Shocking News II: Infinite Universe Theory Confirmed by Galaxy Where Only Stars Were Predicted by NASA

PSI Blog 20221003 Shocking News II: Infinite Universe Theory Confirmed by Galaxy Where Only Stars Were Predicted by NASA


James Webb Space Telescope continues its destruction of the Big Bang Theory


Thanks to George Coyne for the heads-up on:


"The Record for the Farthest Galaxy just got Broken Again, now just 250 million years after the Big Bang"


This article was written by Laurence Tognetti shortly after the scientific paper was submitted to a pre-publication site. That paper by Donnan and others mentioning this galaxy is still under peer review. A free download with all the complicated details is at https://arxiv.org/pdf/2207.12356.pdf.


Long-time readers know we have been mentioning the “elderly galaxies” that undermine the Big Bang Theory since the first ones were discovered. The reach of the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has continued this trend begun by the Hubble Space Telescope in 2009. According to cosmogonists, the first cosmological objects should be no older than 13.8 billion years, their currently assumed age of the universe. As our telescopes look further and further into space, we should see younger and younger objects as shown in NASA’s illustration of the Big Bang prediction:

This outdated 2012 illustration shows no galaxies younger than 400 million years according to the now-falsified Big Bang Theory. Photo modified from: NASA.


The region predicted to contain only stars actually contains galaxies. Now, galaxies take a long time to form. Stars currently are forming throughout the universe. Further complexification  occurs when those stars are pushed together to form an agglomeration (galaxy) like the farthest one Donnan and others analyzed. Light from that agglomeration had a redshift of z=16.7, the greatest ever measured. Note that the James Webb Space Telescope theoretically could reach z>20, so even 200-million-year-old galactic ages might be in store.


Of course, there are ways to escape falsifications. Ad hocs involve special pleading, with the Big Bang Theory having plenty already. One or two more no doubt will be readily accepted by cosmogonists who, by definition, are creationists. I suppose they could say star formation was much faster than it was for our 4.60-billion-year-old Sun and that stars were “attracted” to each other faster than occurred in our own 13.61-billion-year-old Milky Way. All magic stuff, but no worse that accepting universal expansion and the explosion of the entire universe out of a singularity the size of this period: .

To read this on Medium.com go to:




Do Astrophysicists Really Believe That Fantastic Stuff About the Big Bang Theory?

PSI Blog 20220926 Do Astrophysicists Really Believe That Fantastic Stuff About the Big Bang Theory?

Cosmogonist Finally Doubting the Big Bang Theory? (Photo by Donald Teel on Unsplash).

A question from Joe Lennon:

“Do astrophysicists really have an agenda to poison the minds of others? I wonder if they know that they are full of crap, and are just trying to dumb down others, or are they truly ignorant of their misinformation. Do they just want a world filled with others as stupid as they are, or do they want a world full of dummies that they can manipulate?”

[GB: Joe:

I don’t think that miseducation, regressive physics, cosmogony, religion, and capitalism are conspiracies, as some folks seem to think. It just so happens, however, that all those activities benefit certain people to the detriment of other people. If you don’t believe that, just “follow the money” and receive your edification. Aside from a comfortable existence, “money” means prestige, famosity, and control over others and the environment.

I don’t know if the folks you mention have even a vague notion of whether their propaganda is false or not, although I would imagine some of the more cynical ones probably do. Some may have gradually recognized the contradictions, but their careers depend on conforming, not challenging regressive physics. Some of those become “reformists” after retiring, although that generally means futilely trying to adapt relativity to reality.

I don’t suppose the philosophically naïve Einstein did anything more than run the gamut with his religious assumptions, moving physics from the real toward the imaginary. Theoretical physics, like the rest of philosophy, was, and still is, not immune to the struggle between the real and the imaginary. Because dreams and imaginings dominate the consciousness of humanity, there has always been overwhelming support for the imaginary.

For example, the bending of starlight through the Sun’s atmosphere reported in 1919 could be interpreted in two ways: 1) the realistic way: via refraction or 2) the imaginary way: via Einstein’s imagined “curved space-time.” Other “proofs” of relativity always follow the same pattern. When the math doesn’t work out and the sanctity of c is threatened, bring up imagined “time dilation” or “length contraction” in your interpretation. More recently, the shock waves and light waves both traveling at c from colliding cosmic bodies are said to result from the compression and decompression of perfectly empty space. Of course, the necessary aether medium might be considered imaginary too, but at least that is assumed to be a real something, not an imaginary nothing.

While most folks accepting the imaginary stuff are not well educated, cosmologists and physicists like Prof. Richard Feynman tend to be genius types. Still, the real problem concerns beginning assumptions. If those are incorrect, the subsequent analyses will be incorrect, which is becoming ever more obvious with each new Webb photo. That is why I emphasize the correction involving not the top down, but the bottom up — the foundation for thought. Without holding steadfast to the Ten Assumptions of Science, no paradigm change is possible in theoretical physics and cosmology. This will be slow in coming, what with the Ten Assumptions of Religion being favored by most folks, including the physicists and politicians who dole out the research funds.]

To read this and its updates on Medium, click here.


On Medium.com you can read more than three essays monthly by joining for $5/month.

Half of your membership fee supports the endowment of the Progressive Science Foundation, which will continue advancing Infinite Universe Theory as the ultimate replacement of the Big Bang Theory. You’ll also get full access to every story on Medium. Just click here.

When on Medium, you can clap a lot of times to aid the foundation, follow me, and subscribe to get these weekly essays directly in your inbox. 


Another Great Video on Why the Webb Photos Show the Big Bang Theory is Wrong

PSI Blog 20220919 Another Great Video on Why the Webb Photos Show the Big Bang Theory is Wrong


Most cosmogonical propaganda on the meaning of the most distant photos obtained by the James Webb Space Telescope still favors the Big Bang Theory—this more scientific account doesn’t


Thanks to George Coyne and DelRay Burbach for the heads up on this video:




DelRay says: Amazing stuff! Your thoughts on this presentation? 


[GB: This is quite a professional presentation. It does a good, brief job of explaining how the Webb photos were obtained and some of the contradictions challenging the Big Bang Theory. About my only quibble is the narrator's common, but erroneous assumption the universe had a beginning. Looks like the demise of the Last Creation Theory will be a long time coming.]


To see this on Medium, click here:


Thank you so much for reading. On Medium.com, please follow me and clap at least a half dozen times (bottom left corner of this page). Each clap adds a tiny bit of cash to the Progressive Science Foundation:

Glenn Borchardt, Director, Progressive Science Institute

Read more than three essays monthly on Medium.com by joining for $5/month.

Half of your membership fee supports the endowment of the Progressive Science Foundation, which will continue advancing Infinite Universe Theory as the ultimate replacement of the Big Bang Theory. You’ll also get full access to every story on Medium. Just click here.





Why it is Impossible for the Universe to be Finite

PSI Blog 20220913 Why it is Impossible for the Universe to be Finite


While they are shocking for most cosmologists, the Webb photos of elderly galaxies existing over 13 billion light years distant are not the only indications the universe is not finite.


Here I list five reasons the universe cannot be finite.


First we need to get some definitions straight. Today’s cosmogonists imagine a finite, expanding 4-D universe of limited extent, while we assume the universe is 3-D with unlimited extent. In a previous essay on “Time is Motion,” I dispensed with Einstein’s objectification. If you still think time is the fourth dimension, you may wish to stop reading now.


This list cannot be completely comprehensive because the listing itself would be infinite. Nonetheless, the explanatory success of Infinite Universe Theory is demonstrated in this short list as it is in all my work in scientific philosophy. Be reminded it is impossible to know for sure whether the universe is finite or infinite. We can only assume one or the other. Here is the form of infinity that underlies The Ten Assumptions of Science, neomechanics, and Infinite Universe Theory:


The Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions).


Now, on to some of the reasons the universe cannot be finite—


1.    The formation of anything in the universe requires ingredients from the environment.


Everything in the infinite universe consists of ingredients derived from the environment (Photo by Thomas Le on Unsplash).

As I pointed out in "The Scientific Worldview," what happens to a portion of the universe depends equally on what is inside it and what is outside it. Thus, you cannot build a wooden house without the lumber to build it with. The relationship between the wooden house and the forest is undeniable. So it is with everything else. There is nothing in the universe that does not consist of ingredients. Similarly, when we imagine a finite universe, we are forced to either imagine it is surrounded by nothing or that it is a self-contained 4D ball. In either case this imagined universe has no environment to supply its ingredients. This is a major conundrum for cosmogonists, who have called upon the supernatural directly, or its modern-day, magical substitute, “Dark Energy,” to create their finite universe out of nothing.


2.    The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed.


Actually, “energy,” whether dark or otherwise, does not exist. “Energy,” like momentum and force, is a mere calculation describing the motion of matter. We use the calculation and the word to describe what happens when the motion of air molecules impacts turbine blades to produce the motion of turbines to produce the motion of electrons that supply our electricity. The First Law of Thermodynamics is more properly written like we do in our claim it is the Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed). If cosmologists actually assumed the First Law of Thermodynamics was correct, they would have to give up notions of the Fifth Assumption of Religion, creation (Matter and motion can be created out of nothing). If they properly assumed conservation, they also would have to give up notions of energy as matterless motion. They would realize energy was just a calculation. They wouldn’t be stupefied like the celebrated regressive physicist Richard Feynman who once admitted:

"It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. It is not that way."

Cosmogonists have not changed their minds since.


3.    The Second Law of Thermodynamics has a complement.


You may have heard about the “Heat Death of the Universe,” which is still being bandied about by certain cosmogonists. This is based on a misuse of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (SLT) by those who assume the universe is finite. The SLT correctly states that all isolated systems eventually undergo increases in entropy or disorder. In simpler terms, that means the ingredients (contents) within something eventually will diverge from that something. An isolated house eventually will fall down, with its various parts being scattered about. The same happens the minute we are born: we lose hair, teeth, stature, and what not as we age, with our constituents diverging into the environment.


But the SLT describes only half of what actually occurs in the Infinite Universe. Just look around you. For every system falling apart there seems to be another coming together. For every dying plant or animal another arises to take its place. In Infinite Universe Theory we generalize this observation as a complement to the SLT. It is the Sixth Assumption of Science, complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things). In the Infinite Universe every departure from an “isolated system” becomes an arrival for another.


4.    Newton’s gift to Einstein


The SLT and complementarity  fit precisely with Einstein’s famous reiteration that all things in the universe are in motion with respect to other things. Deep down, the SLT is really just a reiteration of what I call the “Law of the Universe,” Newton’s First Law of Motion. The formation of any “isolated system” amounts to a mere hesitation for bodies described by that law. It states that a body in motion stays in motion unless it collides with something. Unfortunately, Newton’s use of the word “unless” is a tipoff that he assumed finity. That was further indicated by his idealistic suggestion motion could occur perpetually through what he termed “absolute space.” I have made this a bit clearer by calling what I think he meant as “perfectly empty space.”


Now, although Newton’s First Law has otherwise been tremendously useful, there is no evidence for either perpetual motion or perfectly empty space anywhere in the universe. In light of my assumption of infinity, I modified the First Law, changing the speculative “unless” to the “until” suggested by the data. Of particular note is the fact Einstein followed closely in Newton’s footsteps, as did most physicists, assuming finity, as implied by the “unless.”


Newton actually led the way to the Big Bang Theory, claiming light was a particle. Einstein did too despite all the evidence for the wave nature of light and Sagnac’s experimental proof of the existence of the aether.[1] In his acclaimed “revolutionary” Special Relativity Theory denying the existence of aether Einstein imagined light to be a massless particle containing perfectly empty space traveling perpetually through perfectly empty space. Without this set of ad hoc assumptions, which I call his “Untired Light Theory,” the Big Bang Theory would have been dead in the water. Without it, the cosmological redshift would not have been interpreted as evidence for an expanding, finite universe.


5.    The absence of perfectly empty space proves nonexistence is impossible.


The Infinite Universe can do much, but it cannot produce perfectly empty space. That is because perfectly empty space is purely imaginary, as I explained fully in "Religious Roots of Relativity." In short, it is one end of the “perfectly empty space-perfectly solid matter continuum.” Both ends of that continuum are idealizations we use to describe the reality between. Again, those end-point idealizations cannot possibly exist. Thus, logically, if perfectly empty space (nothingness) cannot exist in the observed universe, we must assume it cannot exist in any portion of the universe we cannot observe. The upshot is that there is no point at which reality in the form of matter in motion ceases to exist, only to be replaced by imaginary perfectly empty space. The universe exists everywhere for all time. A finite universe is impossible. The data are compatible only with an Infinite Universe.

To read this on Medium click on:


[1] Sagnac, Georges, 1913a, The demonstration of the luminiferous aether by an interferometer in uniform rotation: Comptes Rendus, v. 157, p. 708–710. Sagnac, Georges, 1913b, On the proof of the reality of the luminiferous aether by the experiment with a rotating interferometer: Comptes Rendus, v. 157, p. 1410–1413.



Excellent Video Showing How the Webb Telescope Supports Infinite Universe Theory

PSI Blog 20220829 Excellent Video Showing How the Webb Telescope Supports Infinite Universe Theory

Thanks to George Coyne, author of “Notfinity Process,” for this heads up.

To see the video and remainder of this essay on Medium click on:


BTW: Read more than three essays monthly on Medium.com by joining for $5/month. Half of your membership fee supports the endowment of the Progressive Science Foundation, which will continue advancing Infinite Universe Theory as the ultimate replacement of the Big Bang Theory. You'll also get full access to every story on Medium.


Washington Post Recognizes Webb’s Challenge to the Big Bang Theory

PSI Blog 20220826 Washington Post Recognizes Webb’s Challenge to the Big Bang Theory  

Infinite Universe Theory Gets Its First Boost from The Mainstream


In 1971 Scott-Heron famously proclaimed “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.” Today, I am not so sure about that. When the establishment fires a shot across the bow of a paradigm as strong as the Big Bang Theory, we should take note. For the public, this is only the beginning of the end of the Last Creation Theory and its erroneous assumption the universe had a beginning. Cosmogonists, those who unthinkingly use that assumption, will be under continual attack until the absurd Big Bang Theory finally crumbles. Like the public recognition that the climate is warming, the story won’t go away. [GB: For the rest of this essay please click on: https://medium.com/@glennborchardt/washington-post-recognizes-webbs-challenge-to-the-big-bang-theory-80c407acc184?sk=920b83c1d6d811455d8bc91bc7b9d437 ]


Update of "Time is Motion"


Click on this to see the update of one of our most popular Blogs: "Time is Motion."You also can see it free on Medium by using this link: https://medium.com/@glennborchardt/1cb1d47a0e78?source=friends_link&sk=14b371d138b0e559b21efbfd90836c92


Borchardt & Coyne Interview on Webb Space Telescope Falsifying the Big Bang Theory

PSI Blog 20220815 Borchardt & Coyne Interview on Webb Space Telescope Falsifying the Big Bang Theory

In this YouTube interview George and I answer questions regarding the "elderly galaxies" seen in the recent James Webb Space Telescope photos:



Why scientific curiosity was destined to produce Infinite Universe Theory

 PSI Blog 20220808 Why scientific curiosity was destined to produce Infinite Universe Theory


I have begun updating some of the most popular PSI blogs in view of the evidence for Infinite Universe Theory produced by the James Webb Space Telescope. Check out the update of:




It also is on Medium. Here is the free link:




BTW: You might want to purchase an annual subscription to Medium.com. It is only $50 per year and gives you access to lots of great essays in addition to the ones we write. If you mention my name, half of that will be used for an endowment fund in support of the Progressive Science Institute.





Why the Big Bang Universe Can Never be Older than 13.8 Billion Years

PSI Blog 20220801 Why the Big Bang Universe Can Never be Older than 13.8 Billion Years


Before the Webb Space Telescope, astronomers estimated there was evidence for over two trillion galaxies in the observed universe. The recent Webb photo confirms that estimate, with its clarity showing ten times as many. It takes billions of years for a spiral galaxy to form. Our own Milky Way is thought to be 13.61 billion years old. One intensely studied “elderly galaxy” in the recent Webb photos has a cosmological redshift of z = 9.1. The record is z = 11.1, which corresponds to only 400 million years after the supposed Big Bang. It is not possible for a galaxy to form that fast. Even our tiny little Sun took 4.6 billion years to form.


As I have pointed out many times, these elderly galaxies provide evidence for Infinite Universe Theory, disproving the Big Bang Theory in the process. So, why do cosmogonists adhere to the 13.8-billion-year age of the universe in the face of so much data indicating it is much older?


It all comes down to the interpretation of cosmological redshifts. When Hubble first observed galactic redshifts, he was apparently enamored of the doppler effect, jumping to the premature conclusion all the redshifts of the galaxies he was seeing indicated they were traveling away from us. In consequence, his biggest mistake was his 1929 title: “A relation between distance and radial velocity among extra-galactic nebulae.” In 1931, the good Abbé Lemaître, a priest as well as a physicist, always ready to justify creationism and science, jumped right on it, writing a paper entitled: “A Homogeneous Universe of Constant Mass and Increasing Radius accounting for the Radial Velocity of Extra-galactic Nebulæ.” Hubble could never live that one down, ever since being blamed for the notion the universe was expanding. He objected many times to no avail. Lastly, in 1953 Hubble said: "When no recession factors are included, the law will represent approximately a linear relation between red-shifts and distance."


So that was the choice cosmologists had to make concerning cosmological redshifts:


1) galactic recession or

2) a distance effect.


Easily becoming cosmogonists (those who assume the universe had a beginning), they chose the doppler effect to wide acclaim from most folks (who were religious). Of course, that was not the end of it. Numerous contradictions always have plagued the Big Bang Theory. For instance, once the cosmological redshift exceeded z = 1.5, traditional doppler calculations implied distant galaxies were traveling away from us at greater than the speed of light. By then, however, cosmogonists and their cosmological brethren were too deep into the paradigm. Something drastic had to be done.


In following Einstein, cosmogonists assumed the universal speed limit to be the velocity of light, c. That something drastic was to assume empty space itself was expanding. Of course, that perfectly empty space also had to expand at velocities greater c. Never no mind about that, or about how the equally imaginary culprit, dark energy, could do that. One reason theoretical physics has been in crisis ever since 1905 is the failure to actually involve physics: the collision of one thing with another to produce an effect. Since neither perfectly empty space nor energy exists (energy is a calculation), that is a fundamental problem for the Big Bang Theory.


As you might surmise, none of that reality stuff is of particular importance for cosmogony. After all, if you can believe in perfectly empty space and Einstein’s Untired Light Theory, for which there is no real evidence, then you can go about your mathematical business. You can grasp at any bit of real evidence, interpreting it to suit your imagined theory.


Now to that question at hand:

Why can the Big Bang Universe Never be Older than 13.8 Billion Years?


In the analysis below, remember these unprovable fundamental assumptions must be used to adhere to the Big Bang Theory, although they are seldom acknowledged:


1.    The universe had a beginning and will have an ending.

2.    The universe is finite.

3.    The cosmological redshift is a measure of galactic recessional velocity.

4.    The universe is expanding.

5.    Gravitation is an attractive force.

6.    Einstein’s 4-dimensional space-time theory allows for curvature of the universe.


While none of these are correct in Infinite Universe Theory, we need to understand a bit about them to understand the 13.8-billion-year age.


Wikipedia on 20220728:


“If there is just enough matter in the universe for its gravitational force to bring the expansion associated with the big bang to a stop in an infinitely long time, the universe is said to be flat. The flat universe is the dividing line between an open universe and a closed universe.”


“An important parameter determining the future evolution of the universe theory is the density parameter, Omega (Ω), defined as the average matter density of the universe divided by a critical value of that density. This selects one of three possible geometries depending on whether Ω is equal to, less than, or greater than 1. These are called, respectively, the flat, open and closed universes.”


Cosmogonists don’t really know which of these models pertain, so I have included a link you can use to see the effect of changes in the cosmological redshift (z), the Hubble constant (Ho), and the Omega values. As mentioned, redshifts range up to 11.1. The Hubble constant is the subject of much debate, ranging between 73.8 and 69.6, with 70.2 producing the 13.8-billion-year age. As you can see in Figure 1, the whole thing is a mathematical mess. In other words, pick your poison and get whatever you wish:


Figure 1 Recessional velocity versus cosmological redshift according to Big Bang Theory (Credit: Prof Rob).


Here you can see the contradictions that arise when galactic velocity instead of distance is calculated from redshift values. Obviously, cosmogonists must have been shocked when so-called recessional velocities exceeded those of light, c. They assumed rightly, that nothing could exceed the velocity of light. Circumlocutions in their math ultimately resulted in the the cosmological redshifts having no effect on the so-called “age of the universe. Of course, the invention of the incongruous expansion of perfectly empty space allowed for greater recessional velocities and perhaps greater ages. Those have not been popular assumptions, and so we are stuck with the 13.8-billion-year age. Below I have a link to a calculator in which you can put in various estimates for cosmological parameters. You can change the z value all you want, but the recipe below will give you nothing but 13.8 billion years.


Ned Wright’s Calculator Demonstrating z Values Don’t Change the Age of the Big Bang


Here is an example you can do yourself. Put these values in the calculator:


Ho = 70.2

OmegaM = 0

z = 11.1

Omegavac = 0

Click on “Open”


Note the Omega values use General Relativity Theory’s 4-dimensional space-time to imagine the universe is curved positively or negatively. I don’t think GRT is valid, but you might wish to use them as explained in the link.


Here is an interesting graph showing the straight-line relationship between the assumed recessional velocity and distance, which was favored by the younger Hubble (Figure 2).  


Figure 2. Recessional velocity versus distance. Credit: Prof Brad Snowder.

Now, if one chooses the distance assumption (#2 above) instead, then one can replace “recessional velocity” with the cosmological redshift (z), which is generally assumed by cosmogonists to be a measure of galactic distance (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Cosmological redshift versus distance (modification of Figure 2 from Prof. Brad Snowder). Note that this figure is only for illustrative purposes. The z values actually are used with c to calculate velocity with a different equation.


Note that I have not been able to locate a graph plotting z versus distance like the one above. No one inside or outside the Big Bang paradigm seems to have done so, although the elder Hubble recanted his early recessional velocity interpretation implying it actually was a distance function. By the time I was born, he had rejected the expanding universe idea. Cosmogonists ignored Hubble, ironically naming the constant for the red shift/distance relation and the first space telescope  after him. In the meantime, we are stuck with the imagined 13.8-billion-year age of the universe. Although cosmogonists inevitably will have to increase that, don't expect the mea culpa and the demise of the last creationist theory any time soon.

To see this on Medium.com, click on this: https://medium.com/@glennborchardt/bbb48b4f5e19?source=friends_link&sk=e6f14036925ac37b2398a3d9b0d35e1b

Please sign up as a follower. Once we get 100 followers we get paid in support of our endowment for PSI.