What Questions Do You Have About Infinite Universe Theory?

PSI Blog 20210222 What Questions Do You Have About Infinite Universe Theory?


To all my readers:


It should be clear by now that we have beaten the horse called “Big Bang” to death many times over. We now await the excuses cosmogonists will dream up when the Webb telescope discovers galaxies older than their imagined 13.8-billion-year age of their finite universe. We should all get a kick out of that.


Now I would like to switch from the negative to the  positive like I did in the second half of “Infinite Universe Theory.” Like all theories, it needs continuous development. We need more predictions that can be tested. We need to resolve any paradoxes or contradictions that I am unaware of. This is where you come in. Many heads are better than one, so I would like to answer any questions you can think of. Makes no difference whether they are basic or advanced. Each week I will pick the best question and answer it on Monday.


Think of it this way: What if the universe really was infinite and eternal? How would that realization change your interpretations of natural phenomena? For that matter, how would it change your life? Here is one way: Prizes will be awarded for the best questions. Good luck!


Dark Energy is Physics’ Most Embarrassing Problem

PSI Blog 20210215 Dark Energy is Physics’ Most Embarrassing Problem


Here is nice article highlighting one of the greatest contradictions faced by cosmogonists. this is a paragraph from Nature summarizing the problem:


“A cosmological conundrum


Theoretical physicists are devising new solutions to a decades-long cosmic mismatch. Vacuum energy, caused by ‘virtual’ particles popping in and out of empty space, is thought to be behind the Universe’s ever-faster expansion. But quantum theory suggests a vacuum energy so massive that galaxies would never have formed. Theory’s inability to explain the vacuum energy’s oddly small measured value is known as the ‘cosmological constant problem’. Some theorists think this is a non-issue. Others are tweaking the fundamental theories and hypothesizing new ones (such as that space-time is made of foam). “It's generally regarded as one of the most awkward, embarrassing, difficult problems in theoretical physics today,” says physicist Antonio Padilla.”


Of course, readers know that energy, much less dark energy, does not exist—energy is a calculation. All energy calculations must involve matter and its motion (e.g., E=mc2). Without matter, there can be no energy calculation. Previously, this contradiction has not bothered cosmogonists who have assumed “dark energy” caused the Big Bang. Let me repeat a key element of the above quote: “Vacuum energy, caused by ‘virtual’ particles popping in and out of empty space, is thought to be behind the Universe’s ever-faster expansion.” This “popping in and out of empty space” is a clever, but nonetheless disingenuous attempt to juggle the “perfectly empty space” required by relativity[1] visa vie the matter required by physics otherwise not based on religious idealism. Also remember that the whole problem started when z values (cosmological redshifts[2]) of especially distant galaxies indicated that their assumed recessional velocities were greater than c. As Hubble suspected, and as Infinite Universe Theory assumes, distal z values are primarily measures of distance—energy loss as light waves travel through the aether due to the Tired Light Effect. They are not evidence that the universe is expanding. Here is the article referred to by Nature. Read it and weep:


The Cosmological Constant Is Physics’ Most Embarrassing Problem



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

[2] Note, z values include doppler effects, which must be subtracted or added to get the “cosmological” redshift due to the Tired Light Effect. Also, the claim by some cosmogonists that “perfectly empty space” or “space-time” itself is expanding is an embarrassing non sequitur.    


Finite Laws in an Infinite Universe

  PSI Blog 20210208 Finite Laws in an Infinite Universe


Thanks to my most dedicated reviewer  of Infinite Universe Theory, Abhishek Chakravartty, who did the math and concluded:


"So, when acceleration is not constant, Newton’s second law is not applicable."


Right. Each law of nature is applicable to an assumed finite number of conditions. In this case, F=ma of Newton's Second Law of Motion only applies to one collision. That single collision is what we call a "cause." In the Infinite Universe this never really applies completely (as with all laws in physics). Any colliding microcosm[1] must do so within a macrocosm[2] containing an infinity of supermicrocosms (the microcosms within the environment).


Newton’s First Law of Motion is similarly idealistic. The microcosm stays in motion only if space is perfectly empty (Newton’s agnostical “unless”). Because space is not empty, the law fails as it travels through the macrocosm filled with an infinity of supermicrocosms. Nonetheless, it has been called the "law of the universe." It is good enough for us to see how the universe works.


The beauty of Infinite Universe Theory is that a "first cause" is unnecessary, in tune with the Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed). With our assumed infinity, there is always yet another microcosm around to accelerate any sluggish microcosm. Thus, everything in the universe is always in motion. While each event requires collisions, the universe "itself" does not. That is yet another reason any finite universe theory, like the Big Bang, eventually will fail. It also is why the Big Bang Theory is presently so popular among religious folks who tend to believe in an imagined "first cause" and in Einstein's "perfectly empty space" (i.e., "nonexistence").[3] For that reason Infinite Universe Theory will receive only grudging acceptance. The switch from finity to infinity has global philosophical as well as cosmological implications. Once established, there will be no turning back. That is why we call it the “Last Cosmological Revolution.”



[1] MICROCOSM. An xyz portion of the universe surrounded by an equally important environment called a macrocosm. Note that in conventional science microcosms are referred to as systems, which generally are considered more important than the environments in which they exist. In Infinite Universe Theory, microcosms cannot exist without their equally important macrocosms. Regardless of the immensity of a microcosm, in an Infinite Universe an infinitely large macrocosm still surrounds it. The boundaries of a system sometimes are obvious: An apple, for instance, has a skin that roughly distinguishes it from its surroundings. At other times, the boundaries are not so obvious: A bee colony, for instance, has rather obscure boundaries when many of its members are far afield gathering nectar. Boundary selection is often difficult, always important, and frequently arbitrary. As scientists, we try to reduce arbitrariness by recording the location of boundaries with as much accuracy as possible. Our designation of a particular xyz portion of the universe as a microcosm faces the same problems, although in that instance, we treat its environment (the associated macrocosm) as equally important. Also, by attempting to treat the microcosm and the macrocosm equally, we are not as likely to miss important factors, as we would if we were biased toward one or the other (Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, p. 319 [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook]).


[2] MACROCOSM. The environment of a microcosm. Strictly speaking, the macrocosm contains the rest of the infinite universe. Practically speaking, only the nearby portions of the universe generally have much influence on a particular microcosm (Ibid, p. 317).


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


More Falsification of “Perfectly Empty Space” and the Big Bang Theory

PSI Blog 20210201 More Falsification of “Perfectly Empty Space” and the Big Bang Theory


Thanks be to Mike Dwyer who sent me this light-hearted heads up:


“Scientists have used the New Horizons spacecraft, billions of miles from Earth, to measure the darkness of space.

NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory/Southwest Research Institute”


Scientists Discover Outer Space Isn't Pitch-Black After All



Here is a nice summary quote from this article by Nell Greenfieldboyce of NPR:


“In fact, the amount of light coming from mysterious sources was about equal to all the light coming in from the known galaxies, says Marc Postman, an astronomer with the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore. So maybe there are unrecognized galaxies out there, he says, "or some other source of light that we don't yet know what it is."

The new findings are sure to get astronomers talking.

"They're saying that there's as much light outside of galaxies as there is inside of galaxies, which is a pretty tough pill to swallow, frankly," notes Michael Zemcov, an astrophysicist at Rochester Institute of Technology, who was not part of the research team.””


Duh? Another hard pill for the cosmogonists, but just another confirmation of Infinite Universe Theory. The evidence is two-fold:


1.    It implies there are over twice as many galaxies as the 2 trillion we can observe with the Hubble telescope. It is a prelude to the >13.8-Ga galaxies Infinite Universe Theory predicts we will see with the Webb telescope.

2.    There is no such thing as “perfectly empty space.”[1] The evidence for that is valid whether you believe correctly that light is a wave traveling through the aether medium or incorrectly that light is a particle traveling through what you imagine to be “perfectly empty space” in tune with Einstein.   


BTW: There is no mention in this article concerning what the cosmological redshift of this light might be. The fact that an infrared expert was quoted might be a hint. At present, the greatest z value is 11.09, which calculates to a supposed distance of 13.4 billion light years. Infinite Universe Theory would predict that the z values for this “mysterious” light are much greater than that. In addition, the z values probably would vary depending on the direction of the measurement, much like the microwave background:

"Figure 28 Cosmic microwave background radiation measured by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) showing the heterogeneous/homogeneous nature of intergalactic temperature. The red and yellow areas are greater than 2.7oK and the blue areas are less than 2.7oK, although the variation is tiny: +5 X 10-5 oK."[2]

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

[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, p. 173. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].


Dark Matter Clumps

 PSI Blog 20210125 Dark Matter Clumps


NASA spots smallest dark matter clumps




This is an interesting observation but, as usual, I am not sure these folks have the interpretation correct. According to Aether Deceleration Theory (ADT) all baryonic matter is surrounded by aether particles that become decelerated after colliding with that matter (producing gravitation). What you see in the above illustration is not the normal dark matter halo, but four relatively distinct areas that produce the refraction instead. I am not sure what produces the four areas. It surely has nothing to do with the “curving of space-time,” which is the misinterpretation Eddington used to “prove Einstein right” back in 1919. That actually was produced by the normal refraction that occurred when light entered the Sun’s atmosphere. This type of light bending occurs when you stick a pole into a body of water. It definitely is no proof that “perfectly empty space” becomes curved near massive bodies. There is no such empty space anywhere in the Infinite Universe, especially around cosmic bodies.


I imagine this particular clumping is determined partly by the shape of the foreground galaxy. Note that the four “starbursts,” each with four major diffraction spikes, are artifacts of vision. In this case, they are produced by the telescope. They also can be produced by eyelashes and eyelids. Obviously, they are proof that refraction is occurring. This reminds me of:


“Einstein Rings”


Here is Wikipedia parroting one of the typical einsteinisms[1]:


“Gravitational lensing is predicted by Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity. Instead of light from a source traveling in a straight line (in three dimensions), it is bent by the presence of a massive body, which distorts spacetime. An Einstein Ring is a special case of gravitational lensing, caused by the exact alignment of the source, lens, and observer. This results in symmetry around the lens, causing a ring-like structure.”


Again, this is a result of simple refraction—it has nothing to do with Einstein’s so-called “space-time.” All massive bodies are surrounded by a refracting atmosphere (or, at least, an aetherosphere[2]). Note that the successful use of space-time in relativity explanations generally serves as a proxy for aetherial effects. In a similar pattern, “photons” generally serve as a proxy for aether particles. Light is a wave in the aether medium, with the particles in that medium producing the collisions attributed to the photon. The hypothetical photon, of course, had to be massless in order to fit Einstein’s relativity theory. It that were true, its collisions with baryonic matter could produce no force (F=ma = 0 if m=0). The photoelectric effect would not occur and Einstein would not have gotten his only Nobel.

[1] “A statement or prediction that is true, but for the wrong reason.” (Borchardt, Glenn, 2020, Religious Roots of Relativity: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, p. 137 [https://go.glennborchardt.com/RRR-ebk].

[2] Ibid, pp. 38, 137.


Another regressive absurdity: “Fragments of energy”

PSI Blog 20210118 Another regressive absurdity: “Fragments of energy”


Readers know that, by definition, regressive physicists and cosmogonists do not know what energy is. In particular, they have trouble with their definitions. In progressive physics, we define matter as an XYZ portion of the universe containing other matter within and without. Energy is like other matter-motion terms. Energy neither exists, nor occurs. What exists is matter and what occurs is the motion of matter. Today’s absurdity is an excellent example of the misuse of our ever-useful matter-motion terms. Their use requires at least a smidgeon of scientific philosophy, although primitive philosophy is sufficient. All languages have nouns (describing portions of the universe) and verbs (describing what those portions do).


The cosmogonical mess below arrives to us via the most important generally unacknowledged assumption underlying cosmogony: that the universe had an origin. The “fundamental building block” idea, of course, also is based on the regressive assumption of finity (The universe is finite in the microscopic and macroscopic directions).


At least the “fragments of energy” idea is consupponible with the “Dark Energy” ad hoc used to save the Big Bang Theory. Cosmogonists, like better grounded scientists, had the sneaking suspicion that the explosion out of nothing or even out of the earlier “singularity” ad hoc would not cut it. There had to be some driving force (other than an imaginary god) to initiate that grandiosity. Because energy, whether considered light or dark, really does not exist, its “fragmentation” was bound to be the imagined solution to the microcosmic end of the finity assumption as well.


A prominent energy calculation is via Maxwell’s E=mc2. Obviously, if m=0, then E must also equal 0. There can be no energy without mass, just as there can be no particle without mass. But the Dark Energy of the cosmogonists hypothesizes no particle that could be the carrier of the force (F=ma) that could propel the universe into existence. Similarly, the magical objectification of energy conceived as being neither a particle nor a wave is simply mathematical nonsense at best. Energy calculations are absolutely essential in physics, but we must never forget that the calculation must always be of matter in motion and motion of matter. The article below shows how far off base regressive physics and cosmogony can get. With incorrect assumptions, the math is GIGO (Garbage In; Garbage Out). Read it and weep!


Fragments of energy – not waves or particles – may be the fundamental building blocks of the universe






October launch of James Webb Space Telescope set to falsify Big Bang Theory

PSI Blog 20210111 October launch of James Webb Space Telescope set to falsify Big Bang Theory


“The James Webb telescope. Its mirror and sunshield will be folded up during launch. Credit: NASA”


From a recent Nature Briefing:


Long-awaited telescope launch


October will see the long-awaited launch of the James Webb Space Telescope — which its developer, NASA, calls the “largest, most powerful and complex space telescope ever built”. The US$8.8-billion Webb will seek to repeat the success of the Hubble Telescope, which revolutionized astronomy when it launched in 1990 and has made more than 1.3 million observations since. Webb will cover more wavelengths than Hubble, enabling scientists to peer deeper into the Universe.”


This could be considered part of the space race initiated by the successful launch of Sputnik by the USSR in 1957. In 1958, President Eisenhower signed the National Aeronautics and Space Act, establishing NASA. James E. Webb was the head of NASA from 1961 to 1968. He favored the scientific and economic influence of the program as much as the political and military aspects. I don’t know what he thought of the idea the universe exploded out of nothing. He was neither a scientist nor an engineer, just the best manager President Kennedy was lucky enough to find.


As Bill mentioned last week, the Webb telescope is sure to find more evidence that the observable universe is older than the 13.8 billion years imagined by the cosmogonists. As in last week’s post, they will try to fit their observations into the current paradigm with still more ridiculous ad hocs. Don’t be too surprised if they end up suggesting whole galaxy clusters formed in only 6,000 years!




More evidence falsifying the Big Bang Theory—"The most distant galaxy is upending our model of the universe's history"

PSI Blog 20210104 More evidence falsifying the Big Bang Theory—"The most distant galaxy is upending our model of the universe's history"


Thanks to Bill Howell for this heads-up article by Karlis on another elderly galaxy falsifying the Big Bang Theory.


The most distant galaxy is upending our model of the universe's history

A new study confirms GN-z11 is the oldest and most distant galaxy humans have ever sighted



The galaxy GN-z11, which scientists think could be the farthest and oldest galaxy every observed, superimposed on an image from the COODS-North survey. (NASA, ESA, P. Oesch (Yale University), G. Brammer (STScI), P. van Dokkum (Yale University), and G. Illingworth (University of California, Santa Cruz))




Bill writes: “With the Webb coming online next year, it shouldn't be long before we start getting images of galaxies older than the Universe ;-).”


[GB: Here are some cosmogonical quotes:


“the light we see from it left 13.4 billion years ago — only 400 million years after the Big Bang.”


“"The detected light of carbon and oxygen suggests special physical conditions not found in present-day galaxies," Kashikawa told Salon. "The age of GN-z11 is estimated to be only 70 million years and the estimated mass of a billion times that of the Sun (the stellar component)  suggests that this young galaxy was born and grew rapidly."


Kashikawa added: "The fact that carbon and oxygen were found in GN-z11 indicates that this galaxy is not the first (metal-free) galaxy in the universe." Since elements heavier than hydrogen and helium are only forged in massive stars, the presence of heavier elements like carbon indicate that the stars in the galaxy are at least second-generation, meaning one generation of large suns has already lived and died, expelling their metals into the galaxy.


This means, said, that the first galaxies in the universe are still "in a more distant universe unknown to mankind."”


Wow! A whole galaxy only 70 million years old! Not only that, but it contains elements that had to be recycled from still earlier stars. There is no way this galaxy containing a billion stars could possibly be that young. It is obvious that Kashikawa’s “distant unknown universe” is simply evidence for a portion of the Infinite Universe much like what we observe nearby. The absurd 70-million-year date is an ad hoc made up to avoid conflict with the equally ridiculous Big Bang Theory.

NASA’s official view of what the Big Bang universe should look like (seriously).[1] Credit: NASA.

[1] http://go.glennborchardt.com/NASABBT 

As seen in the figure above, cosmological bodies at increasing distances are supposed to be younger and younger. There is no evidence for that. Kashikawa has found evidence for just the opposite. His oldest, recycled galaxy at the limit of present observation is confirmation of Infinite Universe Theory and a disproof of both the Big Bang Theory and the Multiverse Theory. Too bad he doesn’t even realize that.]



Rick Dutkiewicz Take on Paradigm Patching: Religion and Big Bang Theory

PSI Blog 20201228 Rick Dutkiewicz's Take on Paradigm Patching: Religion and Big Bang Theory



Guest Blog by Rock and Roll Star


Rick Dutkiewicz




Just to belabor the obvious;


The constant ad-hoc patching of the Big Bang Theory is reminiscent of the methods used over centuries by the churches. As their explanations of the way things work become more and more untenable, they need to come up with more lame-brained explanations for the pew-potatoes.


To explain away the creation story’s unscientific narrative:

“Each of the 6 days of God’s creation represented billions of years. After all, we all know that God is beyond time. Yeah, that’s the ticket”.


To explain away the acceptance of slavery:

“The Old Testament guidelines for slavery were not to advocate or allow slavery, but to temper the suffering caused by universal slavery at that time. After all, God couldn’t ask his chosen people to change their cultural traditions like slavery and female subjugation. God is willing to work with people where they are, not where they ought to be. He works within messy human cultures to move them towards redemption. Yeah, that’s the ticket”.


To explain away the slaughtering of entire cities by the chosen people (of a Loving God):

"God’s command for Israel to drive out the Canaanites was not race-based, but behavior-based, as the Canaanites engaged in acts that would be considered criminal in civilized societies. The Old Testament’s mention of many Canaanite survivors shows that its “total-kill” language is simply Ancient Near Eastern exaggeration or hyperbole. So, we were forced to kill every living thing in the city, it’s the victims' fault. That’s the ticket.”


You can find websites full of these apologetic patchwork quilts. Never mind that if you can call one part of the Bible story “hyperbole” or “exaggeration” to work around bad science or immorality, you’ve opened the door to calling the entire Bible “hyperbole” and “exaggeration”.


It’s one thing that religious folks fall for this crap without realizing the implications to their entire mythos, but how can “objective” and “peer-reviewed” scientists engage in the same type of apologetics as our religious friends?


The answer to that last question is discussed in this great new book: 

“Religious Roots of Relativity” by Glenn Borchardt.


Thanks for your work.

Rick Doogie

Allegan, Michigan

[GB: Thanks so much Rick. That reminds me of an old saying I just found on the Web: "Religion is blasphemy of science."]



Borchardt Interview on “Infinite Universe Theory” Now Online

PSI Blog 20201221 Borchardt Interview on “Infinite Universe Theory” Now Online


Here is Saturday’s 2-hour interview on Infinite Universe Theory:


 BTW: I am introduced at about 20 min.




Borchardt Interview on Infinite Universe Theory

PSI Blog 20201218 Borchardt Interview on Infinite Universe Theory




This Saturday, Dec. 19: Infinite Universe Theory


With Dr. Glenn Borchardt

About the presentation: 

Infinite Universe Theory presents the ultimate alternative to the Big Bang Theory and the common assumption that the universe had an origin. Author Glenn Borchardt starts with photos of the "elderly" galaxies at the observational edge of the universe. These contradict the current belief that the universe should have increasingly younger objects as we view greater distances. He restates the fundamental assumptions that must underlie the new paradigm. Notably, by assuming infinity he is able to adapt classical mechanics to "neomechanics" and its insistence that phenomena are strictly the result of matter in motion. He shows in detail how misinterpretations of relativity have aided current flights of fancy more in tune with religion than science. Borchardt demonstrates why only Infinite Universe Theory can provide answers to questions untouched by currently regressive physics and cosmogony. His new modification of gravitation theory gets us closer to its physical cause without calling upon attraction or curved spacetime or "immaterial fields.

You can interact live with Dr. Borchardt via chat or video. Hope to see you there!

How to Join In

All you need is a desktop, smartphone or tablet and the following URLs to participate.


·  http://youtube.naturalphilosophy.org

·  http://facebook.naturalphilosophy.org


·  http://live.naturalphilosophy.org Borchardt Interview on Infinite Universe Theory

REMEMBER: You don't need to download any software




Cosmogonical Laugher—Imagined Aliens Might be able to Stop Imagined Expansion of the Universe

PSI Blog 20201214 Cosmogonical Laugher—Imagined Aliens Might be able to Stop Imagined Expansion of the Universe


Cheer up! Here is some cosmic comedy from MIT’s cellar. I can’t even imagine how anyone could get tax money to work on this latest absurdity:


“An Advanced Civilization Could Resist the Accelerating Expansion of the Universe


And Earth-bound astronomers should be able to tell if someone is out there doing it, a physicist says”




The author comes up with a list of worries, including Covid, depression, and climate that might be of concern and writes:


“But one threat that is near the bottom of the list is the accelerating expansion of the universe. Indeed, it hasn’t been considered a clear threat at all until now.


Today that changes, at least a little, thanks to the work of Dan Hooper, a particle physicist at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Illinois… a new twist to the tale. His idea is [from old-time regressive Freeman Dyson] that an advanced civilization could build a sphere [around the Sun] that emits waste radiation in a specific direction. This radiation would accelerate the sphere — and the star it contains — in the opposite direction.


Over time, an advanced civilization could use this technique to gather stars as a source of energy and thereby keep them inside the cosmic horizon as the universe expands.”


So much for your cosmogonical sci-fi lesson for the day…



Big Bang Theory Fail—Imagined Universe Expanding Too Fast

PSI Blog 20201207 Big Bang Theory Fail—Imagined Universe Expanding Too Fast


“The universe is expanding too fast, and that could rewrite cosmology

Different measurements of the Hubble constant, the rate of space-time expansion, refuse to agree – meaning we may have to look beyond Einstein’s theories to explain the universe”

Are we missing something about how galaxies and galaxy clusters shape the universe?"  NASA, ESA/Hubble, HST Frontier Fields


It is really too bad to have to see cosmogonists suffer so much. When cosmological redshifts at great distances indicated their imagined galactic recession was greater than the velocity of light, they had to claim that perfectly empty space was expanding. This resulted in Guth’s Inflationary Universe Theory, with its expansion rates fast enough to make your head spin at greater than the speed of light.


Now, the naïve cosmogonists have been working on solving the Hubble constant contradiction for a long time without success. Bet you won’t see any of the employed regressives going “beyond Einstein’s theories” any time soon.



Here are some juicy quotes from Stuart Clark’s recent article in New Scientist illustrating the regressive nonsense:


“AT FIRST, it was a whisper. Now it has become a shout: there is something seriously wrong with our understanding of the cosmos. When we measure the rate at which the universe is expanding, we get different results depending on whether we extrapolate from the early universe or look at exploding stars in nearby galaxies. The discrepancy means that everything is speeding apart more quickly than we expect.”


“Cosmologists have been scrabbling for answers. They have played around with the properties of dark energy and dark matter, those two well-known, yet still mysterious, components of our standard model of cosmology. They have imagined all manner of new exotic ingredients – all to no avail.”


Note that dark energy is indeed mysterious, since it cannot possibly exist. Readers know that “energy” is neither a thing, nor an occurrence—it is a calculation. Cosmogonists: Better luck next time in imagining a proxy creator that propels your imagined explosion of your imagined finite universe out of nothing.


“The conclusion could hardly be starker. Our best model of the cosmos, a seemingly serenely sailing ship, might be holed beneath the water line. That has led some researchers to suggest taking the ultimate step: abandoning that ship and building a new standard model from the ground up, based on a revised understanding of gravity.”


Duh? Think so?


They did get one thing right:


“By this time, astronomers who observed the rotations of galaxies and clusters of galaxies had also noted that they are whirling around far faster than they should be for the amount of visible matter they contain. The astronomers' solution was to update the model yet again, incorporating a new, invisible dark matter that far outweighs the normal stuff we see.”


Could it be this dark matter is simply the decelerated aether responsible for the acceleration we observe as gravitation per Aether Deceleration Theory?


According to Cosmogonists Space Needs to Be Continuous, Not Discrete

PSI Blog 20201130 According to Cosmogonists Space Needs to Be Continuous, Not Discrete


That is according to Alan Siegel, author of a disturbing website aptly entitled “Starts with a Bang.” He subtitles his piece with:


“We might live in a quantum Universe, but we’ll violate the principle of relativity if space is discrete.”




This quote is revealing—sort of like an unconscious admission of guilt. As shown in my recent book “Religious Roots of Relativity,” Einstein’s erroneous assumption that space is perfectly empty is the religious foundation of relativity. All creation theories, including the Big Bang Theory, start with that assumption. Religious folks, including Einstein and his regressive followers, cannot imagine the universe always existed and that there never was, nor ever will be, perfectly empty space. Einstein needed that idealistic ad hoc to assume light particles underwent perpetual motion. Otherwise, they would lose velocity over distance as they collided with other particles in the environment. Without that assumption, the cosmological redshift would have to be considered a simple tired light effect: what happens to everything and every motion traveling from one place to another in the universe. Today’s regressive physicists, of course, must hold fast to Einstein’s ridiculous Untired Light Theory despite their otherwise familiarity with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That law is what leads to the forthright rejection of claims of perpetual motion that might reach the patent office. The younger Einstein would have thrown out his own claim when he worked at the office in Bern.


Siegel says:

“Going to smaller and smaller distance scales reveals more fundamental views of nature, which means if we can understand and describe the smallest scales, we can build our way to an understanding of the largest ones. We do not know whether there is a lower limit to how small ‘chunks of space’ can be.”


Per infinity, we assume the universe to be infinitely subdividable—there is no limit to how small those “chunks of space” can be. There is no undividable fundamental particle. There can be no “continuous space,” which, by the way, is required for Einstein’s equally ridiculous immaterial field theory. All this is why quantum mechanics and relativity can never be reconciled. The bits of matter recognized by quantum mechanics destroy the perfectly empty space imagined by cosmogonists and regressives alike.





Borchardt Interview on “Big Bang or Big Bust” Now Online


PSI Blog 20201123 Borchardt Interview on “Big Bang or Big Bust” Now Online


Here is Saturday’s 2-hour interview on what is wrong with the Big Bang Theory: