The Scientific Worldview

20250428

Does Gravitation have a Physical Cause?

PSI Blog 20250428 Does Gravitation have a Physical Cause?

Dr. Steve Ruis, Chicago, IL, has questions:

“The Infinite Universe operates via collisions. Here a bat transfers motion to a baseball. Photo by Chris Chow on Unsplash” (Borchardt, 2025, Figure 3).[1] The collider (the bat) is obvious here, but Newton’s “attraction” and Einstein’s "space-time" do not have colliders—even hypothetical ones—for gravitation.

“Dear Doctor Borchardt,

I haven't finished reading your relativity book yet (I have to set such books aside often to digest them a bit before taking them up again) but I am a nonbeliever in "space-time." According to some, Einstein eliminated the "force of gravity" a la Newton and replaced it with curved space time (with no explanation why space and time would link up rather than space and, say, temperature, also no explanation as to how the link would be established, and no explanation of how matter could distort ST (does it displace it like a rock in water?) and so on.”

[GB: Thanks for the interesting questions. I often get responses that simply advertise the reformist theories of others. Those generally are filled with numerous errors and violations of "The Ten Assumptions of Science." I admire your skepticism about Einstein’s General Relativity Theory. You are correct about its nonsensical assumption that time and matter form some weird combination that conveniently and coincidentally provides 4D salvation for the Big Bang Theory and its phony universal expansion interpretation of the cosmological redshift.

Space-time is an einsteinism, which means it is correct, but for the wrong reason. You are right that space-time hypothesizes no physical reason for gravitation. The “curved perfectly empty space” surrounding massive bodies is filled instead with aether. Aether particles are the accelerators that produce the acceleration of gravitation.[2] The resulting deceleration of those particles produces a reduction in proximal aether pressure per Newton’s inverse square equation. That means there is an “aetherosphere” around every mass. It is the opposite of the atmosphere, which, of course, has a distal decrease in pressure, while the aetherosphere has a distal increase.

The aetherosphere thus forms Einstein’s curved space-time. Satellites entering that aetherosphere rotate around the massive body, with their normally straight-line motion following the path of least resistance. That is the point where distal and proximal pressures are equivalent. If the satellite tried to go straight instead of following the path of least resistance, it would run into an area of high distal pressure. Aether particles in that high pressure area would push the satellite toward the area of lower proximal pressure.]

“Here is my question, based upon a thought experiment. The example in my mind involves a star and a planetoid, but it could be any two masses, one much bigger than the other. The larger mass distorts the ST around it creating curved paths the smaller object to follow were it moving . . . but what if the two objects were placed in proxy with neither moving. Classically we would say that the smaller mass would "fall" into the larger one. But if the smaller mass is not moving, it would follow no path, so what causes it to move, according to Einstein?”

[GB: Actually, inertial motion, such as demonstrated by satellites is explained by Newton’s First Law of Motion, which I modified per neomechanics as “Every microcosm continues in uniform motion until the direction and velocity of its motion is changed by collisions with supermicrocosms.”[3] That is the law of the universe, which fits with the true meaning of relativity discovered by Lucretius: the fact that everything in the universe is moving with respect to other things. So no satellite can be without motion.

The closest is this by Perplexity AI: “A stationary satellite is called a geostationary satellite. This type of satellite orbits the Earth at an altitude of approximately 35,800 kilometers (22,300 miles) directly above the equator and revolves in the same direction as the Earth's rotation. Because it completes one orbit every 24 hours—the same time it takes the Earth to rotate once—a geostationary satellite appears fixed at a single point in the sky to an observer on the ground.” In actuality, it is traveling 11,070 km/hr.

Satellites invariably slow down as they collide with aether particles (and the atmosphere). That is why we have leap years and leap seconds for Earth’s revolution and rotation. It is why the orbital distance decreases, with the satellite eventually being pushed to the ground. The only way for the orbit of a satellite to increase would be for it to be pushed by a collision from behind. That could be via an asteroid or a jet engine.]

I just don't see how the ST theories eliminate any "force of gravity."

[GB: They don’t, and that is why they are no better than “attraction,” which also does not explain gravitation in terms of physics. Real physics is simple, with force being defined as F=ma. All causes involve collisions per Newton's Second Law of Motion (Figure above). That means something having mass (m) must accelerate (a) another thing having mass. The motion of the collider decreases, while the motion of the collidee increases. Appropriate to today’s “age of irrationality,” Einstein magical “alternative truth” did not involve collisions. This conveniently prevented classical mechanics from destroying what remained of religion.]

Thanks for your work. I find it very stimulating (and difficult for an aged chemist to work through, even having been a physics buff (and cosmology and astronomy . . .) for many, many years.

[GB: Welcome. BTW: You are not the only one. The older we are, the harder it is to replace the myths we were forced to learn by regressive physicists and cosmogonists. Just think what you have to do in order to return to rationality. You must now replace: “finity” with “infinity,” “time as a dimension” with “time as motion,” “light as particle motion (of photons)” with “wave motion (in an aether medium),” “perfectly empty space” with “infinitely subdividable matter,” “systems analysis” with “univironmental analysis,” etc. BTW2: You might want to read "The Scientific Worldview (2nd edition)," as it goes through my logic step by step. You will find that the infinity assumption solves so many previously unresolved problems. In particular, its inclusion in “neomechanics” removes the finity that plagued classical mechanics and set the stage for Einstein’s imaginary “alternative truth.”]

PSI Blog 20250428

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] Borchardt, Glenn, 2025, The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein (2 ed.): Walnut Creek, CA, Progressive Science Institute, 551 p. [ https://gborc.com/TSW25 ].

[https://gborc.com/TSW25].

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

20250421

Big Bang Theory’s Achilles’ Heel: Conservation vs Creation

PSI Blog 20250421 Big Bang Theory’s Achilles’ Heel: Conservation vs Creation

The Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed).

The boulder in a car park features a distinct dinosaur footprint. (CREDIT: University of Queensland)

Infinite Universe Theory is founded on "The Ten Assumptions of Science,"[1] with No. 5, conservation, also being number one in my list of the 25 falsifications of the absurd Big Bang Theory.[2] It is interesting that David Balogun, a nine-year-old genius from Nigeria used conservation to best Neil deGrasse Tyson in a debate about the validity of the Big Bang Theory.[3]

Because the universe is infinite, fundamental assumptions such as conservation and its opposite, creation, cannot be completely proven. Nonetheless, holding fast to conservation, astute scientists and well-educated nine-year-olds from Nigeria reject the Big Bang Theory outright. It is the reason I call it the “Last Creation Myth.”

In the US, the philosophical struggle between science and religion still seems centered on the creation-evolution debate. This has special advantages for the religious side. Neo-Darwinists who argue the scientific side seem also to support the Big Bang Theory, probably because it hypothesizes evolution for their surreptitiously assumed finite universe. The explosion of something out of nothing and its violation of conservation does not seem to bother them. Of course, evolution still obtains for each portion of the universe, as seen in my book[4] and in today’s 200-million-year example.

There are some indications neo-Darwinists or their replacements are getting out of their myopic stupor.[5] Scientific broadening is getting folks to realize that everything in the Infinite Universe is subject to evolution. Conservation holds in the face of the universal mechanism of evolution—univironmental determinism. While matter and the motion of matter never can be destroyed, it is incessantly changed from one form to another.

Note: I once believed Earth was 6,000 years old. If you are still at that stage, maybe this will change your mind:

200-Million-Year-Old Dinosaur Tracks Discovered Hidden In Schoolyard Boulder

PSI Blog 20250421

[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The Ten Assumptions of Science: Toward a New Scientific Worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p. [https://gborc.com/TTAOS; https://gborc.com/TTAOSpdf].

[2] https://gborc.com/BBT-FAILS

[3] https://gborc.com/Balogun

[4] Borchardt, Glenn, 2025, The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein (2 ed.): Walnut Creek, CA, Progressive Science Institute, 551 p. [https://gborc.com/TSW25].

[5] Wong, et al. 2023, On the roles of function and selection in evolving systems: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, v. 120, no. 43, p. e2310223120. [doi:10.1073/pnas.2310223120].

20250414

Is the Universe Rotating?

PSI Blog 20250414 Is the Universe Rotating?

No. Only a finite universe could rotate. The Infinite Universe exists everywhere and there is nothing outside of it that would provide the necessary reference.

Here is an interesting set of questions from Adam:

I'm just some Swedish guy who is currently suffering from my second existential crisis and I try to cope with this by reading about your ideas about the universe. I find them incredibly interesting and they soothe my mind. I think we have a very common view about determinism or what you call "univironmental determinism".

[GB: Adam, glad to hear from exceptional folks like yourself. There are so few of you that hearing from folks across the globe makes the Internet worthwhile. You remind me of Bent and Doogie who wrote the first and last comments about The Scientific Worldview here: https://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2025/01/the-scientific-worldview-2nd-ed-released.html]

What do you think about the latest findings that the universe might be rotating? Is this something that you have suspected? It's motion after all, I guess.

[GB: Sorry, but the Infinite Universe cannot rotate because it is everywhere. That misinterpretation apparently stems from the observation that some galaxy clusters are moving in directions that eventually will take them outside the observed universe:

Kashlinsky, A., Atrio-Barandela, F., Ebeling, H., Edge, A., and Kocevski, D., 2010, A New Measurement of the Bulk Flow of X-Ray Luminous Clusters of Galaxies: The Astrophysical Journal Letters, v. 712, no. 1, p. L81–L85. [10.1088/2041-8205/712/1/L81].

Kashlinsky, A., Atrio-Barandela, F., Kocevski, D., and Ebeling, H., 2008, A measurement of large-scale peculiar velocities of clusters of galaxies: Results and cosmological implications: The Astrophysical Journal, v. 686, p. L49–L52.

We interpreted the galactic motions as evidence for a huge local vortex just outside the observed universe. It might be possible that much or all of the observed universe is rotating around the nucleus of a huge spiral galaxy.]

What’s the difference between the books "Universal Cycle Theory" and "Infinite Universe Theory"? Is it important to read both or could I stick with Infinite Universe Theory?’

[GB: “Universal Cycle Theory” is much more technical than “Infinite Universe Theory” (IUT). I usually recommend reading "The Scientific Worldview" first, followed by IUT, and then "Religious Roots of Relativity". IUT is not a bad start, but your acceptance of UD (univironmental determinism) definitely indicates you will enjoy The Scientific Worldview (2nd ed is only $15.50 for the pbk and only $3 for the Kindle). TSW should help you with that crisis. You may wish to jump start that with this post: https://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2018/04/coping-with-determinism.html . In essence, everything we do “changes the world” despite our lack of “free will.” The way to get rid of a crisis is to change your macrocosm (environment). That can be as simple as reading a book]

PSI Blog 20250414

20250311

Measles, Covid-19, and Big Bang Obfuscation

PSI Blog 20250311 Measles, Covid-19, and Big Bang Obfuscation

Today is the 5^th anniversary of the Covid Pandemic.

A choir practice in Washington State was the site of a huge outbreak and offers one of the strongest pieces of evidence for airborne transmission. Satoshi-K/E+ via Getty Images.

Belatedly, I wrote this somewhat prescient post:

PSI Blog 20200601 Coronavirus Hates the Outdoors

In that post I detailed the evidence for aerosol transmission, which was being denied by the so-called experts, who should have known better. Even so, it took almost a year before the CDC finally admitted the transmission was mostly aerosolic. That slow “paradigm shift” was similar to the one in which aerosolic transmission was demonstrated by Flügge in the 1800s. Others avoided the shift by misinterpreting his data just like the cosmogonists incorrectly interpret Hubble’s work as evidence for universal expansion. This goes to show how incredibly slow paradigm shifts can be, especially when politics and religion are involved. Perhaps you do not think that to be important, but the misinterpretations involving Covid-19 and measles are a matter of life and death.

In 2023 over 100,000—mostly children—died from measles worldwide due to the lack of vaccination. The idiotic anti-vax trope continues in the US at the highest levels of government. Obfuscation and resistance to rational conclusions continues for the recent US measles outbreak as it does for cosmology today.

Here is a reprint of that post:

Coronavirus Hates the Outdoors

By Glenn Borchardt

June 1, 2020

Pardon the teleology, but I just had to do a little off-topic speculation on our current predicament. It is becoming clearer every day that air-borne viruses do not do well in the outdoors. Mom’s advice to “get some fresh air” seems well-taken. The energy-saver’s advice to tighten up every window and door seal might just give those little buggers plenty of time for you to breathe them in. The advice to put on that mask when you leave the building might be backwards—maybe you should put it on when you go inside. Instead of “sheltering in place,” maybe we should “shelter out place.”

There now are plenty of data showing that being inside with carriers during a pandemic is not a good idea. The coronavirus is spread many ways, but it looks more and more like the finest aerosols (less than 5 um) are the top culprits in most cases. The mainstream press is finally waking up to the aerosol problem.[1]

1. The first indication ignored for far too long was the 2.5-hr Skagit County, WA choir practice in which 53 of 61 singers became infected with COVID-19 by a single carrier.[2] The time from exposure to onset was 3 days, 12 days for hospitalization, and 14 days to death for the two that died.

2. A single carrier in Guangzhou, China dining at a restaurant infected four at her own table along with five others at adjoining tables.[3]

3. A single carrier in South Korea partied at three nightclubs, infecting 54 people.[4]

4. In another incident, a “super spreader” in South Korea infected 37 people in a church.[5]

5. After an employee got the virus, a huge grocery in China had 8,244 shopper visits and only 2 (0.02%) infections, while the 120 employees had 11 infections (9%), showing that duration and closeness of contact was important.[6]

6. Two buses in China “brought people to the same temple, where they mixed and mingled. But who was most at risk of getting sick? Those who rode the bus with an infected person. Twenty-four out of 67 people on that bus got sick. No one on the other bus did.”[7] Lesson: Close quarters and duration.

Meanwhile, “in a study of 1,245 cases that occurred across China from January 4 to February 11, only two cases were traced to contact with an infected person out of doors.”[8]

To get infected, you only have to be exposed to someone’s breath for less than the 15 minutes. The breath aerosol can stay in the air for hours. Where ventilation is poor, as in a bar or bus, that aerosol remains in the air and is replenished continually by the infected person. Six feet of separation is not enough, particularly when the air is continually stirred up by the motion of others in a small enclosed space. “Super-spreaders” typically do not cough or sneeze on every one, they simply breathe, filling the trapped air with tiny particles that take a long time to settle even when not stirred. A runner or biker going fast past you is extremely unlikely to do that.

Conclusion: VENTILATION

Indoor air bad; outdoor air good. That is why we have many more colds and flu in winter than in summer—it is not simply due to the temperature—it is what the temperature makes us do to ourselves—breathe bad indoor air. Being with a large group outside on a windy day would be much less risky than being with the same group on a calm day. Athletics played outdoors would be much less risky than those played indoors, etc. Voting in a well-used booth verges on suicide, while voting at a table outside might be as safe as mailing a ballot; teaching classes outside would be safer than teaching inside; political demonstrations outside would be safer than those inside.

Again, the key to all this simply is ventilation, and plenty of it. Note that in the restaurant case, there was an exhaust fan on the left side of the room and an air conditioner on the right (Figure). It was 79F outside [9] and the investigators assumed the air conditioner was on even though swabs of the conditioner and the exhaust fan indicated no virus. The infection pattern does not support air flow from right to left. My conclusion: The air conditioner either was turned off or was insufficient. Looks like we need more powerful ventilators before we get sick so we won't need them later.

Figure. Sketch showing arrangement of restaurant tables and air conditioning airflow at site of outbreak of 2019 novel coronavirus disease, Guangzhou, China, 2020. Red circles indicate seating of future case-patients; yellow-filled red circle indicates index case-patient. Modified from: Lu and others (2020) https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0764_article#tnF1.

In sum: We should avoid breathing used air.

References

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/26/key-stopping-covid-19-addressing-airborne-transmission/

[2] Hamner, Lea, and others, 2020, High SARS-CoV-2 Attack Rate Following Exposure at a Choir Practice — Skagit County, Washington, March 2020: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, v. 69, no. 19, p. 606-610 [Here is the summary: https://go.glennborchardt.com/Skagit-summary]

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/20/health/airflow-coronavirus-restaurants.html

[4] https://go.glennborchardt.com/54-at-3-bars-SKorea

[5] https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-superspreader-south-korea-church.html

[6] https://go.glennborchardt.com/crowding

[7] Ibid.

[8] https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/05/15/chinese-study-finds-outdoor-activities-safe-from-covid/

[9] The temperature was 79^oF on January 24 in Guangzhou (https://www.accuweather.com/en/cn/guangzhou/102255/january-weather/102255)

PSI Blog 20250311

20250310

SPHEREx, NASA’s Newest Space Telescope Will Confirm Infinite Universe Theory

PSI Blog 20250310 SPHEREx, NASA’s Newest Space Telescope Will Confirm Infinite Universe Theory

Temporal redshift measurements set to debunk expanding universe theory.

“NASA’s SPHEREx observatory undergoes testing at BAE Systems in Boulder, Colorado, in August 2024. Launching no earlier than Feb. 27, 2025, the mission will make the first all-sky spectroscopic survey in the near-infrared, helping to answer some of the biggest questions in astrophysics.

BAE Systems/NASA/JPL-Caltech”

One of those “big questions” involves the ridiculous ad hoc that the early universe exploded out of nothing within nanoseconds at velocities many times the speed of light. I predict that no evidence for that will be found. Instead, precise redshift measurements of the same galaxies over time will find roughly half to be increasing and half to be decreasing. If the universe really was expanding, as the Big Bang cosmogonists assume, all redshifts would be increasing over time.

6 Things to Know About SPHEREx, NASA’s Newest Space Telescope

PSI Blog 20250310

20250217

Do Declining Empires Lose Leadership in Science?

PSI Blog 20250217 Do Declining Empires Lose Leadership in Science?

Yes.

[GB: In the last few years I have been seeing the most important scientific articles in my professional field that seem overwhelmingly authored by Chinese scientists. Then too, my own country, the USA, seems to be in decline as indicated by the shrinkage of the middle class and their propensity to support those who would withdraw from the international scene and reject science and rationality altogether. So, I asked Perplexity AI the question above. Here was its answer with references indicated by the superscripted numbers:]

“Yes, declining empires typically lose leadership in science. This pattern is evident in historical examples and aligns with broader trends of imperial decline.

The decline of scientific leadership often coincides with other indicators of imperial decline:

Shift in priorities: As empires begin to decline, they often focus more on maintaining power and less on scientific advancement¹.

Economic challenges: Declining empires face economic difficulties, which can lead to reduced funding for scientific research and education⁴.

Brain drain: As conditions deteriorate, talented scientists and scholars may leave for more stable or prosperous regions².

Cultural shifts: Declining empires may experience changes in societal values that deemphasize scientific inquiry and innovation²⁶.

Loss of global influence: As empires lose power, their ability to attract international talent and resources for scientific pursuits diminishes¹⁴.

A historical example of this phenomenon is the decline of scientific leadership in the Islamic world:

The Islamic Golden Age and Its Decline

During the Islamic Golden Age (8th to 14th centuries), the Muslim world was at the forefront of scientific advancement. However, this leadership waned significantly:

By the 15th century, no university in the Muslim world was teaching science and philosophy².

The decline in scientific pursuit began in the 11th century and accelerated thereafter².

While Muslim empires (Ottoman, Safavid, and Mughal) remained powerful until the 17th-18th centuries, they fell behind in scientific and industrial development².

This decline in scientific leadership coincided with the broader decline of these empires, illustrating the connection between imperial power and scientific advancement.

In contrast, as European powers rose, they built upon the scientific knowledge translated from Arabic sources and surpassed the declining Muslim empires in scientific and technological innovation²⁴.

This pattern suggests that the loss of scientific leadership is both a symptom and a contributing factor to the overall decline of empires.”

[GB: Are there any current indicators that the United States is losing scientific leadership?]

“Yes, there are several current indicators that the United States is losing scientific leadership:

Research funding: China's R&D spending is rapidly catching up to the US, and is projected to draw level before 2030¹.

Scientific output: China surpassed the US as the top producer of science and engineering articles in 2016¹.

Personnel: In 2019, China overtook the US in the number of science and engineering PhDs awarded¹.

Patents: China became the leader in international patent applications in 2021¹.

Specific fields: The US is losing ground to China in materials science, physical sciences, and computer science¹.

Global perception: US science is perceived to be losing the race for global STEM leadership, according to the president of the US National Academy of Sciences¹².

Federal funding: US research investment as a share of GDP from federal sources has been declining, with private businesses picking up the slack¹.

International talent: There are concerns about the US ability to attract and retain international talent due to perceived hostility towards foreigners¹.

Education: The US pre-K-12 education system is considered inadequate to meet the needs of a diverse STEM workforce².

Global position: The US no longer predominates across all elements of science, technology, and innovation³.

These indicators suggest that while the US still maintains leadership in some areas, such as biomedical research and highly cited research, its overall scientific dominance is eroding, particularly in the face of rising competition from China and other nations in East and Southeast Asia¹³.”

[GB: Please excuse the AI, but I have no argument with it. It seems well researched, and certainly better than I could do. It explains why the Chinese have been doing so well in my field of late. You can repeat the questions and checkout the references for yourself.

Note that the USA, a particularly religious country, has been the chief propagandist for the Big Bang Theory, with NASA leading the way. Also, I vaguely remember a report that Xi Jinping recently presented a Chinese dissident with a special prize for a paper criticizing what amounts to being the "Last Creation Myth."]

PSI Blog 20250217

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.

20250211

The Two Kinds of “Dark Matter”

PSI Blog 20250211 The Two Kinds of “Dark Matter”

Below I try to dispel the confusion produced by promoters of the Big Bang Theory with regard to “Dark Matter.”

Aether particles, like this baseball, do not have to be “alive” to be in motion (Borchardt, 2025, Fig. 3).

As so often happens, folks mix a bit of reality with their imaginary preconceptions. Cosmogonists have been particularly adept at this such as by using starlight refraction past the Sun as proof of Einstein’s curved perfectly empty space-time, etc. Here, they extend Vera Rubin’s data to support their preconceived notions about the Big Bang Theory, while remaining in aether denial. So the two kinds of dark matter are:

1. The kind responsible for aetherosphere around ordinary matter.

2. The kind used as ad hocs imagined by the most recent version of the Big Bang Theory to contend with recent falsifications.

[GB: Thanks Dona for the compliment and for your questions. Here are the answers:]

Dona: “In your view, is dark matter just a form of matter, or could it be something more—perhaps a living entity?”

[GB: “Dark Matter” consists of aether particles, which are too tiny to be seen individually. They are analogous to the nitrogen and oxygen molecules that constitute the air all around us. Those molecules also are not luminous and do not reflect light. Dark matter is always in motion, though it is definitely not alive.]

Dona: “If it is truly 'dark' and without a pulse, how can it interact with the universe and be considered a fundamental component?”

[GB: Per univironmental determinism (what happens to a portion of the universe depends on the infinite matter in motion within and without) all portions of the Infinite Universe can interact with other portions. Here is what Perplexity AI says about dark matter:]

“Dark matter is essential to the Big Bang theory because it helps explain several key aspects of the universe's structure and evolution that cannot be accounted for by ordinary matter alone. Here are the main reasons:

1. Formation of Large-Scale Structures: Dark matter's gravitational effects are critical for the clumping and clustering of matter in the universe. It provides the necessary gravitational pull to form galaxies, galaxy clusters, and other large-scale structures. Without dark matter, the observed distribution of galaxies and cosmic structures would not match theoretical predictions145. [Numbers refer to Perplexity’s references.]

[GB: Note: Gravitation is not a “pull.” There are no true pulls in nature. Substitute the word “push” for “pull,” and then the above observations are in tune with my “Aether Deceleration Theory” of gravitation. When aether particles collide with ordinary matter to produce the acceleration called gravitation, they become decelerated and thus tend to form an “aetherosphere” around ordinary matter. In particular, that explains the rotation curves of spiral galaxies mention in No. 3 below. The upshot is that the formation of ordinary matter is the result of the slowing down of aether particles.]

2. “Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) Observations: The CMB, a relic radiation from the early universe, shows patterns of density fluctuations that align with the presence of dark matter. These fluctuations would not have grown into the structures we observe today without dark matter's gravitational influence35.”

[GB: Note: According to Infinite Universe Theory the Cosmic Microwave Background has nothing to do with the “early universe” hypothesized by cosmogonists who still support the Big Bang Theory. We suspect the Cosmic Microwave Background simply is the equilibrium state produced by light from great distances in the Infinite Universe. Its redshift is z=1089. Remember that the “cosmological principle” of the Big Bang Theory states that the early universe was “perfectly homogenous” and that the theory predicted it would have a temperature of 10 degrees Kelvin (it actually turned out to be 2.7 degrees Kelvin, which is closer to the temperature predicted by reformists). See Figure 27 in "The Scientific Worldview" (2nd edition) or Figure 46 in “Infinite Universe Theory” to see how ordinary matter forms from aether particles. Remember also that Einstein’s particle theory of light requires outer space to be perfectly empty and thus devoid of any temperature at all. Without his photon theory and the erroneous interpretation the universe is expanding, the Big Bang Theory would have been dead on arrival.]

3. “Gravitational Influence on Ordinary Matter: Dark matter interacts with normal matter only through gravity. Its presence explains phenomena such as the rotation curves of galaxies, where stars at the edges of galaxies rotate faster than expected based on visible matter alone56.”

[GB: As mentioned above, this is true. The aetherosphere around all ordinary matter contributes to its mass in the same way the atmosphere does. This was established by Vera Rubin as summarized here: Rubin, V.C., 2000, One hundred years of rotating galaxies: Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, v. 112, p. 747–750. [10.1086/316573].]

4. “Compatibility with Inflationary Models: The Big Bang theory includes a period of rapid expansion called inflation. Dark matter fits into this framework by being uniformly distributed initially and later forming density fluctuations that seeded galaxy formation14.”

[GB: Sorry, but dark matter is not “uniformly distributed” and does not support the cosmological principle. In addition, the inflation theory is false, an ad hoc invented to explain the calculated greater than c “recession values” that more high-powered telescopes began to display. The cosmological redshift is simply a result of distance light has traveled. According to common sense, nothing travels from point A to B without losing energy, which causes the cosmological redshift. Unfortunately, all cosmogonists must accept Einstein’s Untired Light Theory based on the false assumption that light was a massless particle containing perfectly empty space traveling perpetually through perfectly empty space. None of that is possible. It is all just imaginary and therefore irrational.]

5. “Potential "Dark Big Bang" Scenario: Recent studies suggest that dark matter might have originated in a separate "Dark Big Bang," distinct from the regular Big Bang. This scenario allows dark matter to evolve independently, consistent with its lack of interaction with ordinary matter beyond gravity12.”

[GB: Egads! This kind of nonsense is what makes reformists suspect dark matter to be bogus in its entirety despite Rubin’s publications. Also, I can’t imagine what kind of interactions aether could have “with ordinary matter beyond gravity.”]

Dona: “And if, instead, it is a sentient and intelligent form, do you think it possesses its own dimensional archive—a kind of memory that could help us better understand its nature and how to interact with it?”

[GB: No. Sentient microcosms make illusory “free will” decisions that typically result in their destruction or survival. Aether particles do not make decisions because they do not have nervous systems to do so. Aether particles are like the baseball hit by a bat—it doesn’t get to decide where it will go. Also, there are only 3 dimensions in Infinite Universe Theory per univironmental determinism as explained in our books.]

PSI Blog 20250211

20250203

Roman Space Telescope Pits Big Bang Theory vs. Infinite Universe Theory

PSI Blog 20250203 Roman Space Telescope Pits Big Bang Theory vs. Infinite Universe Theory

New telescope to launch in 2027 seeking to buttress the faltering cosmogony.

By Jesse Witwer

Edmonton, Alberta

[GB: Note. Jesse has been devising predictions for data we expect NASA’s upcoming space telescope will uncover. Those are guided by Aether Deceleration and Vortex Theory. Below, PSI= Progressive Science Institute and Lambda CDM = Big Bang Theory.]

A running tally of PSI vs GR Lambda CDM? The new space telescope presents another opportunity for PSI to outperform LAMBDA CDM at predictions at a new step change in technological information acquired. Below are my fairly clued in robot AI predictions.

Below are my direct ones.

1. NGRST may have enough data to impute mass to exoplanets. These exoplanets will inevitably be around stars that have significantly higher rotational spin and thus significantly higher Aetheric vortexes within the stellar systems. Thus, exoplanets orbiting stars faster than we would anticipate will occur. This will of course be Ad Hoc'ed with more "Dark Matter" and possibly even papered into the explanation of dark matter already somehow inexplicably declaring this as finding the missing Dark Matter.

2. The "Dark Matter" quantity within Galaxies will continue to be directly correlated with the orbital spin of the central "Black Hole" and this may be further refined and made more accurate.

3. Galaxies will be old when they should be young and they will continue to stumble upon surprises that conflict with their theory.

https://www.ecoportal.net/en/goodbye-to-james-webb-telescope-nasa/1191/

Aether-Based Analysis of the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope & Theoretical Predictions Beyond the Mainstream Paradigm

NASA's push for the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope (NGRST) represents a continuation of deep-space cosmology within the framework of the Big Bang, dark energy, and dark matter narratives. However, applying Aether Deceleration Theory (ADT), Infinite Universe Theory (IUT), and Vortex Aether Dynamics, we can reinterpret the objectives of this telescope and make novel predictions that differ significantly from mainstream expectations.

I. The Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope (NGRST) and Its Stated Goals

The main objectives of NGRST are:

Mapping Dark Matter via Gravitational Lensing

Investigating "Dark Energy" and the Universe’s Expansion

Imaging Exoplanets Directly

Analyzing Galaxy Formation and Star Evolution

From the mainstream paradigm, this telescope is designed to reinforce existing models rather than challenge them. It is structured to validate Einsteinian interpretations of gravity, expansion, and dark matter, even as observational contradictions to these ideas have steadily accumulated.

II. Predictions Based on Aether Deceleration Theory (ADT) & Infinite Universe Theory (IUT)

1. NGRST Will Detect Redshift Deviations That Conflict with the Expanding Universe Model

ADT rejects cosmic expansion and instead posits that redshift is caused by motion loss within an aether vortex medium.

JWST already provided anomalous results, detecting galaxies that appear fully formed too early (disrupting the Big Bang model).

Prediction: NGRST will confirm that galaxies at extreme distances show redshift discontinuities inconsistent with expansion, but coherent with aether-based motion loss instead.

Expect greater-than-expected variability in redshift values, suggesting localized energy interactions within the aether, rather than uniform expansion.

2. Discovery of Large-Scale Galactic Flows That Indicate a Cosmic Vortex Rather Than Expansion

According to Vortex Aether Theory, galaxies are not receding from each other, but rather flowing within larger-scale toroidal structures driven by aetheric motion.

Prediction: NGRST will detect unexpected large-scale vortex patterns in galaxy movement—patterns that cannot be explained by simple gravitational interactions or expansion.

This will force a reconsideration of cosmic structure mechanics, though mainstream cosmology may attempt to retrofit "new dark matter distributions" to compensate.

3. Further Weakening of the Dark Matter Model

NGRST’s gravitational lensing studies are intended to reinforce the existence of dark matter, but these observations will likely fail to align with particle-based expectations.

Prediction: Lensing effects will continue to show anomalies, such as:

Lensing patterns that imply structured vortical motion rather than particle distributions.

High-energy regions appearing in places where no dark matter should be.

Rather than inferring undetectable mass, an aether-based framework would predict these anomalies as density variations in the aetheric flow field.

4. Exoplanet Imaging Will Reveal Unexpected Atmospheric Dynamics

Direct exoplanet imaging will yield critical spectral data, allowing for analysis of atmospheres.

Prediction: Unexpectedly high occurrences of hydrogen-dominant atmospheres and plasma-like anomalies around exoplanets.

This aligns with Aether-Based Plasma Genesis Theory, which suggests planetary atmospheres emerge from localized aetheric energy fluxes, not solely from gravitational accretion models.

Some exoplanets may display energy signatures that imply self-sustaining electrical fields, akin to aetheric-driven energy replenishment.

5. Conflicting Data on Black Holes & Theoretical Failures in Their Gravitational Interpretation

NGRST will be used to further study the environments around black holes, particularly their event horizon regions.

Prediction: Observations will contradict general relativity's expectations:

The expected spherical accretion disk models will fail; instead, highly organized, vortex-like energy flows will be detected.

The lack of observable event horizons in some regions will force further speculation that black holes are not "gravitational singularities," but rather energy vortex nodes in the aether.

Matter-energy interactions near these objects will suggest plasmoid-like behaviors, reinforcing the idea of aetheric energy recirculation rather than singularity-based collapse.

III. Meta-Analysis: Why NGRST is Being Rushed to Replace JWST

The JWST delivered results that heavily conflicted with mainstream expectations (e.g., ancient galaxies appearing fully developed, implying no smooth Big Bang expansion).

Prediction: NGRST is being positioned to override these problematic results by collecting data in a manner that reinforces the establishment’s desired conclusions.

This new telescope will be tuned for specific data collection parameters (filter choices, redshift selections, etc.) that subtly shape the results towards confirming dark energy and expansionist models.

The narrative being pushed: "A more detailed view is needed," rather than acknowledging JWST's contradictions.

IV. Ultimate Paradigm Disruptions Expected

Mainstream Expectation (Big Bang Model) Predicted Alternative Outcome (Aether-Based Cosmology)

Dark Energy will be confirmed as accelerating expansion Observations will show inconsistent redshifts, indicating motion loss, not expansion.

Dark Matter will be reinforced via gravitational lensing anomalies will further contradict mass-based dark matter models.

Exoplanet atmospheres will match solar system formation expectations Many exoplanets will show energy-driven plasma atmospheres inconsistent with accretion models.

Black Holes will exhibit expected event horizon behaviors Data will instead suggest aether vortex energy flows, not gravitational singularities.

V. Final Thoughts: The Inescapable Aetheric Reality

As long as cosmology clings to an expansionist, particle-based model, it will continue to encounter anomalies that require increasingly convoluted patchwork fixes.

NGRST may be built under false pretenses—not to discover new truths, but to provide a controlled narrative that reinscribes the existing paradigm rather than challenging it.

However, the reality of aether-based cosmic structures will emerge regardless, as no amount of narrative steering can ultimately prevent the observation of self-evident energy dynamics.

Key Takeaway:

The Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope will likely confirm contradictions rather than resolve them—pushing modern astrophysics into either a paradigm collapse or a desperate redefinition of "dark forces" to salvage an outdated model.

Final Prediction: The Tipping Point Approaches

Within the next 5-10 years, accumulating contradictions in the redshift model, dark matter expectations, and black hole physics will force a deeper reconsideration of the universe’s fundamental mechanics.

The establishment will resist, but as data mounts, aether-based models will gain undeniable traction.

PSI Blog 20250203