The Scientific Worldview

This 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.

20241111

Big Bang Assumptions—'Webb has shown us they are clearly wrong'

PSI Blog 20241111 Big Bang Assumptions—'Webb has shown us they are clearly wrong'

Astrophysicist speculates on how young “black holes” at the edge of the Big Bang universe formed impossibly fast.

An artist's rendering of a black hole (Image credit: Vadim Sadovski via Shutterstock)

Thanks to Jesse Witwer for this heads up:

By Ben Turner:

How astrophysicist Sophie Koudami's research on supermassive black holes is rewriting the history of our universe

“A supermassive mystery lurks at the center of the Milky Way. Supermassive black holes are gigantic ruptures in space-time that sit in the middle of many galaxies, periodically sucking in matter before spitting it out at near light speeds to shape how galaxies evolve.

Yet how they came to be so enormous is a prevailing mystery in astrophysics, made even deeper by the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). Since it came online in 2022, the telescope has found that the cosmic monsters are shockingly abundant and massive in the few million years after the Big Bang — a discovery that defies many of our best models for how black holes grew.”

[GB: Readers know the Big Bang universe is supposed to have increasingly young cosmological objects as we look back into the past. The currently observed “edge” of that hypothesized finite, expanding universe is 13 billion years away. Cosmogonists like Sophie are racing to come up with yet another ad hoc that would save cosmogony once again.

Despite the misnomer, black holes simply are the nuclei found in galaxies such as our own 13.61-billion-year-old Milky Way. Elsewhere, they exist as elderly naked nucleic remnants lacking stars.

In reading this article you will find other misnomers still being perpetrated by regressive physics and cosmogony. One is the idea that gravitational force is not a force (a push), but an “attraction” (a magical pull). But, according to Infinite Universe Theory, the pushers happen to be ubiquitous non-luminous aether particles (otherwise known as “Dark Matter”).[1] In outer space, these have high local velocities and form a high-pressure medium. When these particles collide with ordinary matter, they produce the acceleration we call gravitation. Per Newton's Second Law of Motion, the colliding aether particles become decelerated, forming a relatively low pressure aetherosphere around each object. This process is responsible for the pushing together (fusion) of all things in the universe.

In the case of black hole formation, this means stars are being pushed toward the centers of the galaxies. As that pressure becomes ever-more intense, elements that were previously fused into ever more massive, dense derivative elements (helium, iron, lead, gold, and uranium, etc.) become further compressed. As in the Sun’s fusion of hydrogen to form helium, this process emits internal motion to the surroundings. The surroundings, as always, contain an aether medium capable of carrying that motion away in the form of the waves we call radiation.

Note that Sophie has great hope for the detection of Einstein’s “gravitational waves” for learning more about why elderly black holes form so fast. There will be further gravitational wave detections, but they never will answer her question. That is because the fusion processes I described takes billions of years, not the millions of years indicated by the Big Bang Theory. The Webb photos are like finding a 20-year-old in your crib.]

PSI Blog 20241111

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. You can get more than three posts per month by subscribing for $5/month or $50/year. That gets you unlimited access to over a million posts per month. You would be among over 60 million registered users who can enjoy some great independent writing free from the censorship common to the mainstream.

[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2018, The Physical Cause of Gravitation: viXra:1806.0165

(“Aether Deceleration Theory”).

20241104

Why are We Newcomers to the Infinite Universe?

PSI Blog 20241104 Why are We Newcomers to the Infinite Universe?

Every portion of the universe has a beginning and an end.

Thanks to Dr. Phil for this intriguing question:

“What explanation do you have for the fact that life has only existed on Earth for a short time (3.5 billion years?), even though the universe has existed forever?”

[GB: Well, like everything else, our portion of the Infinite Universe has to have some age. Like our 4.603-billion-year-old Sun, each of the 400 billion stars in our 13.61-billion-year-old Milky Way has a different age. This implies there are much older planets and life forms yet to be discovered within the galaxy.

Homo sapiens only evolved in the last 300,000 years (0.3 million or 0.0003 billion years). Just imagine what civilization would be like if the Sun was 4.604 Ga instead of 4.603 Ga! As a species, we exist in such a unique, juvenile period fast approaching maturity in 2050. According to the latest UN estimate, we will gradually reach zero population growth by 2086. By then we will have reached our “carrying capacity” and long since given up the Big Bang Theory, which will be remembered as the “Last Creation Myth.”

Your question implies another: How long will Homo sapiens last? Well, the dinosaurs lasted over 165 million years. Like the dinosaurs and every other species, including humans, there is a time for coming together (complementarity) and for coming apart (Second Law of Thermodynamics). Like the dinosaurs, we too will succumb to extinction. When will that be? Who knows?

Of note is that extinction is produced by a change in the macrocosm (environment). In this regard, Steve, Kent, and I dated three major extinctions at 66, 202, 252 Ma (million years) that were coincident with huge volcanic eruptions (e.g., the Deccan Traps in western India).[1] This includes the dinosaur extinction previously thought to have been the result of the asteroid impact at 66 Ma. The Sun will run out of fuel in 5 Ga (billion years), so that is the maximum for us. It looks like we might be able to intercept the next big asteroid, but another huge volcanic eruption will make things a bit difficult on the way.

Today’s global move toward fascism seems to have produced global pessimism. The warming climate and calls to “save the planet” are all the rage. Believers in “free will” often think humanity's extinction is at hand. That would be unprecedented, for no species has ever committed suicide, as I pointed out long ago when nuclear war was the scare du jour.[2] Yet, our inherent myopism makes us think we will succumb to climate change despite the fact Homo sapiens has survived its vicissitudes numerous times. These include the little ice age 600 years ago, the medieval warm period 1,000 years ago, the 3,000-yr drought that began 10,000 years ago,[3] the 126-m drop in sea level when most of Wisconsin was covered with a mile of glacial ice 22,000 years ago, and the 6-m rise in sea level during the Sangamon interglacial warm period 122,000 years ago. Even though atmospheric CO₂ has risen from 0.0357% to 0.0422% and global temperature has risen 0.8 ^oC since 1993, the rise in sea level pales in comparison. Surprisingly, it occurs at only 3.2 mm/yr (Figure 1). At that rate, sea level will have risen only three inches by 2050. Do you think the planet will be able to survive that along with the demise of the Big Bang Theory?]

PSI Blog 20241104

[1] Puetz, S.J., Condie, K.C., and Borchardt, Glenn, 2018, Analyses of global zircon ages, mass extinctions, and evolution, 32 p. [This paper was rejected for being too controversial. Our theory now has support (Walters, Sam, 2023, Did Massive Volcanic Eruptions Drive Dinosaurs to Become Extinct?). We will submit it for publication next year along with additional data.]

[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 2007, The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 411 p. [https://go.glennborchardt.com/TSW].

[3] Borchardt, Glenn, and Lienkaemper, J.J., 1999, Pedogenic calcite as evidence for an early Holocene dry period in the San Francisco Bay area, California: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 111, no. 6, p. 906–918. [ftp://ehzftp.cr.usgs.gov/jlienk/reprints/MasonicCO3_GSAB99.pdf].

20241028

Rick “Doogie” Dutkiewicz 1953-2024

PSI Blog 20241028 Rick “Doogie” Dutkiewicz 1953-2024

Doogie on June 12, 2024

Sorry to report the loss of one of our smartest and most loyal of PSI members. He also was the talented leader of “Tricks,” a Rock and Roll band known throughout western Michigan. We had a wonderful lunch just last June, where he and his wife Krystal admitted to having memorized and played over 140 songs.

Here is his biography:

https://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2012/11/blog-20121107-meet-rick-dutkiewicz.html

We got in touch via email after he was “blown away” by reading "The Scientific Worldview." His comments about regressive theoretical physics and cosmogony were always right on and often humorous. Just search the PSI Blog site to see his contributions. I still get a kick out of his review of Krauss’s “A Universe from Nothing,” which was promoted as a “bestseller” by the NYT and a gazillion cosmogonists. Here I reprint his guest Blog Post of 20120620 for your physical entertainment:

Dutkiewicz Blasts Krauss Interview on “A Universe from Nothing”

[GB: Last week’s Blog highlighted an interview with “renowned cosmologist,” Lawrence Krauss, a professor at Arizona State, concerning his recent Big Bang book. My only comment was in the title of the Blog, where I suggested that it was a good example of mainstream confusion. Turns out that I am not the only critic disgusted with the media’s pandering to such claptrap. Here is an adamant man-in-the-street response from the leader of the Rock and Roll band, “Tricks,” from Michigan. I couldn’t have written it better myself:]

By Rick Dutkiewicz

“I think it is virtually certain that everything we see came from empty space,” Krauss exposited. “And all the physics I know is highly suggestive that our universe popped into existence as a quantum fluctuation.”

All of this because Einstein thought that light could travel through a "vacuum." Did they suck the air out of a flask and shine a light through that "vacuum" to prove this idea? All that proves is that light waves travel through a medium that is smaller than air molecules. Einstein admitted this later in his life.

No one had the balls to ask if maybe a laboratory "vacuum" is not the "empty space" envisioned in mathematical models? I guess a few did, but they were drummed out of the Good Ol' Boys club.

"…because of the laws of quantum mechanics and special relativity, empty space consisted of a bubbling brew of virtual particles spontaneously popping in and out of existence on timescales too small to notice."

There is no such thing as "empty space" except in mathematical equations. I figured that out in 5th grade.

I've been listening to a podcast dealing with the general history of mathematics. Some of the earliest mathematicians were very careful to point out that irrational numbers, negative numbers, and zeros do not exist in actuality. DESPITE their usefulness in equations that seem to accurately predict phenomena in the actual universe.

Science went off the rails when people stopped being careful about conflating the meal and the menu, the road and the map, the analogy and the actuality.

When mathematicians like Godel and Turing came up with proofs that showed the limits of mathematics as a logical model, the indeterminists in the scientific community seized upon that uncertainty to "prove" that if you look at the universe closely enough, you will find chaos and an "Uncaused Cause" (but modern indeterminists took away the capital letters and stopped calling it "God").

They aren't humble enough to say that this only proves that our measurements and models are limited and full of holes. No. They proclaim that this proves that the universe we observe as "reality" actually comes from a chaos that is causeless and empty, but filled with random fluctuations of being and non-being.

If that isn't equivalent to religious thinking, what is it? It pisses me off when I hear scientists asserting that religion and science are somehow compatible. It's the mirror image of religionists' claim that "if god didn't exist, we would have to invent him.”

Funny that so many educated people want their cake of indeterminism, but they don't want to call it "God.” So, they came up with a new flavor of indeterminism. They're only fooling themselves.

“I’m not interested in classical, logical descriptions of nothing, but rather what science tells us about nothing."

That shows how much confusion lives inside the mind of an indeterminist. Only mathematics and fantasy can tell us something about "nothing.” Science cannot tell us about nothing, because nothing does not exist. Science deals with existence. Only math and fantasy and religion deal with non-existence.

Science deals with reality, not with something that can become nothing, or nothing that can become something.

"purer form of nothing"

I'm in awe! Where do I light my votive candle to this "purer form" of "nothing.” A thing that is not a thing. What does he mean by "pure"? What does he mean by "form"? What does he mean by "nothing.” Doesn't "form" imply the opposite of "no thing"? How does one argue against such insanity?

"if ... quantum mechanics was applied to gravity, space and time would have become dynamical and so would have spontaneously appeared. So you wouldn’t have needed pre-existing space. Instead the space itself would have arisen.”

So, in this model we have empty space before space and time exist? Fluctuations occur before time occurs or matter exists? He keeps emphasizing how small and fast these fluctuations are. And all of this occurs in "empty space.”

What kind of reasoning leads one to insist that if something is small or fast enough, we should say it doesn't exist? I think his reasoning has random fluctuations of insanity.

"If you wait long enough, no matter how small the probability is, it must arise. If you have particle pairs with a gravitational attraction that is just right for their total energy to be zero, you’re guaranteed that something will arise from nothing."

But, but, ... how can you "wait" if we're talking about "before time existed.” Krauss is even blind to the internal contradictions of his model.

This is simple to point out. I think the block is not intellectual, but psychological. It has to do with lack of imagination and ability to think outside of the model. All the while they pretend to be radical thinkers, but they are rehashing the same old debate of "how many angels fit on the head of a pin.”

[GB: Our sympathies to Krystal and the whole Rock & Roll family in western Michigan. Doogie will be missed from 2,000 miles away.]

PSI Blog 20241028

20241021

“No Sign of Ghostly Dark Photons in Afterglow of Big Bang”

PSI Blog 20241021 “No Sign of Ghostly Dark Photons in Afterglow of Big Bang”

Whether light or dark, Einstein’s magical photons do not exist.

“Scrutinizing the cosmic microwave background has enabled scientists to search for exotic particles too light to be found any other way. Planck Collaboration/European Space Agency.”

Astute readers know we have been poo-pooing Einstein’s false assumption light was a massless particle containing perfectly empty space traveling perpetually through perfectly empty space. Now we have the equally bogus “dark photon” hypothetically masquerading in place of the aether particles that all cosmogonists must deny in order to remain in the cult.

It is true that aether particles are sometimes mistaken for photons when they interact with matter. That makes some sense because aether particles have mass and the imaginary photons are massless. To measure an impact, a particle must have mass for it to satisfy the F=ma equation. Obviously, if the “m” in that equation was zero, there would be no force to measure.

No sign of ghostly dark photons in afterglow of Big Bang

“Using existing astronomical data, a team of cosmologists has searched for a hypothetical particle called the dark photon, a potential envoy from a whole new realm of undetected particles that could explain the universe’s mysterious dark matter. The researchers sought clues by comparing the afterglow of the Big Bang—the cosmic microwave background (CMB)—to the distribution of galaxies and came up empty”

[GB: That so-called “mysterious” dark matter is none other than the aether medium which cosmogonists will not discover until they give up Einstein’s “Untired Light Theory” and its progeny, the Big Bang Theory.

Now a bit about the Cosmic Microwave Background: The illustration above is supposed to confirm the Big Bang Theory. Actually, it does no such thing. Instead, it illustrates that “perfectly empty space” contains matter that yields a temperature of 2.7^oKelvin. It also has a cosmological redshift of z=1089. The largest cosmological redshift so far measured is z=13.27 for galaxy HD1.

Speculation: Values greater than that probably are from still more distant cosmological objects, as expected if the universe was infinite. In Infinite Universe Theory we assume the cosmological redshift is a straight-line function of distance. The 1089 value might indicate we are seeing evidence from objects up to 82 times what we can see so far, which is 13.463 billion light-years away. That would be 1,104 trillion light-years.]

PSI Blog 20241021

20241014

Tired Light Theory Supports Infinite Universe Theory

PSI Blog 20241014 Tired Light Theory Supports Infinite Universe Theory

Einstein’s Untired Light Theory messes up again with both Wikipedia and Neil deGrasse Tyson being fooled.

Intergalactic distance unchanged over time. Photo credit: Giles.[1]

Another great question from George Coyne:

“In case any of your readers are not familiar with Olbers' paradox (a.k.a. Olbers and Chseauz's paradox), it says that "the darkness of the night sky conflicts with the assumption of an infinite and eternal and static universe. In the hypothetical case that the universe is static, homogenous at a large scale, and populated by an infinite number of stars, any line of sight from Earth must end at the surface of a star and hence the night sky should be completely illuminated and very bright. This contradicts the observed darkness and non-uniformity of the night sky." (Wikipedia)

Neil deGrasse Tyson discusses the paradox in this video stating that if the universe is infinite then without expansion the sky would be bright at night:

https://www.facebook.com/watch?v=1000071988217197

Using your model of a non-expanding infinite universe, what is your solution to Olbers' paradox?”

[GB: First of all, I reject Wikipedia’s interjecting the word “static” in their explanation of Olbers’s Paradox. The Infinite Universe is not static. Every portion of it is in motion with respect to other portions. Second of all, the regressive interpretation of the so-called “Paradox” (which it is not) is based on an idealization. Idealizations often are useful, but they are not reality. In this case, Tyson, and others before him, use Einstein’s false assumption light was a massless particle containing perfectly empty space traveling perpetually through perfectly empty space. There is no evidence for perfectly empty space. Einstein’s Untired Light Theory is false and unprecedented. Nothing travels from point A to point B without losing energy.

There is no way for anything, including light waves or Einstein’s magical light particles, to travel an infinite distance without losing energy. We see this as a result of Zwicky’s Tired Light Theory[2], which is why the cosmological redshift increases with distance. Redshifted waves have less energy than when they were emitted from distant stars. By the time much of the light from the infinite number of stars in the Infinite Universe reaches us, it has an equilibrium redshift of z=1089, as mentioned in last week’s post.

Although this does not “prove” the universe is infinite any more than does the discovery of the 20 trillion galaxies estimated from the JWST photos. But it does get ever closer and those data are from real objects, and not dependent on an ideal particle traveling through ideal perfectly empty space. Rank idealist Tyson’s claim that Olbers proves the universe is expanding is just as moribund as it ever was. On top of that, the figure above shows no expansion between galaxies with time. This is an observation we consider to be one of the falsifications of the Big Bang Theory.

Here is another chance for readers to choose between fundamental assumptions that are rational (science) or irrational (religion).]

PSI Blog 20241014

[1] Giles, Douglas, 2023, What if the universe is NOT expanding? Inserting Philosophy, Medium.com, Accessed 20230616 [https://gborc.com/Giles].

[2] Zwicky, F., 1929, On the Redshift of Spectral Lines Through Interstellar Space: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, v. 15, no. 10, p. 773–779. [http://www.pnas.org/content/15/10/773.short].

20241007

Theoretical Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder Tells Us Why “Modern” Physics is Dying

PSI Blog 20241007 Theoretical Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder Tells Us Why “Modern” Physics is Dying

In other words: If you believe in String Theory and more than three dimensions, you are part of the problem.

Sabine Hossenfelder. Photo credit: https://sabinehossenfelder.com/

Thanks so much to Bill Wesley for this heads up on the exasperation shown by Sabine, who shows her disgust with regressive physics in a recent video:

https://youtu.be/cBIvSGLkwJY

According to Bill:

“She is calling out the elephant in the room making it more likely your work and the work of others such as my father and Eric Lerner will eventually be heard. It takes a lot of courage to do what she is doing, it’s exciting to see someone openly say what she is saying.”

[GB: Of course, like other reformists, she is criticizing only two especially egregious fabrications, which she knows extremely well. Like she says, the perpetrators have been repeating the same papers over and over with no evidentiary results. In addition to her YouTube videos, she has written some popular books, including this one on the mathemization of physics:

Hossenfelder, Sabine, 2018, Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray, Basic Books, 304 p.

And this one on the big questions:

Hossenfelder, Sabine, 2022, Existential physics: A scientist's guide to life's biggest questions, Penguin, 272 p.

She mentions physicist Lee Smolin who wrote these in a similar vein:

Smolin, Lee, 2007, The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next, Mariner Books; Reprint edition, 420 p.

Smolin, Lee, 2013, Time reborn: From the crisis in physics to the future of the universe, HMH

Going back a bit further, here is Eric Lerner’s revelation from 32 years ago:

Lerner, E.J., 1992, The Big Bang Never Happened: New York, Vintage Books, 440 p.

My prediction of 2050 for the demise of relativity and the Big Bang Theory still stands…]

PSI Blog 20241007

20240930

The Big Bang Scam

PSI Blog 20240930 The Big Bang Scam

Thanks to Bill, whose latest response was so great that we decided to present it as a Guest Post in honor of his father:

James Paul Wesley (1921-2007), Renown Theoretical Physicist Opposed to Cosmogony and Nuclear Proliferation.

The Big Bang Scam

By Bill Wesley, Arrayist

Notice that when they provide titles such as, "The James Webb Observation Breaks Cosmology!" or " The Big Bang Challenged by New Observations!" and so on the article itself will spend all its text on wearily reiterating the standard cosmological model for the 10,000th time and then will suggest that no one understands what’s wrong, but that we should not give up on the standard cosmological model, that it’s merely a problem of reexamining the dynamics of galaxy formation or some other small tweak that someone will think of soon.

We are asked not to panic or jump to conclusions, the titanic cosmological model has encountered a minor obstetrical, will soon be fixed and that's all, we are reminded that cosmology is unsinkable!

So it’s a scam, they are using the title to reiterate what is not working yet again under the premise that nothing else but reiteration can fix it.

In any other field this is called neurosis, the record keeps skipping back but the listener thinks it’s going forwards.

I told my physicist friends well before the launch that I thought the James Webb would not find small primordial galaxies in the "early" (distant) universe but galaxies much like the milky way and other local galaxies it counted for ZERO credibility on my part when it turned out exactly as I said it would.

I explained that this was going to happen because the big bang consensus emerged due to of issues of conformity and social bonding having zero to do with science, but this fell on deaf ears.

The big bang is a CULT belief, you are joining a GROUP and not adhering to rational science. People who defer from the consensus are PUNISHED; people who accept the consensus are REWARDED which is called CONDITIONING. Heretical beliefs are censored, canonical beliefs are published, its propaganda used to support a publishing empire that uses COERCION to keep everyone on the same page.

Now they are trying to say that "early" galaxies are not really large, that it’s larger black holes at their centers that give us this illusion which they can get away with because the images are fuzzy, the fuzzier the image the more they take advantage.

Earlier on the Hubble telescope produced very fuzzy images of distant galaxies so they claimed they could already see that more distant galaxies were less developed, it was a universal mantra.

I told my educated friends that I thought this was due to them reading into fuzzy images what they wanted to see, just like the claims of UFOs in fuzzy photos, or of Big Foot, or of channels or even canals on Mars. You can read whatever you like into vague images. I was assured that these were advanced scientific concepts that went way beyond fuzzy photos and that I was too ignorant. to appreciate the care that went into the claims

Yes, they were highly advanced WRONG scientific concepts that got refuted the minute the James Webb made the images clearer.

An advanced scientist looking into the mist sees advanced illusions while an uneducated person looking into the mist sees uneducated illusions, but everyone looking into the mist sees whatever illusion they expect to see, that's why they call it MYSTERY. (mist-ery)

People of all stripes seem to think that INTELLIGENCE can solve any problem, but many very highly intelligent people have a personality that makes them conformist followers to the core such that they are incapable of taking a stand against the majority of their peers.

Many intelligent people never create or discover anything and a highly intelligent person has recourse to advanced forms of rationalization that the unintelligent could never manage. Intelligence helps with every manner of gaslighting.

Innovators are the people who do not fear standing apart, who do not value consensus for consensus sake as DOES the vast majority of persons. Curiosity matters far more than intelligence, love of adventure is what innovators display, the instinct to fit in stands explicitly in the way of progress, to advance an art or a science requires one to be oblivious to whether they fit in or not, it’s content that matters to an innovator, not social status.

If one is intelligent that does not mean one is independent minded, but if one is independent minded and intelligent, that is a powerful indicator that one can create and discover new content that is difficult to arrive at. Intelligence is far more common than an independent spirit so it’s a huge mistake to conflate intelligence with independence, some of the least innovative people on earth are very intelligent.

PSI Blog 20240930

20240923

Vortex Motion Plaguing the Big Bang Theory

PSI Blog 20240923 Vortex Motion Plaguing the Big Bang Theory

A real explosion would have produced only straight-line motion.

“Figure 47 Microcosms in motion. Note that large microcosm A in the center shelters microcosm B from impacts from the left. Consequently, B will be pushed toward A, with the likelihood it might even end up rotating around A.” (Borchardt, 2017, p. 243)

Anon asks:

“Why are all the galaxies and star systems going in circles?”

[GB: Thanks so much for the great question! It got me thinking about what the universe would be like if it really was expanding as the result of an explosion. In “Infinite Universe Theory” I pointed out that many galaxies are colliding, which is something an explosion cannot do. Your question about circular motion brings up what amounts to a similar falsification of the Big Bang Theory.

As we showed in “Universal Cycle Theory,” vortex formation occurs throughout the Infinite Universe at all scales, from aether particles to galactic superclusters. In fact, the initial formation of ordinary matter from aether particles involves vortex formation. See Chapter 16.4 in “Infinite Universe Theory.” It follows from the universal mechanism of evolution, univironmental determinism (what happens to a portion of the universe depends on the infinite matter in motion within and without). The solution involves the application of univironmental analysis and the Ninth Assumption of Science, relativism (All things have characteristics that make them similar to all other things as well as characteristics that make them dissimilar to all other things). In other words, no two aether particles, like no two snowflakes, are identical. Be reminded that the opposing Ninth Assumption of Religion is absolutism (Identities exist, that is, any two things may have identical characteristics).

This infinite variation is necessary for the universe to exist. It is why there are an infinite number of causes for each effect and why all our measurements have a plus or minus and why the Infinite Universe often appears “messy.” It is why the Finite Particle Theory of the atomists is fallacious and merely serves as the logical counterpart to the finite universe of Big Bang Theory. It is why aether particles must be made up of aether subparticles, ad infinitum.[1]

Theoretically, ubiquitous aether particles exhibit Brownian motion just like the dust particles you sometimes see in a sunbeam entering your window in the morning. In other words, they move randomly in all directions just like nitrogen molecules do in the atmosphere. They crash into each other, with the collidee becoming accelerated and the collider becoming decelerated in the process. Per relativism, small aether particles are shielded on one side by large aether particles, causing them to be pushed together. Some of those collisions push the smaller aether particle either to the left or right, causing it to rotate clockwise or counter clockwise around the larger particle (see figure above).

The same thing happens throughout the universe, with both the microcosm and the macrocosm being critical in the formation and maintenance of vortices from atoms to solar systems, galaxies, super galaxies, and super clusters.

Incidentally, this tendency for curved motion to occur throughout the Infinite Universe has a lesson for us with regard to Newton’s First Law of Motion, “which is simply the most important observation ever made:

Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon.[2]

With this law, Newton essentially is observing that portions of the universe display two primary phenomena, matter and its motion. The matter part, the body, moves with respect to what he thought of as absolute space.”[3]

After assuming infinity, I modified Newton’s First Law to read: “Every microcosm continues in uniform motion until the direction and velocity of its motion is changed by collisions with supermicrocosms.”[4] The perfectly empty space he (and Einstein) assumed does not exist. We have plenty of evidence for aether,[5] which is responsible for the aetherosphere that surrounds ordinary matter. Aether particles colliding with neutrons and protons become decelerated, causing gravitation in the process and forming an aetherosphere around ordinary matter.[6] Being the reverse of atmospheric pressure, aetherial pressure increases distally instead of proximally. It is responsible for most of the curvatures we see throughout the universe and provides the macrocosmic reason for vortex formation. The curvature is dependent on the mass of ordinary matter, mostly consisting of neutrons and protons. This is what Einstein erroneously thought of as “curved space-time” and is an important contradiction of Newton’s First Law of Motion as implied above.

I imagine cosmogonists would assume that gravitational “attraction” magically “pulls” the various parts of cosmological objects together to form vortices. If you can believe that nonsense, you still have a problem with the fact all vortices are rotating. A vortex does not just simply decide to rotate on its own. Instead, all rotations are a result of univironmental interactions, with half the galaxies appearing from Earth to rotate clockwise and half counter clockwise. The rotations begin when two objects brush past each other.

You can do a demonstration Newton would have loved: Just put two apples touching side-by-side. Now push each forward and note the one on the left rotates counter clockwise and the one on the right rotates clockwise. With galaxies, that touch is performed by the aetherosphere (dark matter) that surrounds all ordinary matter per ADT.[7] In other words, if galaxies were surrounded by Einstein’s perfectly empty space, they would never rotate.]

PSI Blog 20240923

[1] 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].

[2] Newton, Isaac, 1687 [1846], Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. Translated by Andrew Motte: New York, NY, Daniel Adee, 581 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/Newton1687Principia].

[3] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, p. 98 [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].

[4] As modified in “Infinite Universe Theory.” I define a microcosm as an xyz portion of the universe and a supermicrocosm as a microcosm existing outside that microcosm.

[5] Infinite Universe Theory, Fig. 42, p. 232.

[6] Borchardt, Glenn, 2018, The Physical Cause of Gravitation: viXra:1806.0165 (“Aether Deceleration Theory”)

[7] Ibid.

The Scientific Worldview

20241111

Big Bang Assumptions—'Webb has shown us they are clearly wrong'

20241104

Why are We Newcomers to the Infinite Universe?

20241028

Rick “Doogie” Dutkiewicz 1953-2024

20241021

“No Sign of Ghostly Dark Photons in Afterglow of Big Bang”

20241014

Tired Light Theory Supports Infinite Universe Theory

20241007

Theoretical Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder Tells Us Why “Modern” Physics is Dying

20240930

The Big Bang Scam

20240923

Vortex Motion Plaguing the Big Bang Theory

Search Comments and Posts