The Scientific Worldview

20260406

Space-time is Aether II

PSI Blog 20260406 Space-time is Aether II

Aether Evidence

Are aether particles vortices like this Sobrero Galaxy? Hint: light is a transverse-wave, while sound is a longitudinal-wave in the atmosphere.

In the previous post I presented a summary of Einstein’s initial aether denial and his eventual leaning toward space-time as its replacement. While the mysticism underlying relativity remained, tests of effects purported due to space-time accumulated. The shibboleth that “Einstein is always right” became popular. That is not surprising because the physical reason for all that success simply is due to the ubiquitous aether, the dark matter that pervades the entire universe. In other words, the good Professor took away the aether and then replaced it as a contraption with a different name.

In this post I will present short summaries of the evidence for aether. Most of this is ignored by regressive physicists and cosmogonists whose primary characteristic is aether denial. One thing you will note in my interpretations is steadfast adherence to “The Ten Assumptions of Science.” In particular, they eschew “kinetic” theory altogether. That is the great advantage given by the acceptance of aether begotten from the Second Assumption of Science, causality (All effects have an infinite number of material causes), which, like infinity itself assumes matter is infinitely divisible. Although aether deniers must consider that to be farfetched, it is not as irrational as the fantasies engendered by their regressive interpretations of physics and cosmogony.

The rest of this post is from Appendix II in the review manuscript of my next book tentatively entitled “Rationality and the Rise of Infinite Universe Theory.” The links and documentation will be in that book.

Rational Interpretations Of Relativity Experiments

Michelson-Morley Experiment Fails to Detect a Fixed Ether (1887)

This experiment assumed Maxwell’s dynamic aether was relatively fixed in space independent of Earth. That would mean Earth’s motion (30 km/s) around the Sun would produce an “ether wind” just like the wind in your face when you run on a calm day. Michelson and Morley used an interferometer invented by Michelson to measure the fringe produced by the intersection of two parts of a split light beam. Half of the beam was traveling in the same direction Earth was traveling and the other half was traveling perpendicular to it. The beam going in Earth’s direction would be shortened, producing a fringe with respect to the perpendicular beam. The width of the fringe would be proportional to Earth’s velocity. The observed fringe was tiny and considered insignificant. The result was said to be “the most famous null experiment in history.” That is repeated endlessly in regressive physics classes throughout the world. It remains so despite subsequent experiments showing how irrational that is.

Unfortunately, the Michelson-Morley Experiment was faulty to begin with. They forgot to consider that the aether they were attempting to detect might be attached to Earth just like our atmosphere. In that case, trying to detect aether in a basement at an altitude of 200 m would be like trying to detect the jet stream there as well. Hundreds of thousands of subsequent interferometer measurements with more advanced equipment show results that are a function of altitude (Figure 43).

Figure 43. Galaev’s interferometer measurements vs. altitude are a function of the square root of altitude while atmospheric pressure reduction is a direct function of altitude (Borchardt, 2007, Fig. 82).

Not only do these data prove there is an aether, it also proves it is attached to Earth. And like our atmosphere, it gradually gives way to its surroundings at increasing altitude. In that case measurements of the sought for “fixed ether” increase with increases in altitude. Nonetheless, the 30 km/s differential due to Earth’s revolution would not be found until measurements were taken in the stratosphere with equipment unencumbered by any sort of containment. Even then, the revolution of the solar system around the Milky Way would have to be taken into account.

Sagnac Proves Light is a Wave in the Aether (1913)

Georges Sagnac used interference to prove light was a wave and not a particle. He attached his light source to a spinning wheel to show that the velocity of the wheel was not added to the velocity of light as it would be if light was a particle. Nonetheless, irrational physicists accepted Michelson and Morley’s misinterpretation of their experiment as proof aether did not exist. They erroneously assumed that was true, dismissing Sagnac’s results instead.

The de Sitter Double Star Observations Confirm Light is not a Particle (1913)

Sometimes two stars revolve around a central point in space. An imagined light particle emitted from star A going toward us would travel toward us at a velocity of c plus the velocity of A. A particle emitted from star B going away from us would travel toward us at c minus the velocity of B:

Willem de Sitter found no evidence for this effect. As proclaimed in his paper, this was proof that the velocity of light was constant. Naïve physicists once again grabbed onto this as proof of Einstein’s relativity because he had assumed light velocity was constant (like it would be if light was a wave in a medium). Only waves can have constant velocity. Real particles, like baseballs and bullets, always lose velocity over distance. As mentioned in the previous post, Einstein was so desperate to claim light was a special particle that he invented eight irrational ad hocs in support. That amounted to being what I call his “Untired Light Theory.” The upshot was that both Sagnac and de Sitter had shown conclusively that light was a wave and not a particle. Sagnac even correctly proclaimed the medium was aether. Regressive physicists and cosmogonists have ignored that for over a century.

The irrationality shown by this affair is typical of all the so-called “proofs” of relativity I have studied so far. Relativity is advertised as revolutionary. That it is: counterrevolutionary—a switch from the semi-irrationality of classical mechanics to the full-scale irrationality and happenstance of relativity.

Eddington Eclipse Observation Declares Einstein the Greatest Genius (1919)

The reception of Special Relativity Theory was met with much controversy and resistance. A major mistake in it was Einstein’s erroneous equivalence of distance and time. This category jump essentially was an objectification of motion. Previously, all phenomena were viewed in terms of matter and motion. Matter was an XYZ portion of the universe and motion was what matter did. Newton’s Laws of Motion ruled physics. As I have pointed out, these were adequate except for one thing, their being founded on the fundamental religious assumption of finity.

Unfortunately, instead of switching to the fundamental scientific assumption of infinity, Einstein’s so-called “revolution” continued with finity and its associated religious assumptions becoming a counterrevolution. As mentioned, this entailed eight imaginary, surreptitious ad hocs for converting light waves into particles. He continued in that vein when he concocted “space-time” in his General Relativity Theory by assuming time was a 4th dimension. That became crucial in providing the foundation for what was to become the “Last Creation Myth.” It was needed to explain the fact there was no central point from which the obvious 3-D universe could expand.

Einstein predicted that curved empty space-time would cause light to bend around the Sun. He even got specific: the bending toward the Sun would be 1.75 arcsec. That isn’t much: 0.000486 degrees. Still, this meant that a star behind the Sun could be seen during an eclipse when the Sun’s normal brightness would be subdued.

This prediction was tested by Sir Arthur Eddington, a lifelong Quaker considered a “mystical realist,” who sought to mend the science/religion rift. Being a pacifist, he also favored a reproachment between England and Germany after WWI. The glorification of Einstein became symbolic of that effort, with the predicted “space-time” being an opportune target during the eclipse of 1919.

Despite the rather rudimentary equipment and faced with intermittent overcast, some data were obtained in favor of Einstein’s prediction. There have been naysayers in the dissident community, with Dr. Edward Dowdye, a former NASA physicist maintaining that the predicted deflection occurred only in the plasma rim of the Sun. That would have falsified Einstein’s space-time conjecture.

However, subsequent work by D.G. Bruns clearly demonstrated light bending occurred at least five solar radii from the Sun in what Dowdye had proclaimed to be “empty vacuum space.” That was proof Einstein was right—sort of. As mentioned above, the problem with his relativity is that there is no there there. The idea that Einstein’s and Dowdye’s assumed perfectly empty space cause massless light particles to curve around the Sun was preposterous. Nonetheless, relativity is a kinetic theory, one that describes and predicts events, but offers no physical causes for those events. Newton’s theory of gravitation—attraction—also is a kinetic theory. It describes the acceleration of gravity, but hypothesizes no accelerator. In both cases “attraction” still is offered as a cause, but no physical mechanism for that has been offered either. Attraction is especially outrageous when regressive physicists casually apply it to Einstein’s massless photon.

So, what was the physical reason for light bending and what, if anything, did Einstein’s space-time have to do with it? There are hints in the sections above but, when properly interpreted, the data from the famous Pound-Rebka experiment make it clear:

Pound-Rebka and the “Gravitational Redshift” (1960)

This infamous experiment is at once revealing in its relativity pandering title. The implied “weight” of photons was never furnished. Again, Einstein’s imaginary photons are supposed to be massless. Truth is, in regressive physics sometimes they is and sometimes they ain’t. And sometimes they are both at the same time. Despite the silly interpretations, the Pound-Rebka experiment actually provided some useful data with respect to the properties of the aether medium.

It involved sending an electromagnetic wave (a gamma ray, essentially a tiny light wave) up a 22.5m tower at Harvard. They reported a decrease in frequency was measured resulting in a redshift. When a wave was sent down the tower, they reported an increase in frequency resulting in a blueshift. Einstein had predicted those results. He claimed his imaginary light particles, though massless, would have to fight gravitation while going away from Earth, losing energy, as evidenced by the redshift. They would gain energy going toward. In tune with Einstein and relativity, Pound and Rebka assumed light velocity was constant. The main problem: It was not.

The equation for wavelength is:

Wavelength = velocity/frequency

Wavelength would increase if velocity increased or frequency decreased. The reported change in frequency is bizarre. There is no reason for frequency to change. Frequency is set at the light source. For instance, when light enters water its wavelength and velocity decreases by 25%, but its frequency does not. Still, like all good regressive physicists Pound and Rebka continued to protect Einstein’s assumption light velocity was constant. They ended up using a common relativistic trick: the imagined time dilation ad hoc. That resulted in a calculated lower frequency and longer wavelength for light going up the tower. Of course, time is motion and motion cannot dilate. Baring that leaves a change in velocity as the only significant factor per the equation above. If velocity increased, then wavelength would increase. That is really what happened in the Pound-Rebka experiment. Again, waves going away from Earth increased in wavelength and those going toward it decreased in wavelength. As seen in the water/air comparison, velocity in a medium is controlled by that medium. Could it be that the aether medium changed with altitude?

It did. This proper interpretation has huge ramifications for theoretical physics and cosmology. Although the wavelength changes detected with the Mossbauer equipment were tiny (10^-15 nm) they have been confirmed many times in studies of the much greater redshift of light from much larger cosmic bodies than Earth. Although the phenomenon is still called the “gravitational redshift,” its association with gravitation is only indirect and not at all what Einstein envisioned. It is typical for what I call an “Einsteinism” in which he luckily got the right answer, but for the wrong reason.

Early on, Steve and I realized what it really meant for gravitation. As mentioned, gravitation previously had no mechanical cause. A mechanical cause always involves one thing colliding with another thing in the same way a baseball bat hits the ball, causing it to fly over the fence. Both Einstein’s space-time and Newton’s “attraction” are vacuous. In essence, they involve kinetic equations that describe the flight of the ball without any mention of the bat. In this case, the “bat” is too tiny to be observed. In regressive physics, defined by aether denial, the physical cause of gravitation never can be known.

Aether Deceleration Theory

Actually, the cause of gravitation is rather simple. It is well known that gravitation is an acceleration. We even know its value for Earth: 9.81 m/s². Per Newton’s Second Law of Motion, this means that acceleration must be produced by some collider. Those collisions amount to being pushes, not the magical pulls of the moribund attraction theory. There is even a book written about a push theory, although, like the push theory Newton once proposed, it is incorrect. Even pulling on a door knob actually involves your fingers pushing on the knob from the side away from you. Any attraction theory is magical: there is no there there.

The colliders that cause acceleration necessarily must be decelerated as a result. Their motion would be slowed and many of them would tend to hang around every object with which they collided. The density of the medium would increase as a result. Now you can see where this is going. From Galaev’s compilation we already established that there is an aetherosphere around Earth. Turns out that like everything else in the Infinite Universe the responsible particles (“aetherons”) have mass. They are subject to gravitation too, being pushed toward Earth by higher velocity previously distal aetherons not yet decelerated.

This is where the Pound-Rebka data come into play. Remember they actually showed the velocity of light increased distally and decreased proximally. It turns out velocity is a function of the pressure/activity of the particles in a medium. The higher the pressure, the higher the velocity. Light waves going away from Earth enter an aether medium that has a gradual increase in pressure allowing light to speed up. As in the water example, this means wavelengths will get longer as they leave Earth: the so-called “gravitational redshift.”

The upshot is that high pressure distal aether supplies the particles that result in gravitation. They collide with ordinary matter, keeping it from falling apart and keeping you from floating off into space. It is why most cosmic bodies are spherical and surrounded by decelerated aether as Zwicky and Rubin showed to be “Dark Matter.” The resulting aetherosphere surrounds all matter and is responsible for another “Einsteinism:” curved empty space-time. The curved path taken by starlight around the Sun and by satellites around Earth occurs when waves or objects enter the aetherosphere. They encounter less resistance (slightly lower pressure) on the Earthward side than on the outer space side (slightly higher pressure). The path of least resistance is the one between the two. It is curved because the aetherosphere is curved, being attached to the curved surface of our spherical Earth just like the atmosphere. Thus, Einstein’s “space-time” is simply the aether, through which light waves travel at c whether in a straight line from a distant galaxy or in a curve in the aetherosphere around a cosmic object

There are other ramifications. It is well known that clock speed increases slightly with altitude. The timing for GPS satellites needs to keep that into account. The physical cause of that speedup previously was unknown, although Einstein said it was due to gravitation being weaker there—a disingenuous reason at best, since that would have made them slower instead. Actually, it is just the opposite: It is due to the increase in the number of impacts produced as aether pressure increases with altitude. All clocks measure the motion of matter and those aetheron impacts tend to increase that motion. That is why clocks on the Moon run 57 microseconds faster each day than they do on Earth.

Gravitational Waves are Shock Waves (2017)

Einstein’s General Relativity Theory predicts there are gravitational waves. The LIGO experiment involving hundreds of researchers and a cost of $2 billion was set up to detect them with instruments all around the world. The first experiment involved the collision of two black holes. A tiny blip was the first inkling he might have been right. Within a year, there was another one. This time it involved two neutron stars crashing together in our own galaxy. The most significant observation was the arrival of a shock wave and a light wave from the event at the same time. This proved both waves traveled at the same velocity: c. That meant that both waves were coming from the event in the same medium: aether. Of course, regressive physicists thought differently, blaming it on the magical compression and expansion of the perfectly empty “space-time” of General Relativity. Chalk the LIGO experiment up as just another “Einsteinism”: right for the wrong reason. The misnamed “gravitational waves” have nothing to do with gravitation, which is relatively local per the “Aether Deceleration Theory” above. Good thing we don’t have to depend on those infrequent “gravitational waves” to keep us on the ground! These shock waves are interesting for studying megaevents seeing them and “hearing” them at the same time. Too bad none of the 1011 authors caught the faulty interpretation. Again, the correct interpretation was that Einstein’s “space-time” simply was the aether medium.

There are many more rational interpretations to the so-called proofs of relativity and cosmogony. There are other ramifications, but you get the point. The proper interpretations imply that theoretical physics needs revamping so much so that it will have to leave relativity behind. In doing so, cosmogony will have to be abandoned as well. All the data collected to prove Einstein right will have to be reinterpreted. Nonetheless, we might agree with Einstein when he said “For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition.” Too bad that didn’t stop him from basing all of relativity on “The Ten Assumptions of Religion.” Humanity is growing up. Eventually, we will put the “physical” back into “physics” and we will no longer be afflicted with the “Last Creation Myth.”

PSI Blog 20260406

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.

20260330

Space-time is Aether I

PSI Blog 20260330 Space-time is Aether I

Einstein’s imagined perfectly empty space needed an upgrade.

By rejecting aether, Einstein surreptitiously invented perfectly empty space, an imagined “nothing” from which the Last Creation Myth could bloom. Mathematics accommodated with so-called “kinetic theory.” That is what you propose when you know what happened, but not why it happened. In other words, you know the effect, but not the cause; you know the collidee, but not the collider. That is pretty much accepted ever since Newton proposed his highly successful kinetic equation for gravitation.

Despite being the greatest scientist who ever lived, Newton produced a major screwup involving gravitation. You see, he famously invented three laws of motion, with the second being the bane of kinetic theory. It goes like this:

"The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force impressed; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impressed."

In simple terms, that means all events involve collisions in which a collider becomes decelerated while transferring its motion to a collidee, which becomes accelerated. He knew gravitation involved an acceleration and came up with the correct kinetic equation for it, but failed to provide the accelerator for it.[1]

Einstein’s aether denial led to all sorts of problems. For one thing, the transmission of light as a wave was impossible without a medium. The only other possibility was to construe light as a particle. This, however, required light to be a special particle that was out of character for anything previously known to be a particle. To turn light from a wave in the aether to an imaginary particle required eight ad hocs (Borchardt, 2017, Table 1):[2]

Scientists normally frown upon ad hocs, which reluctantly are included to prevent a theory from being disproven. But to have eight of them like this is unheard of. Nonetheless, budding regressive physicists looked the other way. They continued to do so when Sagnac proved light was a wave in the aether and de Sitter showed light motion was not additive as it is for real particles. Both of those came only eight years after what some call appropriately “Einstein’s Miracle Year” in 1905.

That was the advent of the counter revolution against the inroads materialism made against religion in the 19^th century. Darwin’s "Origin of Species" became a bestseller among capitalists in their battle to dominate the ruling class. Marx’s historical materialism emphasized the collision between capital and labor. It was time to reestablish the dominance of religion with a great regression in theoretical physics, which provided the logical foundation for all of science.

The reaction was accomplished by using fundamental assumptions that were religious instead of scientific.[3] And, as I pointed out in a previous post, this shocking development was logically consistent, with all ten religious assumptions being consupponible with the generally surreptitious assumption of finity. That presupposition fit long-standing tradition and the empiricism scientists normally adopt without thinking. The upshot was to regard mathematics and kinetic theories supreme and Newton's Second Law of Motion as moribund.

Wave-particle Duality

There were numerous vexing problems with that. Even Special Relativity Theory could not escape. Light continued its wave nature despite Einstein’s insistence it was a particle. If a particle, some of those “photons” had to be over a kilometer long! The silliness continued when oxymoronic “wave-particle duality” was invented. That assumed particles of light could myopically bring those waves along with them as they travelled from galaxy to eyeball. That is the nonsense aether denialists got by ignoring Sagnac, de Sitter, Miller, and Galaev.

Space-time Salvation

In General Relativity Theory Einstein turned time into an object as well. Now, time is motion and certainly not an object or a dimension as he proposed. Nonetheless, this seems to have made his perfectly empty space a little less vacuous, even if still imaginary. I have never read a decent definition of space-time. This is from Wikipedia:

In physics, spacetime, also called the space-time continuum, is a mathematical model that fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional continuum.

Note that regressive physics claims it to be a math model of a continuum, which is defined by Webster as “a coherent whole characterized as a collection, sequence, or progression of values or elements varying by minute degrees.” Wow! Does that help? How about this: my favorite is the space-matter continuum. That involves two imaginary endpoints: perfectly empty space and perfectly solid matter. Neither of those can possibly exist, but all things lie on the continuum between. Each portion of the Infinite Universe has both characteristics. Thus, our simplest atom—hydrogen—contains a tiny nucleus and an electron with the rest being about 99.9999999999996% “empty space.”

Here is Gemini AI:

"Key points regarding Einstein’s view on gravity:

Warped Spacetime: Massive objects (like stars and planets) distort the "fabric" of spacetime, and this curvature is perceived as gravity.

Geometry = Gravity: Einstein replaced Newton's gravitational force with a geometric theory, where gravity is an aspect of space-time's structure, often summarized as "matter tells space-time how to curve, and curved space-time tells matter how to move".

Not Just Space: Gravity also affects time, causing it to slow down closer to a massive object.

Evidence: The theory was confirmed by the bending of starlight around the sun and has been verified by numerous observations, including gravitational waves."

How Misinterpretation Sometimes Advances Science

The above is a pretty accurate rendition of the misinterpretations regressive physicists use to support the existence of space-time. The one that made Einstein instantly famous was Eddington’s 1919-observation that starlight was bent when it passed around the Sun. In searching for a physical reason instead of a mathematical reason for that effect I was impressed by Dr. Edward Dowdye’s explanation. He was a devout NASA physicist who presented the view implying it only involved the refraction within the plasma closest to the Sun. He repeated his conclusions at four different conferences I attended between 2009 and 2012. I don’t recall anyone challenging him—I had not yet discovered the aetherosphere. This figure sums up his analysis:

Dowdye’s (2012) misinterpretation of light bending around the Sun.[4] Note that he falsely claims there is no light bending at distances two to five times the radius of the Sun.

I used AI to check into it, finding this from Bruns[5], who clearly showed deflection far from the Sun:

That put the kybosh on Dowdye and supports my aetherosphere theory. Dowdye was an aether denier, which requires belief in the Tenth Assumption of Religion, disconnection (There may be perfectly empty space between any two objects).

Einstein Leans Toward Aether

Einstein must have had second thoughts about his rejection of aether. While General Relativity Theory was as mystical as Special Relativity Theory, his invention of space-time was something, not nothing. Unfortunately, it too was a kinetic theory—one that describes effects, but not the physical causes. This fit with Newton’s attraction theory of gravitation. By definition, attraction theories are myopic. That is, they imagine things that have inordinate control over their environments through what appear to be magical means.

Thus, when discussing GRT, regressive physicists often ignore Dowdye’s “empty vacuum space,”[6] but term it instead as the “fabric of spacetime” as seen in the Gemini definition above. Obviously, “fabric” gives space-time a thing-like character—a step toward physicality, if you will. While space-time does not really present a physical cause, it has been tested numerous times, showing physical effects similar to what Bruns did. What is seldom mentioned by regressive physicists and cosmogonists is the fact that Einstein recanted his early aether denial a mere year after Eddington anointed him the world’s greatest genius:

"Careful reflection teaches us that special relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume its existence but not ascribe a definite state of motion to it ...There is a weighty reason in favour of ether. To deny ether is to ultimately assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever.[7]"

Thereafter, he failed to mention his recantation. Regressive physicists and cosmogonists conveniently ignored it as well. Most likely on further “careful reflection” Einstein realized that aether denial was the essence of relativity. After all, perfectly empty space was the surreptitiously assumed beginning of what was to become the extremely popular “Last Creation Myth.”

In the next post I will present a summary of the evidence for aether and the aetherosphere that provides the physical causes for the success of so-called space-time.

PSI Blog 20260330

[1] He made an attempt to provide one, but mistakenly assumed distal increases in density for his hypothesized medium (Borchardt, 1917, Fig.43). In effect, that would have produced a relative vacuum around cosmic bodies in tune with his myopic attraction hypothesis. The correct physical mechanism involves high velocity distal aether particles that collide with ordinary matter, becoming decelerated in the process and tending to accumulate as an “aetherosphere” around said matter (Borchardt, Glenn, 2018, The physical cause of gravitation: Preprint http://vixra.org/abs/1806.0165 )

[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 337 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].

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

[4] Infinite Universe Theory, Fig. 35.

[5] Bruns, D.G., 2018, Gravitational starlight deflection measurements during the 21 August 2017 total solar eclipse: Classical and Quantum Gravity, v. 35, no. 7, p. 075009.

[6] Dowdye, E.H., Jr., 2010, Findings convincingly show no direct interaction between gravitation and electromagnetism in empty vacuum space, in Volk, Greg, Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the Natural Philosophy Alliance: Long Beach, California, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, v. 7, p. 131–136 http://go.glennborchardt.com/Dowdye10Findings

[7] Einstein, Albert, 1920, Ether and the theory of relativity, Address given on May 5th: University of Leyden https://gborc.com/AErecant

20260309

Getting Your Philosophical Ducks in a Row

PSI Blog 20260309 Getting Your Philosophical Ducks in a Row

Know your fundamental assumptions before philosophizing.

“Getting all your ducks in a row" means to prepare everything necessary to do something successfully. Photo credit: Dennis Flanagan/Facebook.

About 50 years ago I began to realize that the irrationality that led to the Big Bang Theory involved philosophy rather than science. It had little to do with the data that were being gathered, but with the absurd interpretations thereof. Most of philosophy was of little help—much of it was irrational too. My chance reading of R.G. Collingwood was a turning point. His “Essay on Metaphysics”^{^[1]} had a lot of irrational stuff, but he also had a clear exposition on presuppositions, which we all have unbeknownst to us. Once we recognize them and bring them into the light of day by speaking them or writing them down, they become fundamental assumptions.

Unlike the ordinary assumptions we use all the time in science and in everyday life, fundamental assumptions have special characteristics: 1. They cannot be completely proven or completely falsified. 2. They always have an opposite, which is false if the first is true. 3. If you have two or more fundamental assumptions, they must be consupponible, that is, you must be able to suppose both without contradiction. That allows you to form a “constellation,” analogous to a flock of “birds of a feather” like the ones in a row above. Also like those ducks, every part of a proper constellation heads in the same direction.

Understanding Philosophy

If you really want to become a “deep thinker”—one who understands what the Infinite Universe and one’s own existence is all about, you must understand philosophy. That is difficult for most folks because philosophy is a mess. That is because it involves a perpetual struggle between rationality and irrationality, determinism and indeterminism, reality and ideality, science and religion. What is presented in most philosophy courses is a hodge-podge overlooking the philosophical battlefield with its fallen soldiers amid their tomes and other weapons strewn all around. The carnage never stops; we are born into it, knowing little about the Infinite Universe, how it operates, and our place within. We only learn that by experiencing what the world offers. Opposing fundamental assumptions are subjects of endless debate because neither can be proven or disproven. Only by choosing the correct assumptions can we get a true picture of reality.

To understand philosophy, you must convert those unrecognized presuppositions into fundamental assumptions. You then must choose between those you consider rational and their opposites you consider irrational. You are lucky. I already did that for you:

This table just summarizes “The Ten Assumptions of Science,”^{^[2]} which underlie all the books and all the blog posts published by the . Note: you can download the free pdf or get a paperback or hardcover at Amazon.

If you are science-minded you will want to memorize the fundamental assumptions in the science column; if you are religious-minded you will want to memorize the fundamental assumptions in the religious column. Unfortunately, those attempting to reform relativity and the Big Bang Theory often presuppose from both sides of the philosophical struggle, risking illogic:

“Cherry Picking” from Both Sides

Some might accept materialism, which assumes the existence of matter, but accept disconnection, which assumes the existence of perfectly empty space. This is a common affliction of aether deniers who misinterpret the Michelson-Morley Experiment and ignore the Sagnac, DeSitter, and Galaev experiments.

Some commonly try to assume both causality and acausality at the same time, in the effort to preserve the illusion of free will. This is highly probable for those having been reared in a religious tradition even after they might have given that up.

Some, such as the promoters of Steady State Theory, crossed the rationality-irrationality boundary twice, assuming finity, infinity, and creation at the same time.

Still others assume the two opposites, finity and infinity, at the same time, as in multiverse and parallel universe theories. Still others claim the expanding universe of the Big Bang Theory does not require finity.

The Religious Logic of Regressive Physics and Cosmogony

One dubiously “admirable” property of regressive physics and cosmogony is their consistent logic. Both are founded on fundamental assumptions that are religious and therefore irrational. Here are a few examples:

To begin with, Einstein’s rejection of aether assumes disconnection, absolutism, and finity and therefore assumes space is perfectly empty.

Perfectly empty space (nonexistence) is consupponible with the assumed creation of the universe out of nothing. Our own existence proves nonexistence is impossible.

Consistent with the above is Einstein’s invention of the photon, which is massless, contains perfectly empty space, and travels perpetually through perfectly empty space.

Similarly, perfectly empty space is consupponible with creation, which is the generally undisclosed fundamental assumption upon which cosmogony is founded. It is why progressive physicists call the Big Bang Theory the “Last Creation Myth.”

The Doppler effect, once considered responsible for the cosmological redshift and the interpretation that most galaxies are receding from us, only occurs in a medium. Einstein’s aether denial above assumes a medium does not exist.

Dark energy, which is assumed responsible for the expansion of the universe, is a calculation that assumes matterless motion. Because no matter is associated with it, dark energy is based on separability.

Cosmogony’s imagined “Heat Death of the Universe” is based on the assumption of noncomplementarity. In the real, Infinite Universe, each thing is a result of convergence of constituents from elsewhere. These constituents eventually undergo divergence, forming the constituents of still other things.

The Big Bang Theory is plagued by many ordinary assumptions not mentioned above. I have listed 25 falsifications of the theory here. Basing cosmology on the fundamental religious assumptions above brought great popularity to Einstein and the Big Bang Theory.^{^[3]} Probably a hundred books have been written by religious folks who noted the similarities between those theories and their own beliefs. I suspect the “Last Creation Myth” will be around as long as religion remains popular. Normally, a single falsification can bring down a theory, but that obviously does not hold for one so tenaciously attached to religion. There no doubt have been many falsifications of the 4,000 extant religions, but they also survive.

Once you get “all your ducks in a row” on either side of the philosophical struggle you are ready to understand the universe without being bedeviled by the contradictions of relativity, cosmogony, and most philosophy.

PSI Blog 20260309

[1] Collingwood, R.G. 1940. An Essay on Metaphysics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

[2] 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].

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

20260216

Distance

PSI Blog 20260216 Distance

We are nothing without distance.

Photo by Roma Kaiuk🇺🇦 on Unsplash.

Thanks to Gary Tate for this question: “Would you mind expanding upon your ideas on Distance? Thank you. …distance would seem to round out and finish a discussion on space. I envision space as including an infinite number of lines of distance.

I have most of your books. 😊 Thank you for responding. I half expected you not to. 😊”

[GB: Welcome. Always enjoy reader's questions.

Without distance we would not have the motion of matter. Matter without motion is unthinkable per the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion) and the Tenth Assumption of Science, interconnection (All things are interconnected, that is, between any two objects exist other objects that transmit matter and motion).

Each portion of the Infinite Universe contains matter in motion within and without. All is in motion, and that could not occur if any distances were nonexistent (i.e., the imaginary "perfectly solid matter" of the idealist). Dense matter contains atoms containing up to 99% of what some would call “perfectly empty space,” which also is imaginary. Even without the surrounding electrons, neutrons are not "perfectly solid matter." Black holes are “grey” even though they are highly dense.

The distance between any two portions of the Infinite Universe always contains weaker matter that allows motion to occur. That stems from the Ninth Assumption of Science, relativism (All things have characteristics that make them similar to all other things as well as characteristics that make them dissimilar to all other things). In other words, no two portions of the Infinite Universe are identical. That also would mean that no two distances could be identical. Your imagined “infinite number of lines of distance” is not far off. None of those would be identical either—if you imagined them correctly.

One way to realize the transient behavior of those lines would be to study Brownian motion. That is what we observe when dust particles appear in a beam of sunlight. That is coincidentally a model for each portion of the Infinite Universe, with each thing undergoing inertial motion.

Of course, space really is filled with matter, with our imagined “lines of distance” being extremely short and temporary indeed. I speculate that the temporary distances between aetherons (the particles in aether) are similar to those between the nitrogen molecules in air. Sound travels through the atmosphere at 343 m/s, while the interparticle velocity of those nitrogen molecules averages about 50% greater: 515 m/s.

Thus, that interparticle velocity seems to control the ability of a medium to conduct wave motion. If that analogy holds, the interparticle velocity of aetherons in the aether medium also might be 50% greater than its ability to conduct light waves. That would mean aetheron interparticle motion could be 450,000,000 m/s! So, while we can imagine infinite lines of distance, reality involves infinite complications. Even if that speculation was not true, we must realize there are no perfectly straight lines in nature.

That is because there is an aetherosphere around every thing in the universe (i.e., the “Einsteinism” otherwise known as “space-time”). That forms as a result of aetheron deceleration when those particles collide with ordinary matter, producing the acceleration we call gravitation. Light waves traveling past an object encounter an aether medium with slightly reduced pressure. This causes light to slow down and be refracted, much like it does in water.

Of course, with everything in the Infinite Universe being in motion, all distances are strictly relative, just as all motion (time) is relative. That is why we need to establish standards for the measurement of distance and time. We also need to realize that all distances are continually varying. Per the Third Assumption of Science, uncertainty (It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is often possible to know more about anything). For instance the distance from one end to the other of a piece of metal varies with variations in temperature. That is just another proof that all things in the Infinite Universe are in motion.

The upshot is that distance has been, and always will be a requirement for existence. The imagined initial perfectly empty space required for the “Last Creation Myth” is erroneous. Our own existence is a falsification of the Fifth Assumption of Religion, creation (Matter and motion can be created out of nothing).]

PSI Blog 20260216

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.

20260126

Solution to the Muon Paradox

PSI Blog 20260126 Solution to the Muon Paradox

Do muons really travel 15 km through the atmosphere?

DVHM has left a new comment on the post "Time is Motion":

“Glenn, your perspective is very refreshing. I wonder if you would consider writing a post on muons? Specifically the claim that time dilation is proven by the detection of higher amounts of naturally-occurring muons at the earth's surface than should be detected according to muons' half-life in laboratories.”

[GB: Thanks for the compliment and for the interesting question. Here is some Gemini AI on the Muon Paradox:

“The Muon Paradox highlights how subatomic muons, created high in the atmosphere, reach Earth's surface despite their short lifespan, challenging classical physics but confirming Einstein's Special Relativity through time dilation (longer life for the muon) and length contraction (shorter atmosphere for the muon), showing both perspectives correctly explain why many survive to be detected.

This video explains the basics of the muon paradox and how it provides evidence for relativity:

YouTube · Dec 17, 2021

The "Paradox" Explained

1. The Setup:

Muons are created in the upper atmosphere by cosmic rays and travel towards Earth at near light speed (around 99% c).

2. Classical Expectation:

A muon's average lifespan is only about 2.2 microseconds (µs). At near light speed, they should only travel roughly 650 meters before decaying, meaning almost none should reach the ground from 10-15 km up.

3. The Observation:

Muon detectors on Earth's surface consistently detect far more muons than expected, proving they live long enough to make the journey.

The Relativistic Solutions

From Earth's Perspective (Time Dilation):

Earth observers see the muon's internal clock ticking slower due to its high speed. Its 2.2 µs lifespan effectively stretches (dilates) to a longer time (e.g., 15 µs), giving it enough time to travel the 10-15 km distance.

From the Muon's Perspective (Length Contraction):

The muon experiences time normally. From its viewpoint, the atmosphere is rushing towards it at high speed, causing the 10-15 km distance to contract (shorten) significantly (e.g., to just 2 km), making the short trip possible within its natural lifespan.

Both time dilation and length contraction are two sides of the same relativistic coin, resolving the apparent paradox and serving as strong experimental proof for Einstein's theory.”

[GB: False. Time is motion and motion cannot dilate. Length contraction is equally silly. While muon production occurs at the 15 km altitude, regressive physicists admit that it also occurs throughout the atmosphere. Gemini AI says:

“Muons are not created directly by the initial cosmic ray. Instead, they are the result of a two-step decay process that happens mid-flight:

Collision: A high-energy proton hits an atmospheric nucleus, creating pions and kaons.

Decay: These pions and kaons travel a short distance (meters to kilometers depending on energy) before decaying into muons and neutrinos. This decay happens continuously as the shower descends through the mid-atmosphere.”

In other words, plenty of muons are produced as protons and neutrons (erroneously called “cosmic rays”) from outer space collide with nitrogen and oxygen throughout the atmosphere. Those targets would increase in number as altitude decreases, making up for the decayed muons that were produced at the top of troposphere.

The false dilation and length contraction assumptions are a consequence of Einstein’s aether denial. By considering light to be a particle instead of a wave in a sea of aether particles, he falsely claimed that measurements of the velocity of light would be the same for all observers. In fact, the only way those calculations could result in c, was to use time dilation or length contraction. The correct frame actually was the aether medium itself. Likewise, the correct frame for sound is the medium through which it travels. Physicists don’t speak of time dilation or length contraction with respect to sound. They simply calculate the distance to the source while taking into account their own motion and that of the source.

About the Muons that arrive at the Earth’s Surface According to Gemini AI:

“Cosmic Ray Interactions: Most natural muons are created approximately 15 km above the Earth when primary cosmic rays (mostly high-energy protons) collide with atmospheric nuclei. However, these high-energy interactions continue throughout the atmosphere; secondary cosmic rays can collide with matter directly at the Earth's surface to produce new muons.

Secondary Showers: These surface-level interactions typically produce pions, which almost instantly decay into muons.”

“The flux of muons arriving at sea level from the atmosphere is approximately 1 muon per square centimeter per minute.”

Here is a misleading use of the Lorentz Correction Factor for illustrating time dilation and length contraction:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVzDP8SMhPo&t=122

Back to reality…

Remember, I showed the proper derivation of the Lorentz Correction Factor in “Infinite Universe Theory.”[1] That simply takes into account the extra distance to be expected when an object is moving away from you. That takes longer, but it is not “time dilation.”

A particle traveling at c (300,000 km/s) 15 km from point A to point B is going to take 0.00005 s (50 µs) regardless of what anyone says about it. Muons with a lifespan of 2.2 µs obviously will decay during the early part of the trip. You can imagine the particle thinks it is experiencing “time dilation,” but that will be to no avail. Those muons produced at the top of the troposphere will never reach Earth. Only the ones produced during the last 15.2 µs (ten half-lives) over the last distance of 4.56 km will be observed on Earth.

As shown above, muons are produced from top to bottom of Earth’s atmosphere. Like the other “proofs of relativity,” that little bit of evidence can be misinterpreted to fit the preconceived notions of regressive physicists. This is akin to other misinterpretations such as Eddington’s claim starlight bending was caused by “perfectly empty curved space-time” instead of refraction in the plasma rim of the Sun.[2]]

PSI Blog 20260126

[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 337 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook] p. 315.

[2] Ibid, p. 201.