The impossibility of infinite density

PSI Blog 20210719 The impossibility of infinite density


Another great question from Abhishek Chakravartty, winner of this week’s book prize:


“On page 262 of UCT[1], you wrote the following:


‘For every region of the universe, total-mass always approaches infinity. As a consequence of interconnection, within a fixed region of the universe, something must exist between every microcosm found in that region. This interconnection never stops. Because interconnection continues into infinity, total-mass increases with each iteration deeper into the hierarchy. Therefore, the calculations never end. Total-mass becomes ever-larger with the iterations, and it approaches infinity in the process.’


Then how is it possible for any person to have a finite mass? I am asking this question because the physical body of any person also occupies a fixed region of the universe.”


[GB: Good question. Unfortunately, I didn't agree with Steve on this, but no changing his mind and he was the first author. One could just as easily say the total mass of the universe was zero. Mass is the resistance to acceleration. The Infinite Universe cannot be accelerated because there is nothing outside it to do the accelerating. By that definition, the universe would have no mass.


Like much of mathematics, this subject is plagued by the Ninth Assumption of Religion, absolutism (Identities exist, that is, any two things may have identical characteristics). Absolutists typically are idealists who think perfectly solid matter and perfectly empty space exist. As astute readers know, these two concepts are the ideal endmembers of the matter-space continuum. Although they cannot possibly exist, they are useful for understanding the properties of real things. Similarly, no portion of the universe can have infinite mass. For instance, the so-called “black holes” certainly are very dense, but they are not, and cannot be infinitely dense (even Hawking agreed they were gray, not black). Similarly, electrons (and possibly aether particles) have a density of 1010 g/cm3 (Borchardt, 2017),[2] but they don’t have infinite density.


What absolutists forget is that the subdivision of portions of the universe always results in what we think of as two properties: solid matter and empty space. With the Tenth Assumption of Science, interconnection (All things are interconnected, that is, between any two objects exist other objects that transmit matter and motion), we always get both properties. The universe does not produce only perfectly solid matter or perfectly empty space. Again, whatever we get is always both “solid matter” and “empty space.”


Now to your question about your own mass…  Remember that we are all microcosms containing submicrocosms confined within a more or less definite boundary. All those constituents follow the solid matter-empty space continuum I described above. Like black holes, electrons, and aether particles, there is no possibility you or any other portion of the universe could contain only perfectly solid matter or perfectly empty space.]



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

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


Cause of the cosmological redshift

PSI Blog 20210712 Cause of the cosmological redshift


This week’s book prize goes once again to Abhishek Chakravartty for another good question:


“In PSI Blog 20210614, you have explained that when neither the medium in which the wave is travelling changes nor the pressure within the medium in which the wave is travelling increases, it is impossible for the velocity of the wave motion to increase although in such cases, it is still possible for the wavelength of the wave to increase due to other reasons. So in such cases, if the wavelength of the wave increases due to other reasons, does it mean that the frequency of the wave decreases? I am asking this question because velocity of wave motion is equal to wavelength multiplied by frequency.”


[GB: The wave velocity is a property of the medium and remains constant as long as the properties of the medium remain constant. The frequency is given at the source and remains constant. Thus, the change from water to air changes light velocity from 225Mm/s to 300Mm/s while the wavelength of light increases by 1/3. The frequency remains the same.


The Imperfect Wave


Once again, because the medium controls velocity and is constant and the source controls frequency and is constant, the only thing left to change is the wavelength: the reason for the cosmological redshift. The relationship you cite: velocity (cm/s) = frequency (cycles/s) X wavelength (cm) is a mathematical idealization that fails to consider entropic changes that must occur over time during wave reproduction. In other words, no two waves can be perfectly identical per the Ninth Assumption of Science, relativism (All things have characteristics that make them similar to all other things as well as characteristics that make them dissimilar to all other things). Here, we are treating a wave as a thing (a microcosm consisting of many particles).


A wave, then, is an agglomeration of submicrocosms colliding with each other in response to some impact that occurred within the medium they compose. To produce a second wave form exactly like the first, those submicrocosms must collide in exactly the same way as they did in the preceding wave. This is impossible, of course—there are no identities in the Infinite Universe. Thus, all waves are subject to “entropic changes” as mentioned above. Once formed by a disturbance at the source, the constituents of each wave are subject to divergence per the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It takes time for each of those interparticle collisions to occur. That lag appears as an increase in wavelength—a “redshift” if you will.


Unlike the usual “redshift” produced by the doppler effect, this “entropic redshift” is not a result of measurement due to source or observer motion. It is simply a function of distance. With light, the effect is miniscule and only can be observed after light has traveled cosmological distances. Remember that what is generally considered the “cosmological redshift” also includes the doppler effect due to the divergence and convergence of cosmological bodies. For nearby galaxies, such as Andromeda, the motion toward us easily overwhelms the entropic redshift, resulting in the well-known blueshift of Andromeda.


I am not too sure with regard to your last question about the possibility that an entropic redshift could result in a decrease in frequency. You are correct that the equation v=fλ (where v=velocity, f=frequency, λ=wavelength) normally describes the situation. Therefore, we would expect entropic redshifts to result in decreases in frequency. But frequency is produced at the source and normally remains unchanged. As an example, I could paddle my boat at one paddle per second. Once the wave produced by each paddle is underway, nothing will change that 1 cycle/s frequency. The waves will diminish and disappear, but they will never have an increase in frequency. Whether they could have a decrease in frequency is problematic. I suppose that an entropic increase in wavelength could be accompanied by an entropic decrease in frequency, thus satisfying the above equation.]







George Coyne’s “Notfinity Process” is published

PSI Blog 20210705 George Coyne’s “Notfinity Process” is published

By George Coyne:

The 2nd edition of Notfinity Process is subtitled Matter-In-Motion. It challenges orthodox models in cosmology, consciousness, relativity physics. and most interpretations of quantum mechanics. In presenting alternatives to the standard theories of how the Universe functions, it synthesizes rational ideas in theoretical physics. It has 59 pages on the brain and consciousness.


The abstraction of the notfinity process is an infinity of relationships, structures, and processes that persist while transient objects vary. In mathematics, infinite was first used in the 15th century to mean not finite. But now it is conceived too concretely as a representation of reality, rather than a negation of the finite. Therefore, Coyne suggests the word notfinity be used instead.


The book's univironmental, deterministic worldview has aspects of classical mechanics, systems philosophy, and David Bohm’s causal interpretation of quantum mechanics. It discusses invalid abstractions in physics, such as motion without matter, wave-particle duality, probability waves, cosmological expansion, Schrödinger's cat, and the idea that the Universe can't exist without observers. Relativity is shown to violate scientific assumptions, and to contain math errors.


Notfinity Process reveals absurdities in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, and problems with Relativity and the Big Bang Theory, which is falsified in 66 different ways. It asserts that quantum mechanics and relativity can't be unified due to their deep flaws. Glenn Borchardt's Infinite Universe Theory, Universal Cycle Theory, and Neomechanical Gravitational Theory co-written with Stephen Puetz are described. Included are Duncan Shaw’s aether papers on a new model for gravitation, his accounting for quantum entanglement, and his September 2020 paper On Maxwell’s 1865 theory of Aether: A Step Toward Unity.


Other topics are an explanation for the double-slit experiment, Maxwell's aether, energy, dark matter candidates, the cosmological principle, alternatives to the galactic redshift interpretation, Modern Mechanics Theory, and an aether gravity model. A chapter on the Bohm and Hiley approach explains causality and chance, pilot waves and the undivided universe. The book has several relevant letters sent to the author by physicists David Peat, and Basil Hiley who won the Majorana Prize Best Person in Physics. Both were friends of David Bohm and co-wrote books with him.


The chapter on the brain, mind, self, and consciousness offers an interesting perspective on being human. Coyne proposes that the fully functioning brain equates with consciousness. The hard problem of subjective experience is examined. Coyne contends that matter in motion generates perceptions, which the brain interprets based on the mind's neuronal patterns. The difference between awareness and consciousness, the cause of dualistic confusion, and a description of the Global Workplace Theory is discussed. Logical answers are given to questions on consciousness. Also covered is self-awareness, Antonio Damasio's model, negative implications from brain studies on free will, the evolutionary benefit of advanced mental processes, neuroscience discoveries, higher-order thought theory, and other topics.


George S. Coyne is a Canadian philosopher, science communicator, author, educator and counselor. He heads the Vancouver office of the Progressive Science Institute and is on the Board of Directors of John Chappell Natural Philosophy Society. He agrees with philosopher Nicholas Maxwell's position that science and philosophy need to be reunited into a modern version of natural philosophy. Duncan W. Shaw wrote about the author: “George Coyne is an original thinker who engages his readers with remarkable clarity and insight."

Coyne writes for Beyond Mainstream Science and contributes blogs to thecientificworldviewblogspot.com.

He will be interviewed by David de Hilster on problems with the Big Bang Theory on July 10, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. EST on his YouTube Dissident Science channel. His interview on consciousness with David de Hilster is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLPpeCyNkEU.


This edition of Notfinity Process with the subtitle Matter-In-Motion is available at https://www.amazon.com/s?k=Notfinity+Process&i=stripbooks-intl-ship&ref=nb_sb_noss_2







Cause of the motion of aether particles

PSI Blog 20210628 Cause of the motion of aether particles


This week’s book prize goes once again to Abhishek Chakravartty for another good question:


“You wrote that per the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the entropy of each wave would be less than the previous. Some of the motion of the particles would be lost to the environment which, in the case of light, must consist of progenitor aether-2 particles magnitudes smaller than the aether-1 particles directly responsible for light transmission. Can you explain how the motion of aether-1 particles consists of aether-2 particles?”


[GB: Abhi, in Infinite Universe Theory all things are assumed to consist of other things ad infinitum. For this assumption to work, scale is irrelevant. In “Universal Cycle Theory”[1] Steve and I speculated that, while baryonic (ordinary) matter is formed from aether particles, the hierarchical nature of the Infinite Universe requires even smaller microcosms to form the constituents of aether. Aether would be a benefactor of an infinite series. For that discussion we renamed “aether” as aether-1, with it having formed from aether-2, which had to be formed from aether-3, and so on… That is a corollary from the Tenth Assumption of Science, interconnection (All things are interconnected, that is, between any two objects exist other objects that transmit matter and motion). Note that aether-2, like all the other intervening microcosms, provides little resistance to the motion of larger microcosms in the infinite hierarchy, often giving “support” to the perfectly empty space assumption of Einstein’s Untired Light Theory and the Big Bang Theory.


Later,[2] I realized that aether particles probably were vortices because: 1) the formation of matter requires vortex motion, which develops when constituents vary in size per relativism (Figure), 2) vortices are common throughout the Infinite Universe at all scales, 3) vortex structure would result in the T-waves that dominate light motion.


“Hypothetical aether particles showing the effects of vortex morphology” (Borchardt, 2017, figure 49).


Not shown in the figure are the aether-2 particles, which like the aether-1 particles, cannot be seen by us baryonically formed microcosms. I imagine the aether-2 particles form from aether-3 particles in the same way baryonic matter forms from aether-1 particles. Each of these vortices accretes their constituents in the same way the solar system and the Milky Way does. Per the Sixth Assumption of Science, complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things) these eventually will dissipate like all other microcosms, to be replaced by new ones formed in similar ways. Note that no one has proposed a “structure” for Einstein’s imaginary photons aside from the wave-particle oxymoron. Photons are massless and thus can have no constituents. Remember that the impacts attributed to photons (e.g., the photoelectric effect) must be due to local aether particles in the same way local nitrogen molecules impact your ear drums.


The motions of the submicrocosms (constituents) within a microcosm serve to preserve its structure. For instance, without the impacts of the helium atoms on the insides of the balloon it could not exist as an inflated balloon.


In Infinite Universe Theory the motion of aether-1particles does not result from its containing aether-2 particles. The motion of a particular microcosm is primarily the result of impacts from other microcosms per “univironmental determinism” (what happens to a portion of the universe depends on the infinite matter within and without). For instance, the motion of a helium balloon depends on the macrocosm (environment) in which it exists. In the atmosphere, the pressure beneath it is greater than above it. The impacts from nitrogen molecules beneath it are more numerous and more active than those above it. Note there is no religious “first cause” because there is always yet another microcosm in the Infinite Universe to do the job. The opposing finity assumption is the religious foundation of the ever-popular Big Bang Theory, which is the last gasp of creationism.]

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

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


Waving light lattice: Another reformist fail

PSI Blog 20210621 Waving light lattice: Another reformist fail


This week’s book prize goes, once again, to George Coyne, our most prolific questioner:


“Hi Glenn,


What do you think of this explanation from Laszlo Petruska regarding the question "if light is a wave, what is waving? 


He answers: 'In the 1950’s QFT introduced another model. The fundamental electromagnetic field permeates space everywhere, not just between objects, but all the way down to the subatomic domains of matter. According to one interpretation, the fundamental electromagnetic field is the three-dimensional lattice structure of its quanta, the photons.

Electromagnetic energy/radiation propagates in this field as the up and down oscillation of the field values in a wave pattern as the photons of the field transfer the electromagnetic energy to one another in the direction of propagation.

As far as the wave-particle duality of light: the photons of the field act like particles, but the field values change like a wave. That’s it.’”


[GB: Thanks George. This is a good example of what I like to call a “reformist fail.” What are the criteria for such? Firstly, the theoretician must include some part of regressive physics or cosmogony that clearly violates at least one of “The Ten Assumptions of Science.” Secondly, it must be an honest attempt to resolve at least one of the numerous contradictions engendered by relativity. Here, Petruska is trying to resolve the wave-particle paradox by accepting Einstein’s ad hoc that light consists of photons. As I have mentioned many times, photons do not and cannot exist. According to relativity, photons are massless “particles” containing nothing and traveling perpetually through perfectly empty space containing nothing. In other words, they are purely imaginary.


In his answer to “what is waving,” Petruska cites the 3-D lattice structure idea, which has been around for some time. That is a typical reformist attempt to resolve the T-wave problem while rejecting the wave-particle paradox. Of course, waves only occur in media and T-waves (transverse waves, i.e., waves that move up and down and side to side instead of back and forth like L-waves) mostly occur in solids (and at the surface of the ocean). Light clearly occurs as a T-wave, with polarization being the evidence for that. Media having high degrees of freedom (limited or no connections between microcosms) normally have L-waves, while those media with inter-particle connections can have T-waves.


The particles in gases (such as the atmosphere) have much freedom and tend to be roundish, and so they exhibit L-waves; the particles in solids (such as steel) have restricted freedom, and so they exhibit T-waves. Now, aether, the medium for light, generally has been modeled after the atmosphere as a gas filled with round particles. So how could it have T-waves? Some reformists have suggested aether actually is a solid. That doesn’t make much sense because the vacuum supposedly containing the ubiquitous aether is transparent and offers little resistance to movement unlike any solid we know of. The proposed lattice structure is an attempt to give solidity to the light medium in support of the T-wave evidence. Others have tried that with aether particles taking the place of the photons in the figure. Why photons or aether particles would form a lattice like this is not explained. Petruska emphasizes the up and down movement typical of T-waves, but does not explain why his lattice also could not have back and forth movement typical of L-waves. Light has few L-waves, so that falsifies his lattice theory.


As readers know, my speculation resolves the T-wave problem by suggesting aether particles are tiny vortices.[1] Unlike photons, which supposedly travel from galaxy to eyeball, these are ubiquitous and constantly in motion similar to the nitrogen and oxygen molecules in air. But because of their odd shape, few of their interactions would be like those of ideal gases, which contain ideal spherical particles whose collisions produce longitudinal motion.]





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






Velocity of light versus wavelength

PSI Blog 20210614 Velocity of light versus wavelength


Abhishek Chakravartty just won this week’s book prize for asking:


“In the blog, you also wrote that while the velocity of wave motion through a medium does not change, the distance between the waves tends to increase over distance. How is this possible? I am asking this question because velocity is equal to distance divided by time. So, if distance increases, velocity must also increase?”


[GB: The statement “the velocity of wave motion through a medium does not change” is a generalization assuming an ideal medium having properties that do not change. However, the velocity of a wave changes when the medium changes. For instance, light in air travels at 300 million m/s, while it travels at 225 million m/s in water (75% as fast). Red light in air has a 650 nm wavelength but only 488 nm in water (75% as long). In “Universal Cycle Theory” and “Infinite Universe Theory” we used this relationship to explain the Pound/Rebka experiment without using the Einsteinian trope calling for nonsensical “time dilation” as salvation for Einstein’s assumed constancy of light velocity. We speculated that the redshift they observed for EM traveling away from Earth actually was due to slight increases in aetherial pressure that caused a speedup in light velocity. This speedup resulted in increases in wavelength similar to the increase that occurs when light travels from water into air.


Now, redshifts like the misnamed “gravitational redshift” mentioned above can occur in an ideal medium for other reasons as well. The well-known Doppler shift produces a redshift when the source is moving away. Cyclic beats of constant frequency contact the medium at different distances within the medium. These wave-producing contacts then become increasingly farther apart when the source speeds up.


My own speculation concerning the cause of the cosmological redshift is based on the impossibility of any two waves being exactly alike. Think about what must happen for a wave to reproduce itself. All media are made up of trillions of particles, with each of them colliding with other particles in response to a disturbance. Per the Ninth Assumption of Science, relativism (All things have characteristics that make them similar to all other things as well as characteristics that make them dissimilar to all other things) no two of those particles can be identical. Neither the precise direction nor the precise character of each particle and its collisions could be reproduced exactly within a second wave. Per the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the entropy of each wave would be less than the previous. Some of the motion of the particles would be lost to the environment which, in the case of light, must consist of progenitor aether-2 particles magnitudes smaller than the aether-1 particles directly responsible for light transmission.[1]


Abhi, the upshot is that the velocity of wave motion still is determined by the nature of the medium through which it travels. Again, wave velocity only increases when the medium changes, as in the change from water to air or low pressure proximal aether to high pressure distal aether. An increase in wavelength is then correlated with the increase in velocity. However, as mentioned, there are other means by which wavelength can increase, such as those due to the entropic energy (i.e., motion) losses that inevitably must occur over distance. When the medium does not change there is no way for the velocity of its wave motion to increase without some magical energy inputs which, of course, would be impossible.]

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


Decelerated aether as the cause of gravitation

PSI Blog 20210607 Decelerated aether as the cause of gravitation


Bill Howell just won this week’s book prize for this question:


“Thanks for responding to my question about GPS time adjustments being indicative of an aether gradient (blog 20210322).  I like your aether-based concept of gravity being a manifestation of the motion of matter, but I’m having difficulty visualizing a conceptual model based solely on aether pressure.  In response to George Coyne’s question (blog 20210329), you wrote that aether deceleration and the resulting distal [proximal (GB)] pressure decrease is the cause of gravitation (analogous to how a vacuum cleaner works).  In your 2018 paper: The Physical Cause of Gravitation you write that gravitation is caused by accelerations of baryonic matter by locally active aether particles exhibiting high velocity short-range motion.  My mind sees nuance and it confuses me.


My first confusion is that IF the aether pressure within our solar system is relatively homogeneous, isotropic, and ubiquitous, then it seems like the decelerated aether particles surrounding the Moon would result in its gravity being somewhat similar to Earth’s.  Since it’s not, it would seem that the quantity of baryonic matter mass available to interact with the aether particles (as your 2018 paper suggests) is also a component of the gravitational field that results.  If gravity is the result of a combination of both aether pressure and complexed aether-baryonic matter interactions, then it gives me a new perspective on Newton’s 2nd Law that F=MA.  But is that what you mean?”


[GB: Thanks again Bill. You got that right. Without those F=ma decelerations there would be no gravitation. Things would just float around in perfectly empty space. In particular, life on Earth would have been impossible, because our progenitors would not have even stuck to Earth. You also are correct in surmising that the amount of decelerated aether surrounding a body is a direct function of the mass of that body (and the distance from it), just as Newton’s equation implied.


This necessary connection was the star of my chapter in “Infinite Universe Theory” on the formation of baryonic matter from previously existing aetherial matter in the Infinite Universe:

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


Figure 47 essentially shows the early stage of the formation of aether complexes via the collisions of small aether particles with large ones. The resulting vortices are seen throughout the universe, from the smallest atom to the largest spiral galaxy. As far as I know, this speculation is the first tying matter formation, aether deceleration, and gravitation. I also speculate that the resulting entrained aether is the dark matter regressives are searching for but will never find until they give up aether denial.]


Bill: “My next confusion involves the Lagrange Points.  If the Earth’s aether halo extends beyond the Moon then I can understand the L1 and L2 points.  Similarly, I can understand how an extension of an aether halo around the Sun could explain the L3 point.  But I don’t understand the stable Lagrange Points at L4 and L5 given that they don’t lie near baryonic matter that can decelerate the aether pressure wind or interact with baryonic matter.  Can you help clear up my confusion?”


[GB: The size of aether halos due to entrained aether is essentially infinite, as suggested by Newton’s inverse R2 law for the effect of gravity on baryonic matter. As with all entrainment, think of the decelerated aether as being part of the body that was involved in the initial collisions. Our baryonic atmosphere is a good analogy. It is as if the rotating body was the center of a record, CD, or other platter. As an aside, remember that the outside edge of that CD travels great distances at much higher velocity than the center. That is why Vera Rubin was able to detect dark matter in rotating galaxies.[1] Neither Newton’s nor Einstein’s gravity theories could explain what was happening. Perfectly empty space just would not cut it. Also note that Rubin’s method requires rotation. It doesn’t work for elliptical galaxies—a fact sometimes misinterpreted by reformists as evidence falsifying the dark matter explanation of her data.


Now that you brought it up, let’s look at Lagrange Points L4 and L5:


Lagrange Points. Credit: NASA.


Note that L4 and L5 are always at the same distance from both the Sun and Earth as Earth revolves around the Sun. This usually is explained as a result of opposing centrifugal and centripetal “forces.” But even many regressives realize no such forces exist or occur. Those are simply the precise points at which the two aetherial halos overlap, with aetherial pressure (e.g., “gravitational potential”) being equal on both sides.]



[1] Rubin, Vera C., 2000, One Hundred Years of Rotating Galaxies: Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, v. 112, p. 747-750. [10.1086/316573].



Did time come first or did matter come first?

PSI Blog 20210531 Did time come first or did matter come first?


Anon got this week's book prize for this question:


“Glenn, did you know that: "Time is different from space and space is about relationships vs. time being about disconnected moments…”?:




Just more serious theoretical gaseous crepitations than there should be.”


[GB: Thanks Anon for the video interview with Lee Smolin, who is famous for his book (Smolin, Lee, 2006, The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next). One would think that skeptic Lee (the fellow with the full beard on the right) might come up with something sensible. But it ain’t here. Despite his doubts about regressive physics and cosmogony, he goes ahead and presents the tropes that define it.


For instance, read this from the abstract of the interview “Smolin discusses how developments in quantum mechanics have left physicists with questions that special relativity can’t seem to accommodate, and why the solution might be a conception of reality in which time is fundamental, and space emergent.” In other words, motion can occur without matter in violation of the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion). He does not know that time is the motion of matter and that space is matter, as implied by the Tenth Assumption of Science, interconnection (All things are interconnected, that is, between any two objects exist other objects that transmit matter and motion). Help yourself to the gibberish that still is considered oh so “intellectual.”


Here is a bit I wrote in "Religious Roots of Relativity":


“Relativity-Quantum Mechanics Paradox


As mentioned, a paradox always has at least one incorrect assumption. In this case, it is the religious assumption of finity as alluded to above. As we will see, Einstein’s belief in perfectly empty space required his unconsciously assuming all Ten Assumptions of Religion. Without empty space, his Untired Light Theory, based on his eight ad hocs[1], never would have resulted in Special or General Relativity Theory. The quantum mechanists assumed finity as well, but they resolved their problem with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle by inventing the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, which treats probability as a singular cause. By lumping the infinity of causal factors not discovered in any experiment, regressives kept their belief in the religious assumption of finity intact. By doing so they had no conflict with Einstein’s empty space hypothesis. Without aether, however, any wave motion discovered had to be attributed to the objects themselves. That is how the “particles are made up of waves” trope got started.


The upshot is that in the battle between relativity and quantum mechanics, only quantum mechanics can survive. Aether denial and empty space is critical for relativity, but only an embarrassing nuisance for quantum mechanics. Both the Copenhagen Interpretation and wave-particle duality finally will be discarded when finity is replaced by infinity. Quantum mechanics would be greatly improved with the application of univironmental determinism. As with all microcosms, the study of the infinite matter in motion in the environment is just as important as the infinite matter in motion within. That is not possible for relativity, with its massless-perfectly empty particle existing within a massless-perfectly empty environment. Einstein’s attempt to turn wave motion into particle motion is revealed to be completely vacuous.”]


[1] Table 3. Einstein’s eight ad hocs. (From "Religious Roots of Relativity")

1 Unlike other particles, Einstein’s light particle always traveled at the same velocity—it never slowed down.

2 Unlike other particles, it attained this velocity instantaneously when emitted from a source.

3 Unlike other particles, it would not take on the velocity of its source.

4 Unlike other particles, it was massless.

5 Unlike other particles, light particles did not lose motion when they collided with other light particles.

6 Unlike other particles, any measurement indicating light speed was not constant had to be attributed to “time dilation”—another especially egregious ad hoc.

7 Time had to be considered something other than motion, for motion cannot dilate.

8 The claim light speed was constant flew in the face of all other measurements showing there are no constants in nature because everything is always in motion. Because the universe is infinite, every measurement of every so-called “constant” always has a plus or minus. The velocities for wave motion in any medium are dependent on the properties of that medium, which vary from place to place.



Sixty-year paradigm shift in epidemiology exposes the aerosol screwup

PSI Blog 20210524 Sixty-year paradigm shift in epidemiology exposes the aerosol screwup


Sixty-year paradigm shift in epidemiology exposes the aerosol screwup


I know this is a bit off-topic, but not by much. Remember that right after George Floyd was murdered, I wrote PSI Blog 20200601 entitled:


Coronavirus Hates the Outdoors”


From a few news reports, it had seemed obvious to me that Covid-19 was spread mostly via bad breath, which is only a problem when ventilation is bad and a room is crowded. Subsequent political demonstrations and gatherings resulted in very few Covid cases, with less than 0.1% of the infections from outdoor activity. On the contrary, cases escalated when bars, restaurants, and churches prematurely opened to crowds eager to test the power of prayer and jubilation.


Unfortunately, epidemiologists in the USA at first recommended that we not wear masks and that air purifiers with HEPA filters were unneeded in crowded rooms. Then they finally recommended we wear masks of any type, which might be nice for preventing transmission of droplets, but not so nice for preventing reception. For that, you probably would need N95 masks, which were in short supply. They work best because, unlike surgical masks, they can screen out particles as small as 0.3 microns.


Below I have a link to a wonderful article that nicely tells the story of another nonsensical mainstream paradigm not unlike the Big Bang Theory I normally rant against. It is worth your time reading. It starts with a fellow named Wells who studied measles in the ‘40s, finding its transmission to be aerosolic. He was heavily criticized because the mainstream down-played aerosol transmission just as it did until recently when Linsey Marr and colleagues unearthed Wells’ seminal work. The cutoff was thought to be 5 microns, and those would drop out of the air quickly. That is where the 6-ft trope came from. That, of course, does no good if the air is filled with <5 micron-particles, which settle according to Stokes Law and tend to float around under Brownian motion for hours and hours.


Megan Morteni’s fascinating story is much like the one we are now faced with in our campaign to get rid of the Big Bang Theory. It is not quite as absurd as the explosion of the entire universe out of nothing, but it shows how stubborn otherwise supposedly intelligent folks can be in the face of clear evidence. Science is supposed to reverse its tune when incontrovertible evidence shows up—but don’t count on it. Happily, WHO and CDC, after 60+ years and 16+ months of Covid, has finally and quietly adopted the aerosolic theory. Bet you didn’t hear any grand announcements in the press. I also bet Einstein adoration will diminish similarly when relativity and the BBT fade away. Read now about the mighty, deadly crash of a paradigm that has now met its deserved end:


Screwup That Helped Covid Kill

All pandemic long, scientists brawled over how the virus spreads. Droplets! No, aerosols! At the heart of the fight was a teensy error with huge consequences.”


A staider article signed on by 39 authors, no less, in the mainstream journal Science put the coup de grâce on the no aerosol trope:


A paradigm shift to combat indoor respiratory infection

Building ventilation systems must get much better


Lastly, remember this from Healthline:


“Surgical masks do not provide the wearer with a reliable level of protection from inhaling smaller airborne particles. N95s filter out at least 95 percent of airborne particles.


Surgical masks leak around the edge of the mask when the user inhales. When properly worn, N95s have minimal leakage.”


In other words, all masks tend to protect others, but only N95s protect the wearer. KN95s are not yet approved by NIOSH. Their quality depends on the manufacturer. Unfortunately, some KN95s really should be labeled N70s.


Distinguishing between matter and the motion of matter

PSI Blog 20210517 Distinguishing between matter and the motion of matter


Abhishek Chakravartty has this question:


“In Figure 12 of IUT [“Infinite Universe Theory”], you have shown that ripple wavelength increases with distance. But if an object as a whole moves at a single velocity, it means that each and every point of that object is moving at that velocity. So, if an object as a whole moves at a single velocity, it's length cannot change. Besides, if the length of an object changes while the object is in motion, it would mean that the object as a whole is not moving at a single velocity. It would mean that different points of the object are moving at different velocities. So, if the wavelength of a ripple increases with distance, does it mean that the ripple as a whole is not moving at a single velocity, but different points of the ripple are moving at different velocities?”


[GB: Thanks, Abhi for this rather sophisticated question. It puts our discussion of the difference between matter and the motion of matter on the ground (or on the water in this case). While we assume matter and motion are inseparable per the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion), we must think of them as two different phenomena. For instance, time is the motion of all things (matter) in the Infinite Universe. Consciousness, like time, does not exist; it occurs. Sound and light do not exist; they occur. My way of deciding: If I can put it figuratively in my back pocket, it is matter; if I cannot, it is motion.


Similarly, waves do not exist; they occur. In this case, what does exist are the trillions of water molecules whose interactions constitute a particular temporary shape induced by an impact on that medium at the source. The characteristics of the medium control the velocity of the waves traveling through it. Thus, the velocity of light in air is about 300 million m/s, while it is 225 million m/s in water. Thus, while the velocity of wave motion through a medium does not change, the distance between the waves tends to increase over distance (e.g., the cosmological redshift). This delay in reconstituting wave shape is an entropic effect reflecting the fact that it is impossible for the Infinite Universe to produce perfection. A second wave shape is never exactly the same as the first.


Now to the change in the length of things and the relation to velocity… You correctly imply that the trailing edge of an object does not always travel at the same velocity as the leading edge. This is because all microcosms (XYZ portions of the universe) contain submicrocosms (other XYZ portions ad infinitum). Each submicrocosm is semi-independent from all the others. This effect happens during acceleration, as when a train is pushed from the rear, decreasing its total length as the individual cars collide with one another. An increase in length occurs when the engine pulls the train. The length does not change, however, when the train reaches a constant velocity. Subsequent changes in length depend on the macrocosm through which a microcosm is traveling. For instance, under inertial motion per Newton’s First Law of Motion, length will decrease as collisions occur with the supermicrocosms inevitable in space that is invariably not perfectly empty. That is why satellites lose velocity over time.]


You wrote:


“Besides, if the length of an object changes while the object is in motion, it would mean that the object as a whole is not moving at a single velocity. It would mean that different points of the object are moving at different velocities.”


[GB: Right, but that only occurs during acceleration or deceleration of objects, not waves. At relatively constant velocity each submicrocosm moves at a relative velocity similar to all the others. In other words, the front of a moving object has the same relative velocity as the rear.]


You then wrote:


“So, if the wavelength of a ripple increases with distance, does it mean that the ripple as a whole is not moving at a single velocity, but different points of the ripple are moving at different velocities?”


[GB: Remember that the various submicrocosms within the ripple simply move back and forth or side to side, always returning to the same spot. Thus, the short answer is NO. This is difficult for most folks to understand. It is only the motion that is transmitted from one place to another, not the matter. After all, that is why wave motion only occurs in a medium, which necessarily consists of numerous submicrocosms.


Now, what does this all have to do with Infinite Universe Theory? A lot! Light is wave motion and therefore requires a medium, which, like all media, must contain relatively stationary submicrocosms (particles) we call aether. In other words, light is motion, not matter. The matter that transmits light is not that different from the matter in water waves. You can get knocked down by a water wave and a light wave can produce the photoelectric effect. Evidence “confirming” Einstein’s photon theory invariably involves short-range motion of aether particles. The wave-particle theory of regressive physics is both an oxymoron and an einsteinism.]



Which came first, inflation or Big Bang?

PSI Blog 20210510 Which came first, inflation or Big Bang?


Question from George Coyne:


“Hi Glenn,


I found it shocking that those who believe in the Big Bang/inflation model do not agree on which came first, the Big Bang or inflation. I have read scientific articles that take completely different positions.  A question about this is posed at The Physics Stack exchange:




How can a model be taken seriously when there is no agreement on whether inflation came before or after the Big bang?”


[GB: George, as you know, the Big Bang Theory is taken very seriously by regressive physicists and cosmogonists. I normally don’t concern myself with such problems. It is their theory, not mine. I considered it nonsensical. Just think about how the explosion of everything out of nothing could have happened? Totally nuts.


Remember that the inflation idea also is totally nuts. It came about because the z values (redshifts) of distant galaxies eventually got so great that they implied galaxies were receding from us at greater than the speed of light! Of course, this was verboten by Einstein’s claim that nothing could travel faster than c. No cosmogonist or regressive physicist could contradict Einstein, so an ad hoc had to be prepared to save the BBT and relativity. “Inflation” was the answer, and the guys who promoted that (Guth and his pals)[1] are awaiting the Nobel prize to be bestowed by their fiduciary friends. The hesitancy by the Committee is a good sign—just like their reluctance to give such to Einstein for his bogus relativity theory.


Obviously, the choice between what came first, inflation or Big Bang is a non sequitur. I suppose it is no more idiotic than the perfectly empty space the whole thing is based on.[2]


That assumption led to Einstein’s ridiculous particle theory of light in which a massless photon containing nothing whatsoever travels perpetually through perfectly empty space containing nothing whatsoever, for which there is no evidence whatsoever. The resulting misinterpretation of the cosmological redshift is what led to the expanding universe theory. To come up with that, cosmogonists had to violate known laws of physics. Individual particles do not display doppler effects. That is a property only given to media, which, in this case, is the aether that regressives have dismissed out of hand since Michelson and Morley’s misguided experiment.[3] There are many mechanisms that can produce a red shift, which simply is the lengthening of waves as they travel through particulate media. Longer waves have less energy than shorter ones. Only the most naïve idealist could believe waves could travel the immense distances so far observed without losing energy. In other words, cosmogonists are expecting us to believe each wave will achieve perfection in producing the next. This perfection is supposed to show no diminishment for 13.8 billion light years. Wow, another ramification of Einstein’s Untired Light Theory!


The failure of the doppler effect explanation for recessional velocities greater than light c led to an even more ridiculous excuse for the cosmological redshift: the assumed expansion of perfectly empty space. You read that right. The magical “expansion” of space itself, containing nothing at all, is now the ad hoc used to explain “inflation.” The Big Bang Theory has been given yet another reprieve!]

[1] Guth, A.H., 1998, The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins, Basic Books, 384 p.

Guth, A.H., and Steinhardt, P.J., 1984, The inflationary universe: Scientific American, v. 250, no. 5, p. 116-128, 154.

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


[3] They failed to realize that aether was entrained, just like our atmosphere. There was no way they could have measured Earth’s 30 km/s velocity around the Sun at Cleveland’s low elevation. That would have been like measuring the velocity of the jet stream in your backyard at sea level.