The Scientific Worldview

20251229

Solution to the Tired Light Theory

PSI Blog 20251229 Solution to the Tired Light Theory

Why the cosmological redshift occurs.

“One hundred and eight extremely distant, small and red galaxies were identified within the Hubble Ultra Deep Field.” Credit: NASA

Thanks to Anon for these questions, which inspired me to come up with the reason for the cosmological redshift:

“If starlight is redshifted (flashlight to be seen on Mars) at which distance from the starting point does the stretched wavelength start being calculated or start for that matter (from the beginning?).

[GB: Yes.]

“Is there a mathematical formulae and does the formulae (if there is one) apply to every star and light source?”

[GB: Yes.]

“Then how is the speed of light constant?”

[GB: The speed of light, like the speed of sound, and all other wave motions are dependent on the medium through which they travel—mostly dependent on the elasticity and closeness of the particles that make up the medium. For light it is 300,000,000 m/s in aether and for sound it is 343 m/s in air and over 5,000 m/s in steel. Here is what Gemini says about it:

“The velocity of sound in steel is very fast, typically around 5,000 to 6,000 meters per second (m/s), significantly faster than in air or water, because its high elasticity and density allow sound waves to transmit efficiently through its tightly packed particles. The exact speed varies slightly with the specific steel alloy and temperature, but it generally falls within this range, making it about 15 times faster than in air."]

[GB: Here are some details from my glossary:

COSMOLOGICAL REDSHIFT. The redshift is due to energy loss that occurs when light travels long distances. Waves lose energy and their wavelengths increase due to imperfect wave replication. This occurs because each wave must interact with the macrocosm (the aether medium). The velocity of light remains constant because it is a wave, not a particle as being promoted by regressive physics and cosmogony. Light is a wave in a medium filled with particles just like sound is a wave in the air filled with nitrogen molecules. Sound has a “constant” velocity of 343 m/s while light has a “constant” velocity of 300,000,000 m/s.

Here is a little history and more details:

For nearby light sources the Doppler equation is used for the cosmological redshift: z = v/c. Early cosmologists only saw nearby galaxies, with many being blueshifted since those, such as M31 in Andromeda, were coming toward us. Better telescopes looking further saw many more that were redshifted than were blueshifted. This was mistaken as proof that all galaxies were receding from us and that the universe was expanding. This approach broke down in 1996 when even better telescopes saw redshifts greater than 1.0.^{^[1]} This meant that their assumed velocities were greater than c, which contradicted relativity and the experimentally determined velocity of light.

To keep the expanding universe trope, cosmogonists then invented another ad hoc: the claim that space (i.e., space-time) itself was expanding. While that was not true, cosmological redshifts kept being determined, with z values increasing as telescopes looked increasing distances.

The Cosmological Redshift Formula (z):

λ_obs is the observed wavelength

λ_rest is the emitted wavelength

The z value for the Sun is 0, because it is too close for the wavelengths of hydrogen to have changed significantly. Knowing its primary wavelength (656 nm), astronomers can measure light from distant galaxies that contain hydrogen. The greater the increase in the 656 nm band, the greater the distance the light has traveled. The farthest galaxy so far has a z of 14.44, with the 656 nm band appearing at 9,473 nm in the infrared part of the spectrum, which can be seen by the JWST telescope.^{^[2]}

And here is the solution:

Tired Light Theory

Unlike Einstein’s magical photon, all real things and all real waves lose energy over distance.^{^[3]} The opposing “Tired Light Theory” (TLT) has been the subject of much speculation since Hubble’s discovery of the cosmological redshift in 1929.^{^[4]} Unfortunately, his initial mistake seen in the title of his paper was to claim it was entirely the result of galactic recession. He later recanted, suggesting it was due to some “unknown process” occurring over distance (TLT), but by then it was too late.^{^[5]} Ever since, regressive physicists and cosmogonists have been claiming Hubble discovered the universe was expanding. He denied that until his dying day. Unfortunately, he was a close follower of Einstein, who had made aether unpublishable. As far as I am aware, neither Hubble, nor anyone else has ever discovered the unknown process.

Actually, TLT was implied by others long before Einstein and relativity:

“That however ether propagates light, being its medium, necessarily involves that it should also offer resistance to light, otherwise light could not set it in vibration.”^{^[6]}

This 19^th-century statement is instructive. Remember that neomechanics teaches us that all events are the results of collisions. Light waves traveling through aether are no different. Nonetheless, waves are motions, not things. The waves occur in a medium containing trillions of aether particles. A wave is initiated by collisions from a light source (such as the Sun or a flashlight). The bigger the source, the greater will be the disturbance in the aether medium.

Note that what is being accelerated here by those collisions is not the wave, but the constituents of the wave: aetherons (aether particles). Their subsequent motions involve collisions with still other aetherons. Like all particles, aetherons are subject to deceleration as well as acceleration. Some of the motion of some of those aetherons is absorbed internally. Some is dissipated via geometric spreading (The Inverse Square Law). Light waves radiate outward from their source in a spherical shape, with the same amount of energy covering a larger and larger area. As light waves move through aether, aetherons interact with other aetherons and rare molecules, causing them to vibrate. Some of this mechanical motion is lost as heat due to friction and viscous forces. Because collisions between aetherons are almost, but not perfectly elastic; some motion is always lost. Despite all this loss of internal motion within the wave, its velocity remains unchanged at 300,000,000 m/s. Nevertheless, the loss of internal motion amounts to what we calculate as a loss of the energy needed to form the next wave. Particle deceleration means it will take more time for the slowed aetherons in the first wave to produce the next wave. For example, for every second (1 Hz) in the first it might take two seconds in the second (0.5 Hz) to travel a nm. The wave, the en masse, however, will still keep traveling at a velocity of c. The result will be a cosmological redshift since the new frequency is less and the new wavelength is greater than the old.

Believe it or not, this “stretching” of the wave is what cosmogonists assume to be a result of universal expansion. Being afflicted with aether denial, they would never come up with this simple reason for the occurrence of the cosmological redshift and the cause of “Tired Light.” Now you can see why Einstein’s “Untired Light Theory” and the photon trope was necessary for the Big Bang mess.

Coincidentally, the analogy with sound is once again instructive. Gemini says:

“Eventually, any sound wave becomes so faint that its energy is lower than the background "noise" of random molecular thermal motion (Brownian motion), at which point it can no longer be detected.”

In agreement with the rational explanation of the Olbers’ Paradox, I presume this happens to light as well. It may be the reason for the existence of the Cosmic Microwave Background, which probably is the faint remnants of light from distant galaxies, especially those outside the observed universe. It certainly has nothing to do with the explosion of the universe out of nothing as claimed by cosmogonists pushing their extremely profitable “Last Creation Myth.”]

PSI Blog 20251229

Thanks for reading Infinite Universe Theory! Get your copy of the just-released Second Edition of "The Scientific Worldview" to see the step-by-step logic leading to the rational view of the cosmos. Be part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution,” the demise of the “Last Creation Myth,” and the age of enlightenment to come. Buy Now.

[1] Lanzetta, Kenneth M., Yahil, Amos, and Fernández-Soto, Alberto, 1996, Star-forming galaxies at very high redshifts: Nature, v. 381, no. 6585, p. 759–763. https://doi.org/10.1038/381759a0

[2] Naidu, Rohan P, Oesch, Pascal A, Brammer, Gabriel, Weibel, Andrea, Li, Yijia, Matthee, Jorryt, Chisholm, John, Pollock, Clara L, Heintz, Kasper E, and Johnson, Benjamin D, 2025, A Cosmic Miracle: A Remarkably Luminous Galaxy at z = 14.44 Confirmed with JWST: arXiv:2505.11263 https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.11263

[3] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, Table 6. http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook

[4] Hubble, Edwin, 1929, A relation between distance and radial velocity among extra-galactic nebulae: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, v. 15, no. 3, p. 168–173. http://www.pnas.org/content/15/3/168.short

[5] Sauvé, Vincent, 2016, Edwin Hubble... and the myth that he discovered an expanding universe. https://gborc.com/Sauve16

[6] Engels, Frederick, 1883 [1972], Dialectics of nature (2nd ed.): Moscow, Progress Publishers, p. 287.

20251222

Are Infinity and Finity Reconcilable?

PSI Blog 20251222 Are Infinity and Finity Reconcilable?

No.

Credit: philosophynews.com.

Thanks to Doug Gill for this comment on the definition of infinity:

“Glenn, thanks for this detailed summary and position on the problem. As you point out, infinity introduces the problem of infinite regression (or extension) in logic and mathematics. Another proposal on resolving the issue is paraconsistent logic.[1] I am not sure how this would tie with your approach, but I would be interested to hear. It posits the counterintuitive view that things can be both true and false at the fundamental level. In that regard, Russell’s paradox is the key theoretical argument that defines the property found in all logical paradoxes (including the infinity of the Universe). The Institute of Art and Ideas (iai) is a valuable resource for discussions on this topic (and of all topics) and is worth the fee to join. Every “A-list” physicist and philosopher has appeared in their presentations. Graham Priest (at iai seminars) and Jc Beall argue for the paraconsistent logic approach and have YouTube videos and online seminars.”

[GB: Sounds to me like paralogistics (i.e., illogic). These folks must all be paralogists.^{^[2]} For instance, the Liar Paradox[3] is simply nonsense. Many paradoxes have at least one false assumption. An example is Olbers’ Paradox, which states that if the universe was infinite the night sky would be entirely lit up by the infinite number of stars.

Here is AI’s regressive explanation:

“Olbers' Paradox asks why the night sky is dark, when a universe infinite in size and age, filled uniformly with stars, should have every line-of-sight end on a star, making the sky blaze brightly. This conflict with observation is resolved by the reality of a dynamic, expanding universe that is also finite in age, meaning light from extremely distant sources hasn't reached us yet, and the light that does arrive from far away galaxies is stretched Olbers' Paradox asks why the night sky is dark, when a universe infinite in size and age, filled uniformly with stars, should have every line of sight end on a star, making the sky blaze brightly. This conflict with observation is resolved by the reality of a dynamic, expanding universe that is also finite in age, meaning light from extremely distant sources hasn't reached us yet, and the light that does arrive from far away galaxies is stretched (redshifted) out of the visible spectrum by expansion.”

Of course, the false assumption is that light could travel an infinite distance without being scattered or losing energy (e.g., your flashlight would be seen on Mars). But even as admitted in their explanation “light is redshifted out of the visible spectrum” and so is no evidence for finity or expansion. The Infinite Universe has the same property. The ideal replication of each subsequent wave is impossible in the imperfect Infinite Universe. The cosmological redshift is simply a function of distance. It is not a result of the assumed recession of all galaxies due to universal expansion. The calculated recession assumed due to the Doppler effect broke down when it exceeded the velocity of light. Cosmogonists had to invent yet another ad hoc: the magical expansion of perfectly empty space and the inflationary universe. The Big Bang paralogists keep grasping at straws that are irrational, but durable. Twenty-five falsifications have not fazed the “Last Creation Myth.”

I suspect the logicians and the techniques you mention are doing the same thing. They are faced with contradictions all the time while attempting to straddle the science-religion fence in the interest of popularity and book sales. "The Ten Assumptions of Science" and their opposites “The Ten Assumptions of Religion” don’t do that. Each set forms a constellation in which all ten “fundamental assumptions” are consupponible, that is, none of the ten contradict one another. The beauty of these two constellations is that if one is true, then its opposite is false.

Thus the universe is either infinite or finite. It is not possible for it to be a little bit infinite. It is just like pregnancy: You is or you ain’t. Religious scientists might favor paraconsistent logic, cherry picking among fundamental assumptions. A popular one is the Second Assumption of Religion, acausality (Some effects have no material causes). Although false, that one allows for freewill, making threats of hellfire and damnation profitable.]

PSI Blog 20251222

[1] In classical logic, if you accept "It is raining" (\(A\)) and "It is not raining" (\(\neg A\)), you can logically derive anything, including "The moon is made of cheese" (\(B\)), because the premise is contradictory. In a paraconsistent logic, you can have \(A\) and \(\neg A\) as true, but still conclude that \(B\) is false, preserving the meaning of \(\neg A\).

[2] Google AI “A paralogist is a person who makes unintentional logical errors or fallacious arguments, reaching incorrect conclusions without intending to deceive (unlike a sophist), often described as using faulty reasoning or paralogism.”

[3] Google AI: “The Liar Paradox is a self-referential statement, most famously "This sentence is false," that creates a logical contradiction: if it's true, it must be false, and if it's false, it must be true, leading to an endless loop where it can't be consistently assigned a truth value. It challenges classical logic and reveals issues with truth, reference, and language, with solutions ranging from defining it as meaningless "nonsense" to complex theories in formal logic that restrict self-reference or allow for “truth-value gaps.”

20251215

Are Perfectly Solid Matter and Perfectly Empty Space Possible?

PSI Blog 20251215 Are Perfectly Solid Matter and Perfectly Empty Space Possible?

No.

Thanks to Jesse Witwer for this question:

“Incidentally, another philosophical question for you. I know that in some of your work you discuss that all of the universe is comprised of a proportion of "perfectly empty space" and "perfectly solid matter". How deeply have you considered this?”

[GB: Well, as you know, those are only imaginary. There is no such thing as perfectly solid matter or perfectly empty space.[1] In reality it is impossible for the universe to produce such things because they are only ideas. They are valuable concepts though—sort of like the open doorway that allows you to walk through it. When the door is closed, it might just as well be considered solid matter. Of course, the doorway contains matter: air molecules, which are so small that we can’t even see them. They have so little mass that you can push them aside. The door itself always contains empty space in addition to whatever matter it consists of. That mass usually is sufficient to prevent your entry.

Thus, all matter contains space and all space contains matter. That forms a continuum I define as the:

“MATTER-SPACE CONTINUUM. A range or series of microcosms that are slightly different from each other and that exist between what we imagine to be perfectly solid matter and perfectly empty space. Like all idealizations, perfectly solid matter and perfectly empty space do not and cannot exist.”[2]

Your question reminds me of a discussion involving the “block universe” idea that was going around. The claim is that, if matter is infinitely subdividable, then slicing and dicing it infinitely would end up with solid matter. That is not possible either. Why? Because each portion of the Infinite Universe contains what appears to be matter and empty space. Subdivision slices both the matter and the empty space ad infinitum.

That is also handled by our Tenth Assumption of Science, interconnection (All things are interconnected, that is, between any two objects exist other objects that transmit matter and motion). The opposite is the Tenth Assumption of Religion, disconnection (There may be perfectly empty space between any two objects). Now, perfectly empty space, being only an idealization cannot exist anywhere. In other words, nonexistence in the Infinite Universe is impossible. Our own existence bears this out.

The closest anyone has come to realizing perfectly solid matter is the black hole concept. At one time Stephen Hawking calculated that black holes were so dense that they blocked light entirely and did not radiate. However, before he checked out, he admitted black holes were grey.[3] Per the Sixth Assumption of Science, complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things) they dissipate like all other things in the universe.[4]

In other high-pressure environments light atoms are forced together forming heavy atoms. In our Sun, hydrogen is fused together to form helium. In older stars this process advances to form heavy atoms such as gold, silver, uranium, etc. However, the pressures in black holes are so great that the usual spectrographic methods would not detect any atoms whatsoever. This could mean the constituents of atoms, which ultimately are aether particles (aetherons), could be the only things left. Of course, per Infinite Universe Theory, aetherons must contain what we once called aether-2 particles.[5] Where the compression stops, if at all, is unknown, but one thing is assumed: there is no perfectly solid matter.

Perfectly empty space has never been found either. That is because aether exists everywhere. Attempts to form a perfect vacuum might get close, but they always fail. The vacuum chamber itself, must consist of atoms, which are held together by pushes from other atoms or aetherons.

Google AI says this:

“…specialized cryogenic systems have indirectly measured pressures as low as 6.7 fPa, approaching the vacuum of deep space by reducing particles to around 100 per cubic centimeter.”

Of course, these are only experiments. A believer in disconnection could continue to hope that perfectly solid matter and perfectly empty space eventually will be found. Don’t bet on it!]

PSI Blog 20251215

[1] MATTER. An abstraction for all things in existence. Above all, matter always contains other things within and without, ad infinitum. There are two basic types of matter: baryonic and aether. Although baryonic matter is what we ordinarily observe, aether is tiny and normally not directly detectable. Both have mass produced by constituents subject to interactions demonstrated by the E=mc² equation. Both are portions of the universe and have three XYZ dimensions. The “solid matter” of the idealist does not exist.

[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 2025, The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein (2 ed.): Walnut Creek, CA, Progressive Science Institute, p. 498. https://gborc.com/TSW25

[3] Lewis, Geraint, 2014, Grey is the new black hole: Is Stephen Hawking right? The Conversation, APA citation, Accessed 20251210 https://gborc.com/Greyholes

[4] https://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-demise-of-black-holes.html

[5] Puetz, S.J., and Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe: Denver, Outskirts Press, 626 p. https://gborc.com/UCT

20251208

Mathematical Definition of Infinity?

PSI Blog 20251208 Mathematical Definition of Infinity?

No. To define is to make finite.

Credit: Unsplash.

Thanks to Doug Gill for this pertinent question concerning the proof of infinity as a non sequitur:

“Thanks for this great article and your other writing on infinity. Is it possible to formulate a generalized mathematical definition of infinity? Do you know of anything like that? We have your discussions and many examples in mathematics. Cantor's diagonal slash argument is a great example. However, listing examples alone does not give us a definition. It would have to be in a mathematical format, not linguistic, such as infinity is something that goes on forever.”

[GB: I can’t imagine any such equation being anything short of infinitely long. All of math is an abstraction, a shortening of the infinite characteristics we observe in any part of the Infinite Universe. That is why Newton’s mechanics was so successful. I have defended and modified his mechanics in Chapter 15 (Neomechanics—the Reduction) of "The Scientific Worldview."[1] I define neomechanics as “Classical mechanics with the addition of infinity and its consupponible assumptions.” As I have pointed out, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle led to the demise of classical mechanics, although Heisenberg didn’t know that. Theoretical physicists had a choice: Consider the unknown as either finite or infinite. Regressive physicists continued to choose finity with the Copenhagen school leading the way: They included probability as one of the finite causes for any effect.

Progressive physics candidly includes infinity, as we do in the Second Assumption of Science, causality (All effects have an infinite number of material causes). The Third Assumption of Science, uncertainty (It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is often possible to know more about anything) is a consupponible[2] correlative. We still have to use probability, of course, but we must admit that rounding off any causal equation is necessary to provide useful information.

The beauty of neomechanics is its overt recognition of the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). With everything in the universe being bathed in aether particles (aetherons, as I call them) there is no way a finite equation could be devised to describe the Infinite Universe. All would have to end with ad infinitum or the infinity sign ∞. Occasionally I hear of folks who claim to have done that after the fashion of Laplace, who imagined an omnipotent demon capable of using the finite equations of classical mechanics to predict the future and postdict the past perfectly. That could never happen of course. But its destined failure nicely illustrates the Achilles heel of classical mechanics and the naivety of Laplace, Heisenberg, Einstein, and regressive physicists and cosmogonists in general.

Let me sum up by quoting Google AI on pi:

“The latest record for calculating pi is over 300 trillion digits, achieved in May 2025 by KIOXIA and Linus Media Group, breaking previous records set by other teams in 2024 and 2022. While these vast numbers are impressive, only a handful of digits (around 15-16) are needed for most scientific and engineering calculations, like those used by NASA.”

Nuff said, and that is only one of the infinite number of factors an equation for the Infinite Universe would require!]

PSI Blog 20251208

[1] Second edition. [Chapter 5 in the first edition.]

[2] Noncontradictory.

20251201

The Nature-Nurture Resolution

PSI Blog 20251201 The Nature-Nurture Resolution

The finite universe of the Big Bang has no nurture.

Both the ball (a microcosm) and the bat (macrocosm) contribute to the homerun. Credit: Chris Chow in Unsplash.com.

Anon asks:

“Hi, Glenn. I’ve been listening to the 2nd edition of your Magnum Opus, The Scientific Worldview, for several days now (that AI reader is shocking).

My understanding is the Univironmental perspective gives equal weight to Nature and Nurture in a person’s development and life. I disagree, it seems that Nurture is far more important in a person’s physical, cognitive, and social development as well as where a person ultimately is education-wise, financially, socially, politically, and intellectually, at the end of their life. Nurture can destroy a person’s potential before they are born, it can determine a person’s fate in utero, for example a pregnant woman who smokes, consumes alcohol, or illicit drugs and causes her child to be born with cognitive disabilities that can never be corrected. Similarly, a Fascist Plutocracy can turn a population or segments of a population into idiots and destroyers who constantly act against their own interests for generations. I don’t see the equal contribution of biology and environment, or am I misunderstanding your position on these matters?”

[GB: Thanks for the question. The nature vs. nurture debate is resolved by univironmental determinism (what happens to a portion of the universe depends on the infinite matter in motion within and without). In the figure above both the bat and the ball contribute to the homerun. In sex, both the male and the female contribute to the production of offspring. In each case, an analysis that ignores one or the other would be incorrect. Does the baseball bat and the woman do more work in producing those effects. Sure. Per the Second Assumption of Science, causality (All effects have an infinite number of material causes) you could begin a list of the causes with the ball and the male clearly being near the top.

Folks like to debate the relationship between the within and without endlessly, with both of those changing constantly. Some of these errors are pronounced. Obviously, the Big Bang universe clearly overemphasizes the observed universe by considering it finite, either existing in an imagined void or being wrapped up in Einstein’s phantasmagoric four dimensions. Cosmogonists imagine it has no “without,” when the “without” of the Infinite Universe actually is everywhere. Although each portion of the universe is the result of the univironmental convergence of other portions, that does not apply to the Infinite Universe itself, because it exists everywhere.

The primary problem with the finite universe of the Big Bang Theory is that it has no obvious cause. True, some have considered dark energy to have been the cause. But energy is neither matter nor motion, it is a calculation. So, one has to consider the motivations of those who do that. In that case the motivation is religious.[1] It is why we call the Big Bang Theory the “Last Creation Myth.”

Here is the very latest on nature-nurture demonstrating the effect of nurture:

Horvath, Jared C., and Fabricant, Katie, 2025, IQ differences of identical twins reared apart are significantly influenced by educational differences: Acta Psychologica, v. 257, p. 105072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105072

The difference for identical twins is about 15 IQ points as a result of one of the twins having a more enriched macrocosm. I suspect that is about the same as with and without a Ph.D. or equivalent study. One simply memorizes more than the other. Any activity (especially in sports) requires 10,000 hrs. of repetition (i.e., practice including muscle memory) to become professional caliber.

Two children can be very different adults despite being raised in the same house. One may be very active and ambitious and other one may be the opposite. So, I guess you would say nature is the most important. The point is that major influences can be either within or without, but neither can exist without the other. A homerun does not occur without both a batter and a pitcher. Each portion of the Infinite Universe cannot exist without the portions that surround it. Cosmogonists have yet to figure that out.]

PSI Blog 20251201

[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2020, Religious Roots of Relativity: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 160 p. https://go.glennborchardt.com/RRR-ebk

20251110

Why the “Cyclic Universe” is Impossible

PSI Blog 20251110 Why the “Cyclic Universe” is Impossible

Another cosmogonical reform bites the dust!

As in baseball, all events in the universe occur via collisions. Hypotheses that claim events can occur without collisions are false. Credit: Chris Chow in Unsplash.com.

From time to time I read about theories that use the erroneous universal expansion interpretation in fancy new ways. One involves the hypothesis that the universe undergoes alternating expansions and contractions. This is similar to the oxymoronic multiverse hypothesis that also saves the universal expansion interpretation—but for multiple “universes.” One of those even calculated a nearly infinite number of universes. That got published by the American Physical Society, a mainstream outfit I belong to. Egads!

Recycling does occur, as I pointed out here for small portions of the Infinite Universe. Probably that is where the cycling idea comes from. However, in each of those instances the cycling occurs just as you do when you recycle newspaper or glass bottle. You begin with an existing bottle, apply heat to melt it down, and then poor the melt into the form for a new bottle.

The universe recyclers don’t do it that way, but ever since 1905 magic is allowed when dealing with the universe. Some introduce the moribund gravitational attraction theory to get the various parts of the universe to be “attracted” to each other. That’s not possible, but if it was, the recyclers then are faced with the same problem faced by the Big Bang Theorists: What will cause that crunched universe then to expand all by itself?

The truth is that none of that stuff can possibly happen because everything in the Infinite Universe occurs via collisions, not by magic. Thinking the Big Bang universe could expand by itself is like hoping to get a home run without a bat. Newton's Second Law of Motion describes those collisions in which object A collides with object B. Object A transfers its motion to object B, slowing down in the process, while object B speeds up. In Infinite Universe Theory I call that the Second Assumption of Science, causality (All effects have an infinite number of material causes). The process is mentioned further in the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion).

PSI Blog 20251110

20251103

Proof the Universe is Infinite—A Non Sequitur

PSI Blog 20251103 Proof the Universe is Infinite—A Non Sequitur

Thanks to reader Michael Simpson for these questions:

“What irrefutable proof exists that the Universe is infinite?

It's clear the Big Bang was not the singular start. But surely anything else is conjecture. I can’t prove it's not infinite, but I can say that it doesn't need to be infinite. Is there proof that it is infinite?”

[GB: Your question involves two opposed fundamental assumptions, which are neither provable nor falsifiable. However, the beauty of fundamental assumptions is that if one is true, the other is false. The non sequitur involves the impossibility of obtaining a complete proof or falsification because the universe is infinite.

We are always forced to deal with less. In all of science, no measurement we make can ever be repeated exactly. With enough precision, we always get differing values. A nitpicker who erroneously assumed finity could take the tiniest variation as evidence for falsification.

The inevitable variation produced by the Infinite Universe is handled by the Second Assumption of Science, causality (All effects have an infinite number of material causes) and its corollary, the Third Assumption of Science, uncertainty (It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is often possible to know more about anything). We can, however, get data that tends to support or disprove a theory. Reread “Infinite Universe Theory” to see evidence in support of infinity; reread the second edition of “The Scientific Worldview” where I listed 25 falsifications of the Big Bang Theory.

About the strongest evidence in favor of infinity is the discovery of “Elderly Galaxies” as far as we can see in the observed universe. Recent photos from the James Webb Space Telescope are scattered among my posts. Just search on “Elderly Galaxy.” Infinity is seen throughout nature. There are no two snowflakes alike, etc. From the tiniest sand grain to the leaves on trees, I have never seen two that were identical.]

“As for time, state change usually involves motion, but need not, if motion implies movement in space state change can happen without movement in space. If however you mean motion as synonymous with state change yes.”

[GB: Just a little clarification from Google AI:

“Change of state is a physical process where matter transitions from one form (solid, liquid, or gas) to another due to a change in temperature or pressure. This occurs when a substance absorbs or loses energy, causing its particles to move differently, but the chemical composition remains the same. Examples include melting (solid to liquid), freezing (liquid to solid), and boiling (liquid to gas).”

Note that absorption or loss of energy always occurs in every reaction, whether a change of state or not, as explained in the neomechanics section of "The Scientific Worldview." Even in your erroneously assumed “perfectly empty space” submicrocosmic motion must occur, and this takes time.

This reminds me of one of my first comments in scientific philosophy. It involved the then current fad called “catastrophe theory.” The authors erroneously assumed zero time for the occurrence of the Permian mass extinction.

To sum up, there will never be a definitive (complete) proof of infinity, just as there will never be such for our scientific assumption that there are causes for all effects. That is because we cannot travel to the end of the universe, just as we cannot discover the causes for all effects because they are infinite. Nonetheless, we can see support for Infinite Universe Theory all around us. There are 400 billion stars similar to our Sun in our Milky Way galaxy. There are estimated to be 20 trillion galaxies in the observed universe. Every set of measurements we take has a plus or minus because the universe is both macrocosmically and microcosmically infinite. How much more support do you need?

At the personal level, your brain has 86 billion neurons—a tiny fraction of the trillions of atoms that compose the rest of your body. Just get outside and look around you. There is support for infinity in your own backyard. See the infinity of stuff, with no two things being identical. Each XYZ portion of the universe contains parts that came from somewhere else in the Infinite Universe per the Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed). Without infinity you would not be here.

The fact you exist means that nonexistence is not possible. The idea of nonexistence (nothing), is simply an idea, not a reality. The Big Bang Theory is founded on the Eighth Assumption of Religion, finity (The universe is finite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). There is no evidence for that, just as there is no evidence for Einstein’s false assumption light was a massless particle containing perfectly empty space traveling perpetually through perfectly empty space, which underlies the erroneous assumption the universe is expanding. The Big Bang Theory assumes the universe had a beginning: first there was nothing and then there was something. It is the “Last Creation Myth.”]

PSI Blog 20251103

20251020

"Creation" via Destruction of the Unfit

PSI Blog 20251020 "Creation" via Destruction of the Unfit

Thanks to Maximiliano Echeverri for this prompt:

“In attempting to answer, Leibniz lost control and arrived at his famous thesis usually seen like 'this (created) world is the best of all possible worlds'.

“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.” (Infinite Universe Theory, Figure 47).

Science is perhaps more at home with the question 'How?' than 'Why?'. Motives are neither interesting nor relevant in the field of the physical sciences.”

[GB: Actually, the “How?” and the “Why?” are identical with regard to evolution. Remember, the universal mechanism of evolution is univironmental determinism (what happens to a portion of the universe depends on the infinite matter in motion within and without). Darwin’s original mechanism was “natural selection,” which eventually was shown to be a macrocosmic mistake. In other words, like environmental determinism, it over emphasized the macrocosm—the outsides of things and neglected the insides of things. (Things are the XYZ portions of the universe I call microcosms). The insides of biological microcosms had to be included as well—genetics, to get Neo-Darwinism. Although genes did not comprise the complete insides of the biological microcosm, Neo-Darwinism was a step in the right direction. The word “univironment” includes all things, and thus is an improvement on Neo-Darwinism in biology as well. Genes were a good start, but the biological microcosm contains other innumerable submicrocosms that often are equally important. For instance, the knowledge encapsulated in our brains, our muscle memories, etc. are parts of our “univironment” that contribute to our journey through life.

Destruction of the Unfit

Normally, we think of evolution as “survival of the fittest.” I suggest turning that upside down to confront Leibniz’s “perfectly created” (best of all worlds) head-on. First of all, nothing survives for long. Even the dinosaurs only lasted 165 million years. Every microcosm within the Infinite Universe has a beginning and ending described in general by the Sixth Assumption of Science, complementarity (All things are subject to convergence and divergence from other things). We all experience this. We are a product of sexual convergence and eventually suffer the divergence of body parts as we age per the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Second of all, with everything in the Infinite Universe moving with respect to other things, no microcosms (things) and no macrocosms (environments) remain unchanged for long. We are born into a particular environment, but that environment is sure to change. We may “fit” our environment one moment and be “unfit” in the next.

As we learned from the formation of ordinary matter from aether particles, the “fit” that occasionally occurs is the result of protection afforded small particles by large ones (Figure). The shelter that results in material complexes would never occur if all aether particles were identical as erroneously suggested for atoms by Democritus. Per 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) imperfection makes the existence of matter possible. In this most fundamental case, being “fit” means receiving fewer impacts from the side facing the large particle. All the other aether particles colliding endlessly with each other must be regarded as “unfit” for the making of ordinary matter. Once formed, the aether complexes become larger and increasingly complicated as “gravitational” impacts from free-ranging aether particles push additional aether particles toward those complexes.

What we see here as fundamental in the micro-world applies also to the macro-world. All cosmic bodies are a result of aetherial impacts that push electrons, positrons, neutrons, protons, and myriad particles toward one another. What we see as gravitation is merely a continuation of this process with its effectiveness guided by the number of aether particles previously accumulated as mass in Newton’s equation. Eventually, we have hydrogen atoms being pushed together to form helium in the sun. The pushing together (fusion) causes a further decrease in the motion of the atoms involved. This decrease in motion is released into the aether medium whereupon it produces waves that eventually warm the surroundings, notably including Earth.

The upshot is that “creation” amounts to the slowing down of aether particles in the form of material complexes we observe as ordinary matter. Again, much of that “lost” motion is transferred to the macrocosm, generally as the acceleration of portions of the macrocosm (especially of the aether medium as the motion we call “radiation”). We might consider those aether particles insufficiently slowed down as being “unfit,” while those resulting in aether complexes as being “fit.” Another upshot is the inevitable growth of these complexes, with the ever-increasing complexity seen in all the microcosms around us. As they grow, they can shield ever more of those “unfit” aether particles, making them evermore “fit.” Again, this process becomes evermore obvious in the macro world. Humans seek shelter from the onslaughts of the macrocosm, not only from the vagaries of the weather, but also from those produced by interspecies competition.

Given this natural transformation of one kind of matter into another kind of matter, the “How?” and “Why?” become one and the same. The great mind suggested by the “Why?” does not, and need not exist. Remember that the complete absence of matter (nonexistence or nothingness) is imaginary, an idealization that cannot possibly occur. That would be a violation of the Tenth Assumption of Science, interconnection (All things are interconnected, that is, between any two objects exist other objects that transmit matter and motion). The opposing religious assumption is the Tenth Assumption of Religion, disconnection (There may be perfectly empty space between any two objects). That is necessary for the religious idea of the creation of something from nothing. Einstein provided the foundation of the Big Bang Theory when he denied the presence of aether, based on the erroneous interpretation of the Michelson-Morley Experiment. Denying aether, he substituted perfectly empty space instead. His “Untired Light Theory” reigns supreme to this day, as does the Big Bang Theory itself.]

PSI Blog 20251020

20251014

The Discovery of Infinity

PSI Blog 20251013 Reprint of PSI Blog 20190501 The Discovery of Infinity

David de Hilster, President of Chappell Natural Philosophy Society, asks: “How did you first get the idea the universe was infinite?”

That is something most scientists seldom think about. I was no different. From 1962 to 1976 I mostly concentrated on laboratory experiments and field observations in soil science, geology, and chemistry. I did have a propensity for emphasizing logic[2] and a distaste for contradiction.[3] Always being curious, I tried to keep up with the latest developments in science. I read American Laboratory and Industrial Research, free magazines in which scientists sometimes were allowed to present articles outside the party line. One particularly influential article even dared to contradict Einstein, suggesting space was not perfectly empty.[4] New Scientist was a big influence, getting me out of the box in which specialists generally find themselves.[5] Some of the articles inadvertently made me aware of the numerous contradictions and paradoxes in physics and cosmogony.

Of course, reading a few “broadening” articles was nice, but not enough. It seems one does not switch beliefs overnight. I have to admit that as late as 1978[6] I still was a Big Banger, although not a very good one. I remember drawing little diagrams in which the stars at the end of the supposedly finite universe gave off light into the “empty space” of the great beyond. I imagined “photons” from two or more of these stars would crash together, somehow forming matter once again. This was a desperate attempt to get away from the contradictions on the other end of the Big Bang stick: the rumors of “heat death” and the ultimate demise of the universe that were being promulgated at the time.

Philosophies Change with Crisis

Little did I know the key was to switch from finity to infinity. I have been trying to pin down exactly when that happened. It turns out that philosophies seldom change unless there is a crisis. In 1976, despite my general affability, things were not going well at work. On July 4th I became so discouraged that I faced off a guy who obviously wanted the campground and its swimming hole to himself. He pointed a 32-special revolver at me saying he was the Zodiac killer and planned to kill me and everyone in the campground. He asked a crucial question: Do you believe me? The correct answer was “I don’t know.” Turns out he was only kidding — so he said.

Traumatic events like that can get your attention. Being well-trained academically, I tried to figure out my discouragement by putting my thoughts together in a book. The first attempt was entitled “Motivation: What it is and how to get it.” A second was “Power Position and Power View.” A third was “The Chemical Meaning of Life.” This last was a vast generalization on what I had learned as a lab rat. The basic mechanism was “environmental determinism.” That was not original, but it did fit my predilection to be on the deterministic side of free will arguments and to acknowledge the importance of the environment. After all, “environmentalism” had become all the rage after “Earth Day” in 1970. People were once again showing signs of leaving their myopism behind.

Still, I had a vague feeling something was missing. Wasn’t the thing itself just as important as its environment? I remember sitting next to a tall pine tree at Showers Lake in the Sierras thinking: How come that tree is not a mile high? Why does it stop growing just in time to survive the 199-mph winds that would take it down? Neo-Darwinism, of course, had an answer: Genes. Neo-Darwinism supposedly was the mechanism of evolution. But I was a geoscientist; I wasn’t really satisfied with that. Everything around me was evolving. With a little rainfall, the minerals in rocks formed under high temperature and pressure were transformed into minerals stable at ambient temperatures. Mountains turned into valleys and valleys turned into mountains. The Sun, Moon, and the planets were evolving. There was more to evolution than just genes and natural selection. Little did I know at the time that my search for a more general mechanism for evolution would lead me down the path to infinity.

Discovery of the Universal Mechanism of Evolution

The search was futile. There was no universal mechanism of evolution. Environmental determinism was not it either. That was akin to the one-sided view proposed by Darwin as “natural selection.” Mendel’s remedy — genetics — might work for the pine tree, but was woefully lacking for the evolution of anything without genes. I needed a word describing the combination that included the thing and its environment. I discussed the problem at the dining room table with Elizabeth Patelke, a long-time friend and a student of language. We came up with the solution: “univironment.”[7] I quickly and bravely anointed the result: “univironmental determinism,” as the universal mechanism of evolution. It was so all-inclusive that it became the basis for the scientific worldview.[8]

Development of Univironmental Determinism

With that focus, one begins to think more about the insides and outsides of things and how those two portions of the universe interact. We make mistakes when we overemphasize one or the other. Systems philosophy, considered the “scientific world view” at the time, tended to overemphasize the insides. That’s what the finite universe idea of the Big Bang Theory was all about.

The univironmental idea does not necessarily get you forthwith to infinity. As in Newtonian mechanics, just because the insides and outsides of things produced results did not mean that the insides and the outsides had to contain anything. After all, Einstein had proclaimed that his light particle was “massless” (i.e., there was nothing inside it) and cosmogonists implied the finite universe was expanding into empty space (i.e., there was nothing outside it).

Nonetheless, I persisted. Everything I had studied always had something inside it. And, now, everything always had something outside it. In chemistry and geology every reaction and every rock starts with something and ends up with something. A chemical equation displays the univironmental interaction between what was and what will be. You cannot change one side of the equation without the other side being changed. Early on, I defined univironmental determinism as “what happens to a portion of the universe is determined by the matter within and without” — no mention of infinity.

While reading up on determinism, I came across a comment that David Bohm had presented a strong case for determinism. I read his “Causality and Chance in Modern Physics,” which presented his “hidden variables theory” in opposition to the solipsistic Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. That was it for me. His logic was impeccable. I had always been puzzled by the fact I always got plus or minus errors no matter how much I tried to control an experiment. Newton’s mechanics taught there were a finite number of causes for any effect. Once you discovered them all, there would be no plus or minus. That never happened. Bohm emphasized this infinite quality in direct opposition to the Copenhageners, who attributed those variations to pure chance. That preserved the finity assumption of Newtonian mechanics along with Einstein’s assumption space was perfectly empty.

Publishing My Books

Following Bohm’s logic, I assumed both micro (Aristotle) and macro (Newton) infinity in what was to be the Eighth Assumption of Science (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). That appeared first in the 1984 review manuscript of “The Scientific Worldview.”[9] It was reiterated when “The Ten Assumptions of Science” was published in 2004. But its full connection to univironmental determinism was not realized until 2007 when I wrote:

The Scientific Worldview describes how this universe works via the universal mechanism of evolution, “univironmental determinism.” Univironmental determinism is the simple proposition that what happens to a portion of the universe is determined by the relationship between the infinite matter in motion within (the microcosm) and the infinite matter in motion without (the macrocosm).[10]

As you can see, there really was no single Eureka moment for me — there were dozens of them. It took me almost three decades to come up with the all-important statement quoted above. Along the way, I had to discover: 1) the universal mechanism of evolution, 2) the scientific worldview, 3) the Ten Assumptions of Science, 4) neomechanics, which modifies classical mechanics by including infinity, and finally 5) Infinite Universe Theory, which ultimately will replace the Big Bang Theory in a process sure to become the Last Cosmological Revolution. Why so sure about this? Once you fully understand Infinite Universe Theory and its ramifications, the switch from the assumption of finity to the assumption of infinity is irreversible.

[1]Also published in the now defunct online science magazine “ScienceWoke.”

[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 1975, Dithionite-citrate-bicarbonate procedure (DCB) for iron removal: Soil Science Society of America Proceedings, v. 39, p. 807.

[3] Borchardt, Glenn, 1978, Catastrophe theory: Application to the Permian mass extinction: Comments and reply: COMMENT: Geology, v. 6, no. 8, p. 453. [DOI: 10.1130/0091–7613(1978)6<453a:ctattp>2.0.CO;2].

[4] Dudley, H.C., 1977, The neutrino sea — hypothesis or reality?: Industrial Research, p. 51–54.

[5] Clube, Victor, 1978, Do we need a revolution in astronomy?: New Scientist, v. 80, p. 284–286; Davies, Paul, 1978, Chance or choice: Is the Universe an accident?: New Scientist, v. 80, p. 506–508; Steen, L.A., 1978, A new perspective on infinity: New Scientist, v. 80, p. 448–451.

[6] On 19771217 my notes had a proposed chapter entitled “Universe, origin of.”

[7] By 19780529, an early draft had the word “univironment.”

[8] Borchardt, Glenn, 2007, The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 411 p. [http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/].

[9] Borchardt, Glenn, 1984, The scientific worldview: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 343 p. [DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16123.52006].

[10] Borchardt, Glenn, 2007, The scientific worldview and the demise of cosmogony, in Whitney, C.K., Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance: University of Connecticut, Storrs, CN, Natural Philosophy Alliance, v. 4, no. 1, p. 16–19 [http://scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/TSWATDOC.pdf].