenn, 2017, Questionable Papers in Citation Databases as an Issue for
Literature Review: Journal of Cell Communication and Signaling, p. 1-5.
[10.1007/s12079-016-0370-6].<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText">Dadkhah, Mehdi, Rahimnia, Fariborz, Darbyshire, Philip,
and Borchardt, Glenn, 2021, Ten (Bad) reasons researchers publish their papers
in hijacked journals: Journal of Clinical Nursing, v. 00, no. 15947, p. 1-4.
[https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15947].<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText">Dadkhah, Mehdi, Rahimnia, Fariborz, Rafati Niya, Sina,
and Borchardt, Glenn, 2021, Jourchain: using blockchain to avoid questionable
journals: Irish Journal of Medical Science (1971 -)
[10.1007/s11845-021-02697-x].<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText">Dadkhah, Mehdi, Raja, Abdul Majed, Memon, Aamir Raoof,
Borchardt, Glenn, Nedungadi, Prema, Abu-Eteen, Khaled, and Raman, Raghu, 2023,
A toolkit for detecting fallacious calls for papers from potential predatory
journals: Adv Pharm Bull [10.34172/apb.2023.068].<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText">Dadkhah, Mehdi, Seno, Seyed Amin Hosseini, and
Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Current and potential cyber attacks on medical
journals; guidelines for improving security: European Journal of Internal
Medicine, v. 38, p. 25-29. [10.1016/j.ejim.2016.11.014].<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div><p> </p>Glenn Borchardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-83110246692791659572023-10-02T05:00:00.000-07:002023-10-02T05:00:00.150-07:00Sensational YouTube video summarizes the JWST evidence against the Big Bang Theory.<p> </p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><a name="_wsQV_"></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">PSI Blog 20231002 Sensational YouTube video summarizes
the JWST evidence against the Big Bang Theory.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">What
is time? Regressive physicists still don’t know.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPsHLcMGoZY"><span style="color: windowtext; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-no-proof: yes; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shapetype id="_x0000_t75"
coordsize="21600,21600" o:spt="75" o:preferrelative="t" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe"
filled="f" stroked="f">
<v:stroke joinstyle="miter"/>
<v:formulas>
<v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"/>
<v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"/>
</v:formulas>
<v:path o:extrusionok="f" gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect"/>
<o:lock v:ext="edit" aspectratio="t"/>
</v:shapetype><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_1" o:spid="_x0000_i1025" type="#_x0000_t75"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPsHLcMGoZY" style='width:331.5pt;
height:220.5pt;visibility:visible;mso-wrap-style:square' o:button="t">
<v:fill o:detectmouseclick="t"/>
<v:imagedata src="file:///C:/Users/gborc/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.png"
o:title=""/>
</v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><span style="mso-ignore: vglayout;"></span></span></a></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj37HF6vA43ak1XwPgdeK1Al3f5jUR7_O9MqaVcvWvJLIFehX_pt2iK4Xc_oJv1nfMViPtfk7psZGkXtLT9CPg9X_F67z_-oIb__9ocDYRepBvwLhJs8gIHy0KYt153CVo1jxOiQzdXl7UrAcvrkcVB8HGpbb0N-IdGkTYIU6G-Zj4XQDa84LSBeGiDBf-w" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="459" data-original-width="691" height="282" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj37HF6vA43ak1XwPgdeK1Al3f5jUR7_O9MqaVcvWvJLIFehX_pt2iK4Xc_oJv1nfMViPtfk7psZGkXtLT9CPg9X_F67z_-oIb__9ocDYRepBvwLhJs8gIHy0KYt153CVo1jxOiQzdXl7UrAcvrkcVB8HGpbb0N-IdGkTYIU6G-Zj4XQDa84LSBeGiDBf-w=w424-h282" width="424" /></a></div><br /><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span><p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">Thanks
to George Coyne for this heads up:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">“Glenn,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">This
video shows how the JWST provided profound evidence against the Big Bang
Theory.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPsHLcMGoZY"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">Michio Kaku: "Time Does NOT EXIST!
James Webb Telescope PROVED Us Wrong!"</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">Here is the intro
to this video, which has over 2,453,157 views:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">“Have
you ever questioned what's truly out there in the cosmos? What mind-blowing
mysteries the universe might be concealing from us? Well, you’re in for a ride.
We have a revelation so colossal, it's about to rewrite everything we thought
we knew about the universe. Brace yourself, as the renowned American physicist
Michio Kaku unveils a discovery that's nothing short of revolutionary. Brought
to light by none other than the legendary James Webb Space Telescope, which may
have proven that time does not exist! Ready to dive into a space-time riddle
that's going to turn your world upside down?”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">Only
the first half of this 28 minutes is worth watching—the rest is standard
regressive physics. It does mention that 16 of the Big Bang predictions are
wrong. For instance, the Big Bang Theory predicts two times as much helium and
20 times as much lithium as observed. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">As
suggested in the Kaku quote above, regressive physicists are nibbling at the
heart of the problem: Einstein’s objectification of time.<a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020231002%20Sensational%20YouTube%20video%20summarizes%20the%20JWST%20evidence%20against%20the%20Big%20Bang%20Theory..docx#_edn1" name="_ednref1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>
The narrator seems to favor time as an illusion, never mentioning that it is
motion. There are numerous doubts expressed about spacetime and other aspects
of relativity, but its wholesale dismissal is not mentioned as a requirement
for rejecting the Big Bang Theory altogether.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">Remember
that in 1905 Einstein substituted l (length) for t (time) in Special Relativity
Theory. He and his followers apparently forgot <a name="wsK1"></a>this switch
between apples and oranges is forbidden by the laws of mathematics.<a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020231002%20Sensational%20YouTube%20video%20summarizes%20the%20JWST%20evidence%20against%20the%20Big%20Bang%20Theory..docx#_edn2" name="_ednref2" style="mso-endnote-id: edn2;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>
Length, of course, is one of the XYZ dimensions common to all real objects.
Time is not a dimension. We agree with Kaku: Time does not exist. It occurs. But
the assumption that time is a dimension<a name="_wsQP_"></a> is absolutely
critical for Einstein’s General Relativity Theory. Without his spacetime trope
the erroneous universal expansion interpretation could not have survived. There
is no central point from which the imaginary explosion of the universe
occurred, least of all, from our improbable position in the center of 20
trillion observable galaxies.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">PSI
Blog 20231002<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">Thanks
for reading Infinite Universe Theory! Please subscribe for free to receive new
posts and be part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div style="mso-element: endnote-list;"><!--[if !supportEndnotes]--><br clear="all" />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<div id="edn1" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020231002%20Sensational%20YouTube%20video%20summarizes%20the%20JWST%20evidence%20against%20the%20Big%20Bang%20Theory..docx#_ednref1" name="_edn1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> <a name="_Hlk136839132">Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Einstein's most important philosophical
error, in Volk, Greg, Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 18th
Conference of the NPA, 6-9 July, 2011: College Park, MD, Natural Philosophy
Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, v. 8, p. 64-68 [</a><a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/10.13140/RG.2.1.3436.0407"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk136839132;">10.13140/RG.2.1.3436.0407</span></a><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk136839132;">].<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk136839132;"></span>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn2" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020231002%20Sensational%20YouTube%20video%20summarizes%20the%20JWST%20evidence%20against%20the%20Big%20Bang%20Theory..docx#_ednref2" name="_edn2" style="mso-endnote-id: edn2;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> <a name="_Hlk136838905">Bryant, Steven, and Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Failure of the
relativistic hypercone derivation, in Volk, Greg, Proceedings of the 18th
Conference of the NPA, 6-9 July: College Park, MD, Natural Philosophy Alliance,
Mt. Airy, MD, v. 8, p. 99-101 [</a><a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/10.13140/RG.2.1.1404.8406"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk136838905;">10.13140/RG.2.1.1404.8406</span></a><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk136838905;">].<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk136838905;"></span>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>Glenn Borchardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-52856311053766741482023-09-04T05:00:00.012-07:002023-09-04T10:20:39.221-07:00Breaking News from the NYT: “The Story of Our Universe May Be Starting to Unravel”<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><a name="_wsQV_"></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">PSI Blog 20230904 Breaking News from the NYT: “The
Story of Our Universe May Be Starting to Unravel” <o:p></o:p></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">Mainstream
uncensors criticism of the Big Bang Theory <o:p></o:p></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><a name="wsKB"></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt; mso-no-proof: yes;"><br /><!--[endif]--></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihosJ4Ekq0qC7PveUlpicyXPi_ph8MDhCuzOqg9g9h_MEJxyJJt0WTUnknAThaokD92hHeb1dQlUuZK1mOKntFB2GrHr8LN2TbhSq4Fm_5VJymxsUKU-kZl3VvqkMOYaZU9vCmPkTinjc4BLnglmxtc-VCZMpTgjFbngZFTvMOrzGpZrgombxxGFoW7k3l/s1080/20230904%20NYT%20ed.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1080" data-original-width="1080" height="441" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihosJ4Ekq0qC7PveUlpicyXPi_ph8MDhCuzOqg9g9h_MEJxyJJt0WTUnknAThaokD92hHeb1dQlUuZK1mOKntFB2GrHr8LN2TbhSq4Fm_5VJymxsUKU-kZl3VvqkMOYaZU9vCmPkTinjc4BLnglmxtc-VCZMpTgjFbngZFTvMOrzGpZrgombxxGFoW7k3l/w441-h441/20230904%20NYT%20ed.png" width="441" /></a></div><br /><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span><p></p><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">Photo
credit: Virginia Gabrielli via the New York Times.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">Thanks
to Michael Larsen for this heads-up on a New York Times Guest Editorial by an astrophysicist
and a theoretical physicist who dared to point out the cosmogonical crisis:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"><a href="https://gborc.com/CosmoCrisis">The Story of Our Universe May Be Starting
to Unravel</a><o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">By
Adam Frank and Marcelo Gleiser<o:p></o:p></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">These
folks obviously have not read my list of <a href="https://gborc.com/BBTfals">20
falsifications</a> of the Big Bang Theory. They only mention the “elderly
galaxies” in the James Webb photos, the problems getting the two different measurements
of the Hubble constant to agree, and the lack of evidence for “Dark Energy.” <o:p></o:p></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">They
include a couple egregious mistakes: 1) It is not true that Hubble discovered
the expanding universe, which he doubted<a name="_wsQP_"></a> to the end and 2)
It is not true there is no evidence for Dark Matter—<a href="https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept04/Rubin/paper.pdf">Vera Rubin</a>
would have been aghast.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">Here
are some quotes: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">"There
is, however, another possibility. We may be at a point where we need a radical
departure from the standard model, one that may even require us to change how
we think of the elemental components of the universe, possibly even the nature
of space and time." <o:p></o:p></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">"Working
so close to the boundary between science and philosophy, cosmologists are
continually haunted by the ghosts of basic assumptions hiding unseen in the
tools we use..."<o:p></o:p></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">My
pitch for over 4 decades and the subject of my most recent essay…<o:p></o:p></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">They
mention the Copernicus, Darwin, and Einstein theories, correctly implying the Last
Cosmological Revolution will be a big deal: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">"All
three of those theories also ended up having enormous cultural influence —
threatening our sense of our special place in the cosmos, challenging our
intuition that we were fundamentally different than other animals, upending our
faith in common sense ideas about the flow of time. Any scientific revolution
of the sort we’re imagining would presumably have comparable reverberations in
our understanding of ourselves.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">The
philosopher Robert Crease has written that philosophy is what’s required when
doing more science may not answer a scientific question. It’s not clear yet if
that’s what’s needed to overcome the crisis in cosmology. But if more tweaks
and adjustments don’t do the trick, we may need not just a new story of the
universe but also a new way to tell stories about it."<o:p></o:p></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">I
suggest the authors start by recognizing their own “ghosts of basic assumptions
hiding unseen” in their own closets. They might consider unabashedly changing
their titles to “cosmogonists,” which is what they are. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><a name="wsKK"></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">PSI Blog 20230904<o:p></o:p></span></p><h2>Thanks for reading Infinite Universe
Theory! Please subscribe for free to receive new posts and be part of the “Last
Cosmological Revolution.” <o:p></o:p></h2><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span></p>
<h2><span style="font-size: 28pt;"> </span></h2>
<h2><span style="font-size: 26pt;"> </span></h2>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"> </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 18pt;"> </span> </p>Glenn Borchardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-39919193605418545082023-08-14T04:00:00.012-07:002023-08-14T04:00:00.170-07:00Neil deGrasse Tyson’s Science Without Philosophy?<p><span style="text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">PSI Blog 20230814 Neil deGrasse Tyson’s Science
Without Philosophy?</span></span></p><p><span style="text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"><a name="_wsQV_"></a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">Big
Bang Theory falls on its own petard.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXHncvWRoNdEz5fv9PwoFWTcMCUgO7x0RCKLG3qirEG8aKkC9A-QSn8aLFIbjklmsuH7W7bP5cU10Mjs-0Bd5jETbIj5-lvt6Igiabk5Oa36_2mSeNwpIGbPFUgExUb0XhNDpgLO6Hpnq8xZujePoXhcG0MSr7cqTcbvYL_D2ByYLUQJyxxz1SkMk9VLTE/s1430/20230814%20Flammarion%20UD.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1198" data-original-width="1430" height="331" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXHncvWRoNdEz5fv9PwoFWTcMCUgO7x0RCKLG3qirEG8aKkC9A-QSn8aLFIbjklmsuH7W7bP5cU10Mjs-0Bd5jETbIj5-lvt6Igiabk5Oa36_2mSeNwpIGbPFUgExUb0XhNDpgLO6Hpnq8xZujePoXhcG0MSr7cqTcbvYL_D2ByYLUQJyxxz1SkMk9VLTE/w395-h331/20230814%20Flammarion%20UD.jpg" width="395" /></span></a></div><span style="text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">Famous
engraving in Camille Flammarion’s 1888 book L’atmosphère: météorologie
populaire.</span></span><p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">The
current godfather and guardian of the cosmogonical paradigm has just been
chastised for his wholesale dismissal of philosophy. In doing this much needed
job on Tyson, <a href="https://medium.com/@benjamincain8?source=user_profile-------------------------------------">Benjamin Cain</a>, who has a Ph.D. in
philosophy, gives a new definition for the word “scientism.” <a name="wsKB"></a>In
the past, that word has been used by religious folks to denigrate the scientific
method as the only way to establish truth. I like Cain’s definition a lot, and
will use it in the future. There is a telling reason Tyson and his compatriots
claim to have no use for philosophy.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">The
reason for the dismissal is clear: Bad Philosophy! Here is my definition of
scientism adapted from Cain’s initiation: <i>Scientism is use of the scientific
method for making truth claims while being ignorant of the underlying fundamental
assumptions.</i> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">In
other words, regressive physicists and cosmogonists are quite happy with their
story. It brings riches and fame galore. The public seems to love their
fantastic, colorful claims. Sure, the contradictions and paradoxes are vaguely
troublesome, but so far there seems to be no reason to dig deeper to find out
why. Ignorance sometimes can be bliss.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">So
why is the “underlying metaphysics” the culprit in the mess Tyson stepped in? That
becomes clear when you read and thoroughly understand "The Ten Assumptions
of Science." It turns out no one can live without philosophy. Like his
empiricist ancestors, Tyson does not recognize his own philosophy. According to
Collingwood, at best, it amounts to the juvenile form he called
“presuppositions.”<a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020230814%20Neil%20deGrasse%20Tyson%E2%80%99s%20Science%20Without%20Philosophy.docx#_edn1" name="_ednref1" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference">[1]</span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
These are unconscious fundamental metaphysical assumptions that cannot be
proven and always have opposites. Cosmogonists, by definition, presuppose <i>finity</i> and that the
universe had a beginning. True to form, they rarely, if ever, admit that <i>finity</i> is only an
assumption and that without it, cosmogony would be defunct. This is the bad
philosophy Tyson has to ignore. Assuming the opposing, also not provable fundamental
assumption<a name="_wsQP_"></a>, <b><i>infinity</i></b> would destroy cosmogony
and what remains of Tyson’s career. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">So,
you can see why cosmogonists must prevent their presuppositions from ever
seeing the light of day as recognized fundamental assumptions. Scientism, as
now defined, is no longer a religious swear word, but gives meaning to what
regressive physicists and cosmogonists are doing and need to do. It amounts to
a travesty of science.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">The
scientific method involves observation, experiment, and interpretation. We have
to admit our interpretations may be biased by our underlying fundamental
assumptions. But that is seldom the case for paradigms not in crisis. As Kuhn
wrote: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"><span class="QuoteChar">“It is, I
think, particularly in periods of acknowledged crisis that scientists have
turned to philosophical analysis as a device for unlocking the riddles of their
field. Scientists have not generally needed or wanted to be philosophers.
Indeed, normal science usually holds creative philosophy at arm’s length, and
probably for good reasons. To the extent that normal research work can be
conducted by using the paradigm as a model, rules and assumptions need not be
made explicit. In Section V we noted that the full set of rules sought by
philosophical analysis need not even exist. But that is not to say that the
search for assumptions (even for nonexistent ones) cannot be an effective way
to weaken the grip of a tradition upon the mind and to suggest the basis for a
new one.”</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020230814%20Neil%20deGrasse%20Tyson%E2%80%99s%20Science%20Without%20Philosophy.docx#_edn2" name="_ednref2" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><i><span style="color: #404040;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><b>[2]</b></span><!--[endif]--></span></i></span></a><span class="QuoteChar"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">Obviously,
Tyson doesn’t realize that. The lesson here: Revolutions do not occur until the
contradictions become extreme enough for all to see. Furthermore, do not expect
the promoters of the status quo such as Tyson to see the light any time soon.
He will not be the one to lead us out of the morass.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">By
now it should be clear why I have emphasized scientific philosophy and the
discovery and promotion of fundamental assumptions as the key to overthrowing
regressive physics and cosmogony. Tweaking the math without adhering to
strictly scientific assumptions, has been, and will continue to be of no avail.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"><a name="wsK1"></a></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">I have received comments to the effect that, if fundamental
assumptions are not completely provable, then it makes no difference which of
the two opposites we choose. This is definitely not the case. The fact is the
deterministic assumptions lead to science and the indeterministic ones lead to
religion. In reading "The Ten Assumptions of Science" you will see
the extensive data I use in support, while their opposites have only dreams and
imaginings in “support” as I showed in detail in my recent book “Religious
Roots of Relativity.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">Here
is Cain’s rightful complaint exposing Tyson’s pitiful attempt at doing
astrophysics without philosophy:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"><a href="https://gborc.com/scientism"><b>Trampling the
Record of Neil deGrasse Tyson’s Scientistic Confusions</b></a><b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">PSI
Blog 20230814<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<h2><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">Thanks for reading
Infinite Universe Theory! Please subscribe for free to receive new posts and be
part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution.” <o:p></o:p></span></h2>
<h2><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></h2>
<h2><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></h2>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></p>
<div><!--[if !supportEndnotes]--><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"><br clear="all" />
</span><hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<div id="edn1">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"><a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020230814%20Neil%20deGrasse%20Tyson%E2%80%99s%20Science%20Without%20Philosophy.docx#_ednref1" name="_edn1" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference">[1]</span><!--[endif]--></span></a> Collingwood,
R.G. 1940. <i>An Essay on Metaphysics</i>. Oxford: Clarendon Press.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn2">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"><a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/PSI%20Blog%2020230814%20Neil%20deGrasse%20Tyson%E2%80%99s%20Science%20Without%20Philosophy.docx#_ednref2" name="_edn2" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference">[2]</span><!--[endif]--></span></a> Kuhn,
T.S. 1970. <i>The Structure of Scientific Revolutions</i>. 2nd ed. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, p. 88.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>Glenn Borchardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-75864750943558537932023-08-07T05:00:00.026-07:002023-08-07T05:00:00.150-07:00Publishing Theoretical Physics in The Age of Censorship<p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"><span style="text-indent: 0in;">PSI
Blog 20230807 Publishing Theoretical Physics in The Age </span><span style="text-indent: 0in;"><a name="_wsQV_" style="text-indent: 0in;"></a></span><span style="text-indent: 0in;">of
Censorship</span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">Advice
for students contemplating a career challenging the current cosmogonical
paradigm.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsBq0T3UB2FuzwiVC7If-rJxDIII0PWGrzbj2GjvLvvzGG8Et7fwjCxxWrYan1MXzvF88zdKQNNUgtznAEyVRtEUG835Vb5V8fRn17JXXQmh34__2QWNQts2qwjISOncX9uBa7V5BnEPPt91CY5sjsmmQ2u4MeZI4bM3PovhxG3WvUBuUHZyR60pZp_kEm/s1430/Student,%20pencil,%20anguish.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"><img border="0" data-original-height="953" data-original-width="1430" height="324" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsBq0T3UB2FuzwiVC7If-rJxDIII0PWGrzbj2GjvLvvzGG8Et7fwjCxxWrYan1MXzvF88zdKQNNUgtznAEyVRtEUG835Vb5V8fRn17JXXQmh34__2QWNQts2qwjISOncX9uBa7V5BnEPPt91CY5sjsmmQ2u4MeZI4bM3PovhxG3WvUBuUHZyR60pZp_kEm/w487-h324/Student,%20pencil,%20anguish.jpg" width="487" /></span></a></div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"><span style="text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span> </span></span><span style="text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;">Photo
by </span><a href="https://unsplash.com/@jeshoots?utm_source=unsplash&utm_medium=referral&utm_content=creditCopyText" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span>JESHOOTS.COM</span></a><span style="text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"> on </span><a href="https://unsplash.com/photos/-2vD8lIhdnw?utm_source=unsplash&utm_medium=referral&utm_content=creditCopyText" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span>Unsplash</span></a></span><p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">I
just got this query from an obviously brilliant Masters student in physics. He
is especially interested and quite knowledgeable in theoretical physics:<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">“Dear
Glenn,<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">Where
do you, as a dissident scientist publish your works as the mainstream censors
dissident scientific works not to say of publishing them in their journals?”<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">[GB:
Dear Anon: That is an excellent question—one for the ages. After publishing
over 500 pubs in mainstream science, I have received only one rejection. And
that was only because our theory contradicted the erroneous one promoted by
consultants for the developer. One other one was rejected by a review from a
competing lab that was about to be scooped, but ultimately accepted by an
astute editor.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">That
little “experiment” shows how censorship in science really works. Publishing
what Kuhn called “ordinary science” is relatively easy, while trying to publish
“revolutionary science” is difficult. Few scientists favor promoting theories
they believe to be false, especially if one of those happens to contradict one
of theirs.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">Here
are some links to Blog posts at which I gave more details about censorship:<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"><a href="https://gborc.com/RefPhy"><span>https://gborc.com/RefPhy</span></a><span><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"><a href="https://gborc.com/censorship"><span>https://gborc.com/censorship</span></a><span> <o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"><a href="https://gborc.com/student-disgusted"><span>https://gborc.com/student-disgusted</span></a><span>]<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">“Then
if the mainstream would not pay heed to my theory, is my decision of doing a
masters and then a PhD a good decision?”<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">[GB:
That is another tough question. Doing a Masters and a PhD is always a good
decision. The difficult part would be finding an amenable advisor in an
amenable department. Someday, probably during your lifetime, the Last
Cosmological Revolution will occur along with the demise of the “Last Creation
Myth.” For that to happen, relativity and its currently regressive physics must
be rejected first. I doubt that can be spear-headed by the U.S., because of its
huge investment in religion and cosmogony. Countries such as India and China
can seize the upper hand instead.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">All
this means there is an opportunity for students of theoretical physics to
achieve either greatness or temporary failure like the 10,000 dissidents who
have experienced that so far. One way to get around some of that is to go into
experimental physics. What you do is to work with some prof on the cutting edge—preferably
with access to some newly invented equipment. I did that when I did my PhD on
neutron activation analysis, which used our new TRIGA nuclear reactor at OSU. As
a result, I also got a postdoc using one in Denver and eventually the offer of
a professorship teaching nuclear physics in Brazil, which I turned down.]<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">“Can
one publish scientific research without having masters and PhD degrees?”<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">[GB:
Short answer: of course. But it can be more difficult. For instance, I knew one
fellow who had only a Masters degree. He worked well alongside Ph.D. folks, did
great work equivalent to that of any of his colleagues, but seemed to regret he
had no Ph.D. to go with it, probably because the salary was not commensurate.]<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">“If
yes, then where and how so that his/her research gets noticed by both the
dissident world as well as the mainstream world?”<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"><span>[GB:
Another good one. Dissident pubs include: Physics Essays, General Science
Journal, etc. There are conferences like those once put on by NPA and now done
occasionally by CNPS. Instant publication can be done in various archives, with
viXra, Rearchgate.net, and Academia.edu welcoming dissidents. The problem with
all these is that peer review is spotty at the least. The predatory journals I
have warned about are the worst (</span><a href="https://gborc.com/predatory-pubs"><span>https://gborc.com/predatory-pubs</span></a><span>. They only are
interested in profit, are extremely expensive, and seldom lead to citations,
which is what makes a career in science successful. Some of the papers found in
these are quite far-out, with claims often more absurd than those in regressive
physics. That makes it easy for the mainstream to reject those journals entirely.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">Look
at it this way: Science is the search for truth. Publishers’ reputations depend
on how well they do that. A medical journal, for instance, cannot print
fabricated data or paralogistical interpretations. People could be harmed or
even die if that was the case. Peer review is supposed to guarantee that does
not happen. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">People
who hang out with liars or criminals also become suspects even though they may
be entirely innocent. Witnesses proven to have told a lie in court, can have
their entire testimonies dismissed. (Our jury once returned a guilty verdict
after having to choose between two opposing testimonies.) Lawyers and scientists
need to assume written material contains no lies or fabricated data. A journal
that allows that to happen risks losing its good reputation and reason for
being.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">That
brings up another problem for dissidents: It is easiest to get published in a
highly regarded journal when your paper includes a lot of data. A “with and
without” table is always impressive. Theoretical physics, by definition, does
not have original data. Otherwise, we would call it “experimental physics.”
That is why fundamental assumptions are so important. For example, there is no
way one could get acceptance in today’s mainstream cosmology without assuming the
universe had a beginning. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">One
way to get around that is to tie your critique of regressive physics to some discipline
outside of theoretical physics, like Steve Bryant did:</span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">Bryant,
Steven. 2023. "Assessing GPT-4’S role as a co-collaborator in scientific
research: a case study analyzing Einstein’s speci<a name="_wsQP_"></a>al theory
of relativity." <i>Discover Artificial Intelligence</i> 3 (1): 26.
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s44163-023-00075-3">https://doi.org/10.1007/s44163-023-00075-3</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;">
</p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">I
find the best place to publish books without enflaming the guardians of theoretical physics is with KDP on Amazon. It is free, and you can set royalties as h<a name="_wsQP_"></a>igh as 70%. <a name="wsKB"></a>There is no technical review
except for layout problems. <a name="wsKK"></a>You have to get peer reviews by
yourself, if at all. <a name="_wsQV_"></a>Good luck finding reviewers who can
accept your fundamental assumptions.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></span></p>
<p class="graf graf--p" name="2f1a"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">Of course, mainstream publishers are preferred, but they tend to shy away from anything controversial. In 1980 my agent shopped “The Scientific Worldview” to a dozen major publishers with no luck. The most encouraging rejection was from Macmillan, who wrote something like this: “Brilliant work, but too difficult for the layman and too controversial for the scientist.” Even if accepted, the second crucial part of publishing involves advertising and distribution. Vigorous support only goes to best sellers whose sales can support the costs.</span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">There
are many other ways to get the word out. For instance, our PSI Blog has over
600 entries and about 80 followers. Medium.com appears more successful. In our
first year, we had over 6,000 views for our most popular post and now have over
a thousand followers.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">Another
problem with dissident publishing: Dissidents seldom cite each other’s papers,
mostly because they seldom agree. While regressive physicists can get hundreds
of co-authors, a reformist <a name="_wsQP_"></a>is unlikely to get any. That is
because the whole of theoretical physics is beset by philosophical
disagreements based on differing fundamental assumptions. (That is why I always
emphasize The Ten Assumptions of Science as a first step in doing theoretical
physics or cosmology.)<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">At
the moment, well established older theoretical physicists are unlikely to read
any dissident stuff at all. Papers submitted to mainstream journals get the circular
file unless they have some actual data in support. Associate Editors tend to be
young (like I was during my ten-year stint), but are unlikely to throw out the
entire paradigm implied by a dissident submission.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">Eventually,
all this will change as the contradictions accumulate and the ad hocs become
ever-sillier (e.g., perfectly empty space pushing galaxies apart at greater
than <b><i>c). </i></b>Read "Religious Roots of Relativity" if you
want to learn what we really are up against. But don’t despair too much. I
predict you will be around when the Big Bang Theory crumbles in the next 30
years as population growth and commensurate economic growth slows to a crawl. The
anguish to be produced by that will cause thinking people to question authority
once again. The Last Cosmological Revolution and the eventual acceptance of I<a name="wsK1"></a>nfinite Universe Theory will be a big deal. Hope you can be a
part of it!]<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">Thanks for reading
Infinite Universe Theory! Please subscribe for free to receive new posts and be
part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution.”</span></p>
<h2><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></h2>
<h2><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"> </span></h2>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span></p>Glenn Borchardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-11679964070840427032023-07-24T05:00:00.002-07:002023-07-29T09:39:30.218-07:00Saving Cosmogony: New “Research” Puts “Age of Universe” at 26.7 Billion Years<p> <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 18pt; text-indent: 0in;">PSI Blog 20230724 Saving Cosmogony: New “Research”
Puts “Age of Universe” at 26.7 Billion Years</span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">James
Webb Space Telescope paradox resolved with yet another ad hoc.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_vxh3T1TqESh4icNDdQkMBrP8B0KxUMGjafJKjDc-tHHjChwc66aUKej2n8UMoNltlHdgIl-Xgs80jFfrueozvK4oh4Krz9uCr0KW-bob9eglePvYiRj2-lkB2S9O57F_fRwkV5ZiMl4xjuwPKSlB68UK_EVtuul7fYfUa1gK1CkdusGNuUHUd1hlSaLD/s800/20230724%20Cosmos.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="376" data-original-width="800" height="232" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_vxh3T1TqESh4icNDdQkMBrP8B0KxUMGjafJKjDc-tHHjChwc66aUKej2n8UMoNltlHdgIl-Xgs80jFfrueozvK4oh4Krz9uCr0KW-bob9eglePvYiRj2-lkB2S9O57F_fRwkV5ZiMl4xjuwPKSlB68UK_EVtuul7fYfUa1gK1CkdusGNuUHUd1hlSaLD/w496-h232/20230724%20Cosmos.jpg" width="496" /></a></div><p></p><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 18pt; text-indent: 0in;">Credit:
CC0 Public Domain</span></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">It
had to happen. Cosmogonists just achieved salvation once again. No admission the
universe is infinite, just another bunch of calculations to stumble over the “elderly
galaxies” problem. Any cosmogonists paying attention knew spiral galaxies could
not form in the mere 300 to <a href="https://medium.com/@glennborchardt/shocking-news-iii-450-million-year-old-spiral-galaxy-falsifies-the-big-bang-theory-a06b27065867">450
million years</a> allotted by the recent JWST photos.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">The
“new” research published in the vaunted “Monthly Notices of the Royal
Astronomical Society” surreptitiously rejects Einstein’s Untired Light Theory.
It grants that light might lose energy over distance as maintained by I<a name="wsK1"></a>nfinite Universe Theory, but keeps the erroneous universal
expansion interpretation in </span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 24px;">place. Energy</span></span><span style="font-size: large;"> loss over distance so obviously implies the universal expansion idea is bogus. The author just doesn’t get it and the reporter can’t manage a challenge to the silliness.</span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">According
to science reporter Bernard Rizk:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">“Moreover,
Gupta [author of the paper] suggests that the traditional interpretation of the
"cosmological constant," which represents dark energy responsible for
the accelerating expansion of the universe, needs revision. Instead, he
proposes a constant that accounts for the evolution of the coupling constants.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">That
should get Gupta into trouble with other cosmogonists who dearly love that
constant and the fictitious “Dark Energy” that supposedly was the “cause” of
the Big Bang. I doubt this ad hoc will get any traction with that crowd. On the
other hand, any ad hoc is just as good as another.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;">So
here is the first “elderly galaxies” <a name="_wsQP_"></a>ad hoc I am aware of.
Read it and weep: <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<h2><span style="font-size: 28pt;"><a href="https://phys.org/news/2023-07-age-universe-billion-years-previously.html">New
research puts age of universe at 26.7 billion years, nearly twice as old as
previously believed</a><o:p></o:p></span></h2>
<h2><span style="font-size: 28pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></h2>
<h2><span style="font-size: 28pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">Thanks for reading
Infinite Universe Theory! Please subscribe for free to receive new posts and be
part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution.” <o:p></o:p></span></h2>
<h2><span style="font-size: 28pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></h2>
<h2><span style="font-size: 26pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></h2>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>Glenn Borchardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-22633053699995791132023-06-27T20:00:00.018-07:002023-07-27T07:00:49.950-07:00Progressive Physics <p><span style="font-size: large;"> PSI Blog 20230626 Progressive Physics</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;"><span style="font-size: large;">The demise of the
Big Bang Theory and its religiously flavored foundation will return theoretical
physics to reality.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhq8ZkPTd00yQSJzvCqzdLVD0_zKtx-KdgIN0UPW4vJEGLPH2us5ki-ILwRywRbvKcCBy84nqfTDXefHU6mNUbhdvxaiG8BwUGxvFb2ZIaFwZKmHcbdsA5A_8hPqVjaorB7UWhI55r20w0H8qXi8sJwxb44zEyu9meMUS9DlvEyPfTkaeTRGrdcD4e5sqHz/s3677/PISA.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1934" data-original-width="3677" height="245" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhq8ZkPTd00yQSJzvCqzdLVD0_zKtx-KdgIN0UPW4vJEGLPH2us5ki-ILwRywRbvKcCBy84nqfTDXefHU6mNUbhdvxaiG8BwUGxvFb2ZIaFwZKmHcbdsA5A_8hPqVjaorB7UWhI55r20w0H8qXi8sJwxb44zEyu9meMUS9DlvEyPfTkaeTRGrdcD4e5sqHz/w466-h245/PISA.jpg" width="466" /></span></a></div><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;">Theoretical Physics Needs a Proper
Foundation.</span></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;">Modified from photo by </span><a href="https://unsplash.com/@davideragusa?utm_source=unsplash&utm_medium=referral&utm_content=creditCopyText">davide
ragusa</a><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;"> on </span><a href="https://unsplash.com/s/photos/ten-building-foundation-piers?utm_source=unsplash&utm_medium=referral&utm_content=creditCopyText">Unsplash</a><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;"><span style="font-size: large;">Why is theoretical
physics so important to humanity? Who cares? You do. It turns out that
theoretical physics is the foundation for all of science. It tells us how our
world works. It teaches us what is possible and what is impossible. It forms
the battleground for the great struggle between science and religion, between
determinism and indeterminism, between reality and fantasy.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;">But as natural
products of our environment, we cannot escape our history—all that came before.
Any idea we may have about how the world works had to come from somewhere. This
is as true of theoretical physics as any other realm of thought. Even after the
weening that took place during many of the struggles with traditional beliefs,
extremely important remnants remain to haunt the scientific endeavor. As we
have seen, the </span><a href="https://gborc.com/RegPhy">regression</a><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;"> that began in 1905 was sponsored by powerful
political and theological forces that, as always, found it necessary to instill
and enforce the loyalty necessary for survival in a contentious world.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;">As absurd as
theoretical physics has become during the last century, even 10,000 </span><a href="https://gborc.com/RefPhy">reformists</a><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;"> have not phased the great behemoth. The Teflon-coated paradigm is
still standing just like the politics and theology that promoted it. What is to
be done? How does a major overhaul occur? How does the “Last Creation Myth”
succumb?<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;"><span style="font-size: large;">Fundamental
Assumptions <o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;"><span style="font-size: large;">Correct thinking is
based on a correct foundation. So, what should the proper foundation be? Kuhn
gave us some <a href="https://gborc.com/Kuhn1996">hints</a>. Just like a tower
about to fall, we must examine its foundation. That is not the job of the
person who built the tower. The examiner must be someone who has no emotional
or financial interests in whether the tower survives or not. The folks who engineered
the foundation of the Big Bang tower will not be hired to fix it.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://gborc.com/Collingwood">Collingwood</a> showed us the way. In the
past, staunch empiricists, like the younger Newton, claimed to need “no
stinking assumptions.” But that is all Newton and his followers in the
theoretical half of physics ever did—surreptitiously. They used subconscious
traditional presuppositions all the time, just like today’s cosmologists who
invariably fail to admit they really are cosmogonists (those who assume the
universe had a beginning). Collingwood’s answer was that we must bring
assumptions, especially the fundamental ones, into the light of day.
Regressives and reformists often make a point of doing just that for ordinary
assumptions, but you will search high and low to find many who touch upon the
fundamentals.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;">That is because
fundamental assumptions are “metaphysical” and controversial. They go “beyond
physics,” where we are admonished by the empiricists to never venture. Their
motto is: if I cannot see, hear, touch, smell, or taste the external evidence,
it does not exist. Who could in any way sense whether the universe is finite or
infinite? If 13.8-billion-light-years distance, 20 trillion galaxies, and an
infinite number of unique snowflakes are not enough to assume <b><i>infinity</i></b>,
then what is? The answer is: nothing. According to Collingwood, fundamental
assumptions never can be completely proven and they always have opposites. <b><i>Infinity</i></b>
and </span><i><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;">finity</span></i><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;"> have that status. Logically, if one of these
is correct, then the other is false. Once you fully realize this, once you
assume <b><i>infinity</i></b>, you have arrived at the door of progressive
physics.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;"><span style="font-size: large;">Behind that door are
some additional fundamental assumptions that fulfil Collingwood’s criteria.
Over <a href="https://gborc.com/TSW84">40 years ago</a>, I used my then
half-vast experience in science to come up with <a href="https://gborc.com/TTAOS">10 assumptions</a> that qualified. These were
all consupponible, that is, if you can assume one, you can assume all the others
without significant contradiction. That was Collingwood’s third criteria for
fundamental assumptions. This “constellation” was just what was needed to right
the ship of theoretical physics and to dispose of its most embarrassing
offspring the “Big Bang Theory.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;"><span style="font-size: large;">I chose those ten
assumptions for pedagogical reasons. You may be able to think of others that
fit the criteria, but I doubt it. In any case, I have no doubt these are the
ones that will take down the Big Bang Theory and most of relativity with it.
They form the “proper” foundation for a complete revamp of theoretical physics.
They underlie all I have done in “scientific philosophy” since. I call it that,
because it is prescriptive, not descriptive like the “philosophy of science” I
have been observing for decades. That discipline is mostly about the history of
what scientists have believed in the past. It was totally ineffective in
preventing the ravages of relativity and cosmogony.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;"><span style="font-size: large;">Now for a word of
caution. If, after thoroughly understanding each of the ten assumptions, and
you still have trouble assuming one of them, I suggest you do some rereading.
Also, things might appear clearer if you understand the opposing assumptions
better by reading <span style="background: white; color: #222222;">“The Ten
Assumptions of Religion”</span> in my recent book “<a href="file:///C:/Users/gborc/Dropbox/Blogs/%5bhttps:/gborc.com/RRR">Religious Roots of Relativity</a>.” As with all
foundations, we need to get things settled before proceeding. The time for
debate expires once the cement is poured. We must regard the Assumptions of
Science as we do axioms in modern logic and math: As premises or starting
points for reasoning. Progressive physics then follows logically from the ten
assumptions as deductions no longer up for debate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;">You get the flavor
of progressive physics by reading the books mentioned on </span><a href="https://gborc.com/PSI">scientificphilosophy.org</a><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;">. Ch. 16 in “<a href="https://gborc.com/IUT17">Inf<span style="mso-bookmark: wsK1;"></span>inite Universe Theory</a><!--[if !supportNestedAnchors]--><a name="wsK1"></a><!--[endif]-->” has quite a few details. Then, of course, the whole
deal is in "<a href="https://gborc.com/TSW07">The Scientific Worldview</a>,"
my magnum opus on univironmental determinism, which is both the scientific
worldview and the universal mechanism of evolution.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;">If you are really,
really serious about getting on the progressive bandwagon you might want to
start by reading and understanding "The Ten Assumptions of Science."
The </span><a href="https://gborc.com/TTAOSpdf">free pdf</a><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;"> has been downloaded almost 8,000 times. BTW:
I found it helpful to memorize and repeat this 20-second pandemic mantra: <o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_Hlk137995195"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;"><span style="font-size: large;">“1. Materialism 2. Causality 3. Uncertainty 4. Inseparability 5.
Conservation 6. Complementarity 7. Irreversibility 8. Infinity 9. Relativism
10. Interconnection.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;"><span style="font-size: large;">As my grandmother from Hamburg used to say:
“And don’t you ever forget it!”<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;"><span style="font-size: large;">Here is the complete listing of The Ten
Assumptions of Science:<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;">The First Assumption of Science, </span></span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;">materialism</span></i></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;">
(The external world exists after the observer does not) <o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></i></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;">The Second Assumption of
Science, </span></span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;">causality</span></i></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;">
(All effects have an infinite number of material causes)<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></i></b>The Third Assumption of
Science, </span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;">uncertainty</span></i></b> (It is impossible to know everything about
anything, but it is possible to know more about anything)<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></i></b>The Fourth Assumption of
Science, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">inseparability</i></b> (Just as there is no motion without matter, so
there is no matter without motion)<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></i></b>The Fifth Assumption of Science,
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">conservation</i></b>
(Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed)<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></i></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">The
</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">Sixth Assumption of Science, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i>complementarity</i></b> (All things are
subject to divergence and convergence from other things) <o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;">The Seventh
Assumption of Science, </span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;">irreversibility</span></i></b>
(All processes are irreversible)<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></i></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">The
Eighth Assumption of Science, <b><i>infinity</i></b> (The universe is infinite,
both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions) <o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">The Ninth
Assumption of Science, </span></span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;">relativism</span></i></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"> (All things have characteristics that make them
similar to all other things as well as characteristics that make them
dissimilar to all other things) <o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">The Tenth
Assumption of Science, </span></span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;">interconnection</span></i></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"> (All things are interconnected, that is, between
any two objects exist other objects that transmit matter and motion)<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;"><span style="font-size: large;">In formal logic, if axioms, postulates, premises,
and assumptions are assumed to be correct, then the deductions formed from them
also must be correct. Such is the beauty of axiomisation. <o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;"><span style="font-size: large;">Of course, there isn’t room here for much of
an explanation of what “progressive physics” amounts to. The details are in our
books, papers, Blog posts, and essays. I only can summarize a few of the
highlights and important deductions:<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;"><span style="font-size: large;">Philosophy<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;">My philosophy is called “univironmental
determinism” (UD) (what happens to a portion of the universe depends on the
infinite matter within and without). In addition, it also happens to be the
universal </span>mechanism of evolution. The first mechanism of evolution was
Darwinism, natural selection, which is what we call a “macrocosmic mistake”
because of its overemphasis on the environment. The second was “Neo-Darwinism,”
which included genes. That was somewhat more balanced, but only suited to
biology and even then, did not include the rest of the organism.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><span style="font-size: large;">Method<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;">My methodology is
called univironmental analysis. That is performed by considering XYZ portions
of the universe as “microcosms.” All microcosms contain what are called
“submicrocosms” and all microcosms are surrounded by a “macrocosm” containing
“supermicrocosms.” Supermicrocosms can be infinitely small to infinitely large,
with the most important generally being nearby. Unlike the current scientific
world view, systems philosophy, I consider the outsides of things to be just as
important as the insides of things. You can see why this method begs a
conception of the universe as infinite. We deduce from </span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;">materialism</span></i></b> that a microcosm
or macrocosm filled with nothing at all is impossible. The required perfectly
empty space is imaginary, an idealism assumed possible by religion, but not by
science. Especially, if one assumes </span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;">interconnection</span></i></b>,
nonexistence is impossible.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><span style="font-size: large;">Here are a few more
deductions, with the most pertinent assumptions in bold italics:<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">1.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The universe consists of only two basic
phenomena: matter and the motion of matter. (<b><i>materialism</i></b> + <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i>inseparability </i></b></span></span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-style: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">+</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> </span></i></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB">infinity</span></i></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">)</span></i></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">2.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Causes result from things colliding with things
per Newton's Second Law of Motion. (<b><i>causality + </i></b></span></span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB">infinity)</span></i></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> </span></span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">In
other words, if you have identified an effect, you better look for the thing
that did the colliding that produced that effect. If you cannot find one, you
better hypothesize one anyway. Unlike regressive physics, which is
philosophically sloppy, we call that a theoretical necessity.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">3.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Anything that exists is a portion of the Infinite
Universe and therefore has XYZ dimensions. (</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">infinity</span></i></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">) <o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">4.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">There are only three dimensions. There is no empirical
evidence for extra-Euclidean dimensions. (</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">infinity</span></i></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">)<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><span style="font-size: large;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">5.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The motion of matter does not exist; it occurs.
(<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i>inseparability</i></b>)<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><span style="font-size: large;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">6.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Time is motion; time does not exist; it occurs.
(<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i>inseparability</i></b>)<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">7.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">What makes
this constellation of fundamental assumptions different from all others is the
Eighth Assumption of Science, <b><i>infinity</i></b> (The universe is infinite,
both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). [The infinite divisibility
of the universe implies no XYZ portion of it is without matter.] (<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i>inseparability</i></b>)</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">8.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><b><i><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Infinity</span></i></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">
implies the Second Assumption of Science, <b><i>causality</i></b> (All effects
have an infinite number of material causes). With the universe being infinitely
subdividable, no two collisions can be identical. That is why repetitions of
any experiment are never identical. It is the reason for the plus or minus we
must include for any set of similar measurements.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><span style="font-size: large;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">9.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Because <b><i>causality</i></b> is infinite
there always will be contributing collisions that produce effects unknown to
us. This is why neither classical mechanics nor quantum mechanics never can
produce perfect accuracy and perfect precision <o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">10.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><b><i><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Causality</span></i></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> is
the correlative of <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i>uncertainty</i></b>
(It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is possible to know
more about anything). Measurement variations and statistical probability are
indications of our ignorance of collisions unseen. It is not an indication of
some magical “chance” as portrayed by the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum
mechanics. Neither is it a sign of <i>acausality</i>, miracle, or of the
involvement of some imaginary being.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">11.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Matter-motion terms represent calculations. For
instance, momentum (P=mv), force (F=ma), and energy (E=mc<sup>2</sup> or ½ mv<sup>2</sup>)
do not exist or occur. What does exist is the matter (represented by m) and
what does occur is the motion (represented by v). Thus, dark energy, the assumed
“cause” of the Big Bang does not exist or occur. It is just one of the </span></span><a href="https://gborc.com/BBTfals"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">20 ad hocs</span></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> used
to save the Big Bang Theory. (<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i>inseparability</i></b>
+ </span><b><i><span lang="EN-GB">materialism</span></i></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">)<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">12.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Gravitation is an acceleration. Therefore, it
must involve collisions caused by unseen particles. Because gravitation is
unaffected by aberration, the colliding particles must be local, becoming
decelerated and entrained around baryonic (ordinary) matter in the process. (</span><b><i><span lang="EN-GB">causality</span></i></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> + </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i><span lang="EN-GB">interconnection</span></i></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">)<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">13.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Aether is responsible for the formation of
baryonic matter, the transmission of light, and gravitation as suggested in
1644 by Descartes. (</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">infinity</span></i></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> + </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i><span lang="EN-GB">interconnection</span></i></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> + </span><b><i><span lang="EN-GB">causality</span></i></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">)<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><span style="font-size: large;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">14.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The opposite of <i>creation</i> is <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i>conservation</i></b>, not evolution.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><span style="font-size: large;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">15.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The cosmological redshift is a distance effect
due to the imperfect reproduction of light waves. (<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i>relativism</i></b>)<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">16.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Einstein’s “Untired Light Theory” assumes light
is a massless particle filled with perfectly empty space traveling perpetually
through perfectly empty space. None of these requirements is possible. (</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB">inseparability</span></i></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB"> + <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">interconnection</b></span></i></span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">) <o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><span style="font-size: large;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">17.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Wave velocity is controlled by the medium
through which it travels. Particle velocity decreases over distance. Light
velocity does not; therefore, light is a wave, not a particle. (<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i>inseparability</i></b>)<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">18.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Aether pressure increases with distance from
Earth, causing light velocity to increase. With frequency remaining unchanged,
wavelength increases distally, producing the misnamed “gravitational redshift.”
Proximal aether pressure decreases due to aether deceleration during collisions
with baryonic matter that produce gravitation. (</span><b><i><span lang="EN-GB">causality</span></i></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">)<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk137995195;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">19.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Einstein’s “gravitational waves” are shockwaves
traveling through the aether at the same velocity as light. They have nothing
to do with gravitation or his imaginary “space-time.” </span></span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">(</span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i><span lang="EN-GB">interconnection</span></i></b><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">
+ </span><b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">infinity</span></i></b><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">)<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">20.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">There is
no such thing as “gravitational or magnet attraction.” No true pulls occur in
nature; all events are the result of pushes per </span><b><i><span lang="EN-GB">causality</span></i></b><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-transform: uppercase;">Thanks for reading
Infinite Universe Theory! Please subscribe for free to receive new posts and be
part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution.” <o:p></o:p></span></p>Glenn Borchardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.com4