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. 


Living after dying in the Infinite Universe?

PSI Blog 20210503 Living after dying in the Infinite Universe?


Roger asks:


“Could I develop an argument in my memoir that the theory of infinity means that we live forever? It requires no god, only that our particles exist. As Sagan said, we are all star dust and we return to stardust.”


[GB: Microcosms come into being through convergence and go out of being through divergence.  Consciousness is the motion within the brain. You can have a brain without a mind, but you can't have a mind without a brain. There is no living after dying. Everything afterwards will be the same as before you were born. Last I checked, particles didn't have minds, and even they don't last forever. They break down into smaller particles, and like the carbon of the dinosaurs, sometimes combine in new life forms. The only "thing" that lasts forever is the infinite universe, with its various parts occasionally producing and destroying the consciousness that allows parts of it to be aware of some of the other parts. Sagan’s metaphor is poetic but, like all metaphors, not exactly accurate.] 


Muon desperation

 PSI Blog 20210426 Muon desperation


Thanks to Marilyn, Mike, and others who wondered about this latest ground-breaking news on the muon, which is just an extra heavy electron:


Here is the most reasonable explanation:




And another:




And a skeptic:




Why be a skeptic? [GB: Because no theory can be “complete” in an Infinite Universe. There may be some hope for regressive physicists yet]:


“Since it was first put together in the 1970s, the standard model has passed all tests and has survived almost unchanged. But physicists are convinced that it must be incomplete, and some hope that muons will reveal its first failure.”





Assumptions and “Confirmations” of Relativity

PSI Blog 20210419 Assumptions and “Confirmations” of Relativity


Thanks to Boris, who recently left these related questions on the comment section of our “Time is Motion” Blog post:


“And this brings me to my question. You write in your paper that ‘If there is any consistency in SRT and GRT, it is the objectification of motion, Einstein’s most important philosophical error’. Essentially that the problem of Einstein’s theories is that they are theoretical models without any basis in empirical evidence. I think you write something akin to this even more clearly elsewhere but I can't find it right now.


Wouldn't the solution to this be to simply find (if possible) or construct one or several mathematical models that is an alternative that can then be used to aid the same applications or tested through the same experiments that is based on empirical science and that can be tied to natural phenomena that we can observe?


Indeed, this is what I regret almost every week if not sometimes every day of my life, that I didn't become a physicist to disprove Einstein.


But I know that I'm not exceptionally smart compared to some people, so why has no one else broken through the academic shroud yet?”


[GB: As I have mentioned previously, de Climont[1] lists 10,000 dissidents born since 1905 with a presence on the Internet. He remarks that there are over 2,500 theories opposed to relativity and the Big Bang Theory. Most of these reformists use mathematics in proposing alternatives, as you suggest, but to no avail. So, there must be something else going on. Otherwise, we would have to accept the absurdities forever (perfectly empty space, the explosion of the universe out of nothing, time dilation, 4 dimensions, etc.). In my latest book, "Religious Roots of Relativity," I unveil the culprit, and it is a hard nut to crack. Most folks are religious or have had religious backgrounds in which they still unknowingly accept many fundamental religious assumptions that underlie their attempts at a mathematical panacea. The result is GIGO (Garbage In; Garbage Out). That is why we have to scrutinize the foundations of our thinking. That is why "The Ten Assumptions of Science" have made such a great contribution.


Remember that the so-called “confirmations” of relativity require interpretations based on thinly veiled religious assumptions. For instance, in religions, the Creation idea starts with perfectly empty space, which was incidentally an ad hoc required for Einstein’s massless photon to travel perpetually through massless space. This is accepted today by regressive physicists and cosmogonists despite there being no evidence of perfectly empty space.


The bending of light as it passes the Sun was considered by Eddington as proof of Einstein’s “curved space-time” theory. The correct interpretation is that light is bent by simple refraction in the Sun’s atmosphere. Such paralogistical mistakes are rampant in today’s religiously tinted regressive physics. There are no “confirmations” of relativity that pass scrutiny of the assumptions underlying such interpretations. The whole of relativity theory must be discarded along with the religious assumptions on which its popularity is based. Good luck with that!]



[1]de Climont, Jean, 2021, The Worldwide List of Alternative Theories and Critics, Editions d' Assailly, 2510 p. [https://go.glennborchardt.com/Climont-21].



Paralogists and Immaterialism

PSI Blog 20210412 Paralogists and Immaterialism


Here is a question from someone who understandably wishes to remain anonymous due to religious persecution:


“Hi, Glenn.  I just purchased your latest book, Religious Roots of Relativity.   I’ve been confused about the concept of Immateriality and religious beliefs for some time.  Every religious person whom I’ve ever spoken with has conveyed that they think the earth will still exist after they are dead.  They think that they have a soul that is going to be hanging-out in an invisible realm somewhere in the Ether (“another dimension”).  However, the concept of Immateriality suggests that everything for a person ceases to exist after they cease to exist, as if reality itself were just a dream that has come to an end.  What am I not understanding?”


[GB: Thanks for the question. Unfortunately, you are supposed to be confused. That is the nature of the determinism-indeterminism (science vs. religion) struggle.  The religious side is based on paralogistics, a word that I just came across on the AAAS website. To be paralogical means to have the opposite of a logical train of thought—fallacious reasoning, which generally is based on erroneous assumptions and the misinterpretation of data, should there be any. Thus, a paralogist is one whose thinking is outside of logic. This is how you pronounce that word: per ral' agist. Some would call that type of thinking “illogical,” but what would you call the perpetrator? “Illogist: is not in the dictionary, so I like paralogist. My new motto is: “Always debate a paralogist any chance you get—someone logical might be listening.”


So much for the paralogical lecture…


Immaterialism may be the preeminent paralogism. The universe obviously consists of material things. As infants, we gradually learn that after we take the proverbial blanket off our heads and inevitably discover object permanence. The solipsistic tendency usually disappears as we age, become educated, and discover we are not the only things in the universe. Immaterialism is the religious opposite of the First Assumption of Science, materialism (The external world exists after the observer does not). Because immaterialism and materialism are fundamental assumptions, I have stated them in their most extreme forms. The most extreme proponent of immaterialism was Bishop Berkeley, who claimed that when he left the room, the chair he was sitting on disappeared merely because he could no longer see it. Gladly, your friends have left that stage of development. Unfortunately, most folks are still religious and retain vestiges of immaterialism in hypothesizing some future immaterial existence in an immaterial realm for which there is no material evidence. This is typical of paralogists, who tend to replace logic with emotion. They might even realize their logic is fallacious, but they still want to believe it. Who doesn’t want to live forever?


As I showed in "Religious Roots of Relativity," we all have trouble distinguishing between what is material and what is immaterial. Material things are XYZ portions of the universe, while their motions are not. We can dream of things that cannot possibly exist and of things that do exist. The brain is material, but thinking is motion. Time does not exist—it occurs.


Finally, your puzzlement is nicely expressed when you wrote: “…the concept of Immateriality suggests that everything for a person ceases to exist after they cease to exist, as if reality itself were just a dream that has come to an end.” Of course, that is true for materialism as well. Many is the time I have been amazed by the existence of the universe and even more so by its infinite nature.


Also of course, while we are alive, reality is not a dream, just as it is not a dream when we are dead. For now, we must make a choice between that reality supported by the scientific assumption of materialism and the dreams and imaginings supported by the religious assumption of immaterialism. If we want to understand the universe, we must choose materialism. That is not merely the scientific way, it is the logical way.


Again, logical thinking requires an understanding of our most fundamental assumptions. Because the universe is infinite, we cannot provide a complete proof of any of them. Each has an opposite, which is correct if the first is incorrect. When we hold more than one fundamental assumption, all the others must be consupponible, that is, they must not contradict one another. Regressive physicists, having made their fiduciary compromise with religion, dare not follow their paralogic to its roots therein. That is why "The Ten Assumptions of Science" is a landmark in scientific philosophy.


The recent decline of the US has exposed the paralogistics that was there all along. Fundamental defects in our thinking have come to the fore. Once again, we must make life and death choices, not merely choices between some hair-brained “physical” theories. Anon, it is extremely important that we discard immaterialism, assume materialism, and get back to work forthwith.]







If Einstein is wrong, how come Perseverance made it to Mars?

PSI Blog 20210405 If Einstein is wrong, how come Perseverance made it to Mars?


Thanks to Mike Dwyer for this question:


“How can Einstein’s theories be so wrong if so many technical advances based upon them seem to have worked so well. The most dramatic advance being the recent and sophisticated of the Mars Landers, Perseverance, being able to most successfully touchdown and now rove the surface of the red planet sending back new information from millions of miles distant.  Have you thrown all or part of poor baby Albert out with the anti-relativity wash water?”


[GB: Mike, we must remember there is at present a huge divide between theoretical and experimental physics. Landing instruments on other cosmic bodies is an engineering feat, which does not require relativity. The calculations for that are based simply on Newtonian mechanics. Even the most ardent regressive physicist will have to admit that our rockets don’t come close to moving at the speed of light. Engineers do not deal with c except in their communications and in electrical engineering. At least, I have never heard of any rocket scientist having to deal with four dimensions, wormholes, or any of the other nonsense perpetrated by Einstein’s descendants.  In fact, some of the best folks seeking to reform or demolish relativity are electrical engineers. Those who have their feet on the ground tend to snicker at the “pin in the sky” stuff being pushed by the current batch of physics evangelists. They know that nothing happens unless one thing hits another thing—curved empty space be dammed.


As I explained in "Religious Roots of Relativity," Einstein’s relativity became popular because it was based on religious assumptions (e.g., perfectly empty space implying a supernatural creator was necessary for anything to exist). Any so-called “proofs” of relativity invariably are einsteinisms: predictions that were right for the wrong reasons. About the best example of that is the bending of light around the Sun. That occurs because the Sun has an atmosphere that produces simple refraction. There are many other einsteinisms, some of which I explained in “Infinite Universe Theory.” See PSI Blog 20210322 for an explanation of the GPS trope that we would be lost without Einstein. Any time you start thinking Einstein might be right about something, dig into it with the “The Ten Assumptions of Science” in your back pocket. You might be surprised.]   












“Is the Aether Entrained by the Motion of Celestial Bodies?”

PSI Blog 20210329 “Is the Aether Entrained by the Motion of Celestial Bodies?”


Thanks to George Coyne for another interesting question:


Glenn, I have a question for you regarding an aether paper by Joseph Levy titled “Is the Aether Entrained by the Motion of Celestial Bodies? What do the Experiments Tell Us?”
Levy sees the necessity to include aether in formulating physics theories in writing: "It is difficult, indeed, to accept that a “vacuum”, endowed with physical properties such as permittivity and permeability may be empty. The ability of such an empty vacuum to transmit electromagnetic waves is also doubtful." However, I am certain that you will find many errors with his paper. What areas do you find to be the most problematic with his concepts? Would you please critique it so that your readers will better understand how your theoretical perspective concerning aether and its role in gravitation differs significantly from Levy’s. Thanks!
Here is the link to a pdf of his paper:


[GB: Here is my impression regarding Levy's mistakes:


1. He believes gravitation is an attraction, which it is not.


2. He makes no mention of aether deceleration as the reason for entrainment.


3. As a result, he assumes that entrainment has to be the result of planetary motion. On the contrary, like our atmosphere, planetary motion is not the cause of entrainment. The particles within the atmosphere and aetherosphere are part of Earth. They move along with Earth in its daily rotation and annual revolution around the Sun.


4. He is right that aether is not affected by gravitation, but for the wrong reason. That is because its deceleration and the resulting distal pressure decrease is the cause of gravitation.


5. He uses the absurd Lorentz length contraction to explain the Michelson-Morley Experiment, which was an experiment to detect ether, which was then defined as being a stationary medium through which Earth moved around the Sun at 30 km/s. Of course, that is the velocity of the Earth-atmosphere-aetherosphere system as it revolves around the Sun. At sea level, both the atmosphere and the aetherosphere are mostly unaffected by that motion. As I showed in “Infinite Universe Theory,” one cannot measure that relative 30 km/s velocity without doing measurements beyond the atmosphere and beyond the aetherosphere. That is why the Galaev and Miller and Michelson repetitions at high altitudes got interferometer results that were a function of altitude (Figure 1), proving aether was entrained—at least at low altitudes.


Figure 1. Interferometer measurements of Earth’s velocity around the Sun as determined at various altitudes above mean sea level. The three data points in red at high altitude are projections and are yet to be performed. The other data are from Galaev, who seems to be the first to show this relationship.[1]


George, thanks again for the link. Oh well, at least Levy is not an aether denier even though he uses that spelling for the wrong ether.]





[1] Galaev, 2002, The measuring of ether-drift velocity. Cited in Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, Figure 42. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].



Why Clock Speed Increases at High Altitude

PSI Blog 20210322 Why Clock Speed Increases at High Altitude


A question from Bill Howell:


“Hi Glenn- Per your request, I have a question: 


In IUT on pages 260-261 you describe (and depict in Figure 51) a halo of decelerated aether enveloping the Earth to explain the stable orbit of geosynchronous satellites and why gravity does not exhibit aberration.  I’ve read that without the proper application Einstein’s general theory of relativity, GPS satellites would produce inaccurate results of one’s location on Earth.  One description states: “The net result is that time on a GPS satellite clock advances faster than a clock on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day.”[1] Assuming that’s true, and given your model, couldn’t this time correction be re-interpreted to be indicative of the aether pressure gradient in the halo at the distance above the Earth that geosynchronous satellites orbit?  If so, an alternate question is could it be indicative of an aether density gradient rather than a pressure gradient?”


[GB: Great questions! The answer to the first is yes. To the second, an equivocal no. According to my Aether Deceleration Theory (ADT), aether pressure increases with distance from Earth, while its density decreases. This is because highly active distal aether particles have high short-range velocities, which decrease when they collide with ordinary matter. That means, of course, that these decelerated aether particles will have decreased velocities, which will decrease their potential for leaving whatever they collided with. This is where Newton made his greatest blunder regarding his push theory of gravitation. He proposed that the pushing medium increased in density with distance from Earth. He had entirely forgotten his Second Law of Motion. He should have known gravitation was an acceleration. An accelerator was called for and its deceleration was inevitable. I say the answer to your second question is equivocal only because, in this case, pressure and density are inversely related.


The beauty of ADT is that it shows how gravitation fosters creation by pushing things together, with its own perpetrators first doing the pushing and then sticking around to add to the creation. The deceleration produces a sort of aether vacuum around ordinary objects. That is the reason aether particles tend to travel toward those objects. Like Newton’s failed hypothesis, other push theories lack the reason for gravitational motion to be directed at baryonic matter. It is simple: particles in areas of high pressure tend to move toward areas of low pressure. So, the real actor in gravitation is pressure, not density. Pressure is the initiator; density is the result.


Now, with regard to your GPS question. The answer fits right in with ADT. As I mentioned, aether pressure increases with distance from Earth. That means any clock will receive more aetherial impacts at high altitude than at low altitude. Being a time piece, the clock is like any other microcosm containing submicrocosms in motion. Collisions from supermicrocosms (aether particles) in the macrocosm (environment) will increase the velocities of those submicrocosms within the clock. Think of it this way: When we reheat a cup of coffee in the microwave, those aetherial waves impact the cup, accelerating the water molecules within. Thus, whatever cyclic reactions are within a particular clock will be speeded up as a result of increased aetherial pressure.


Although the General Relativity Theory based explanation is just another einsteinism (right for the wrong reason), that theory is not used by engineers who developed GPS. They simply use a correction for altitude. They don’t need 4-dimensions or any other Einsteinian hocus-opus to do that.[2]]


[2] Hatch, Ronald R., 1995, Relativity and GPS, 3rd Natural Philosophy Alliance Conference: Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, p. 1-26 [https://go.glennborchardt.com/Hatch-GPS].



What is “Now”?

PSI Blog 20210315 What is “Now”?


A question from George Coyne:


“The past refers to motion that has occurred, and the future represents motion that has not yet occurred. If "now" is considered in terms of nuclear rotations in an atom, then how many, if any, transpire in the period that is considered now. There are 5 billion trillion nuclear rotations per second. Some presentists would argue that there are no nuclear rotations in the now because the present has a duration of zero. That requires the absence of motion because time is the motion of matter. Without motion there can be no matter. Thus, this leads to the conclusion that in the present there is no matter. Without matter there is no universe. So, for the present to be a reality, there can be no universe and no reality, which means there is no possibility of a present that exists or occurs. My question is: Does the concept of “now” have any reality apart from our thought? If it does, how would you define it?”


[GB: Thanks George. You raise a philosophical question easily answered by Infinite Universe Theory. You guessed right that there is no possibility of a present that exists. “Now” does not exist. Only XYZ portions of the universe have existence and time does not exist, it occurs. All portions have motion, however, and that is why we have existence. Philosophers have struggled with this for centuries without a satisfactory conclusion. That is because most of them were religious and assumed immaterialism. That is the  indeterministic opposite of the scientific assumption of materialism, which assumes the universe has only two fundamental phenomena: matter and the motion of matter.


The Infinite Universe has an infinity of microcosms in motion, with each motion having a beginning and an end with respect to all others. In other words, we can define the “now” of the universe as the motion of all things with respect to all other things. This must forever be an assumption, for we cannot prove it with any experiment whatsoever as Einstein and other positivists have pointed out. One cannot even prove the Sun exists now, because it takes 8 minutes for the light that creates its image to arrive on Earth. Thus, if I should ask you to come to my house now, I would not expect you to be here instantaneously. That would take a while.


Now for the resolution of the paradox you present in this statement:


“Some presentists would argue that there are no nuclear rotations in the now because the present has a duration of zero. That requires the absence of motion because time is the motion of matter. Without motion there can be no matter. Thus, this leads to the conclusion that in the present there is no matter. Without matter there is no universe. … and no reality.”


As with all paradoxes, this one has a false assumption. It is the belief that there could be a duration of zero. Math is wonderful in many ways, but this is one of its many failures as I pointed out in my first philosophically oriented comment on a scientific paper.[1] 

Catastrophe theorists were essentially proclaiming extinction could occur in zero time. Shortly after publishing that, I also became extremely skeptical of the Big Bang Theory. Something about things popping out of nothing in zero time… Now, I think I will get back to work.]



[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 1978, Catastrophe theory: Application to the Permian mass extinction: Comments and reply: COMMENT: Geology, v. 6, no. 8, p. 453. [https://go.glennborchardt.com/catheory].



The Demise of Black Holes

PSI Blog 20210308 The Demise of Black Holes


[GB: This question is from Pierre Berrigan:]


Hello, Glenn!


Great initiative. Here is my contribution.


Firstly, since you ask, a universe truly infinite and eternal would not change much in my life, because that’s how I always thought it would be. There is, however, one thing that bothers me, and that’s the question of « black holes ».


Of course, black holes as pictured by general relativity don’t really exist because they would be absurdities. Nevertheless, observation shows that plasma tend to gather itself and form stars, which eject plasma to form new stars as they go supernova at the end of their life, and so on. However, supernovae leave an inert nucleus behind, whether you call it a neutron star or a black hole being irrelevant. The point is that after an infinite time, everything in the universe would be inert dead stars nuclei.


So, in my view, the missing piece in an eternal universe is a recycling mechanism that could turn neutron stars or black holes into useable matter again. How do we go about this?]


[GB: Thanks Pierre for the interesting question. Let me approach this via univironmental analysis and neomechanics. Each portion of the universe (what I call a “microcosm”) forms from the convergence of other portions along with their respective motions. The demise of each microcosm occurs in reverse, via the divergence of the submicrocosms and their associated motions within each microcosm.


Wikipedia puts it this way:


“When particles escape, the black hole loses a small amount of its energy and therefore some of its mass (mass and energy are related by Einstein's equation E=mc2). Consequently, an evaporating black hole will have a finite lifespan.”


And so it goes... Nothing in the universe lasts forever. The “evaporation” comment bespeaks of the process of divergence. That is analogous to what happens to the water droplets on your bathroom mirror, which form under humid conditions and evaporate under less humid conditions. The key here is the change in the macrocosm, the environment of the microcosm of the water droplet or of the misnamed “black hole.”


Black holes are more properly called the nuclei of galaxies and large stars. As Steve and I mentioned in our book “Universal Cycle Theory,” cosmic bodies form via accretion and disappear via excretion. Accretion occurs when the body is rotating rapidly and excretion occurs when it slows down. The rotation causes the heaviest elements to be pushed to the center of the resulting vortex, following Stoke’s Law. That is why the Sun has accumulated about 99% of the mass of the solar system in only 4.6 billion years. On the other hand, the Milky Way’s black hole has accumulated less than 1% of the mass of the galaxy during the last 15.3 billion years.[1]


As we wrote in our book:


“…the Sun rotated about 160 million times before it accreted enough matter to clear the circum-stellar materials orbiting it.

By applying 160 million rotations to the Milky Way, the calculation shows that it will take another 37,000 trillion years for the Milky Way to mature.”[2]


That would leave us with a bare-naked black hole, which, being mostly nonluminous, would not be easily seen with our present observational equipment. There could be billions or even trillions of these evaporating former galactic nuclei within the observable universe, but we might not be able to detect them. As you mentioned, the nuclei of large stars (over 20 times the size of the Sun) can themselves form black holes. This appears typical of what happens after a supernova explodes, scattering elements fused under pressures higher than afforded by the Sun. That itself is a recycling process, for without those explosions, the primordial solar system would not have scooped up the really heavy elements such as gold, platinum, and uranium.


Also, with regard to recycling, remember that all matter in the universe is always in motion. That is why the existence of any particular microcosm is only temporary. The submicrocosms within are always in motion and ever tend to “excrete” or “diverge” into the macrocosm as described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.




The whole concept of “black holes” is dubious, just like the misnomer used to describe them. In fact, “black holes” are neither black nor holes. Being derived from General Relativity Theory, the concept has an element of the usual “einsteinism” (right, for the wrong reason). As mentioned, vortices tend to form a dense core or nucleus via rotation in the same way baryonic matter forms from aether particles.[3] Sure enough, galaxies tend to have dense cores, just like Earth, Sun, supernovae and a billion other vortices—"Einstein was right again.” Hawking could use the mathematical idealism to sanctify the opposite end of Einstein’s perfectly empty space absolutism. The resulting “singularity” essentially was perfectly solid matter, suitable for starting the universe and for ending galaxies.


Some calculate the density of some black holes to be as great as 2 X 1015 g/cm3. In the appendix of “Infinite Universe Theory” I used Planck’s Constant to calculate the density of a single aether particle to be 1010 g/cm3. That would mean black holes would have to consist of the constituents of aether particles, the submicrocosms we called aether-2 particles in our book. Remember, in Infinite Universe Theory there is no end to the size of microcosms. We speculate that there are aether-3, aether-4 particles ad infinitum. This assumes there can be no “finite particle” consisting of perfectly solid matter, which, having no submicrocosms in motion, would be a violation of Maxwell’s E=mc2 equation. That is why the elder Hawking’s assumption that “black” holes are really gray, not black is one small step toward reality.


Exactly how black holes evaporate is not completely clear. The E=mc2 equation would suggest the loss of mass via the emission of motion to the aether medium across the microcosmic border as occurs for all the other microcosms in the universe.[4] The resulting emission of motion and increased illumination apparently is great enough to produce the “grayness” proclaimed by Hawking’s recant.


The above handles the loss of submicrocosmic motion from black holes, but what about the submicrocosms themselves? What is it about the macrocosm that would allow the internal constituents to leave the black hole via the Second Law of Thermodynamics like they do for all microcosms in the universe? Cosmogonists claim that the inside temperature of black holes is close to absolute zero, as might be expected from the super high density mentioned above. On the other hand, the outside supposedly has an exceedingly high temperature which, like the Sun’s corona, would be expected to energize the submicrocosms on the black hole’s surface, ejecting particles hither and yon. This is similar to what happens to a drop of water when it contacts the surface of a hot skillet or is placed in a room with less than 100% humidity.


Then what happens when the heat source becomes exhausted? How do the relatively inert, cold submicrocosms within a black hole eventually get enough motion to diverge back into the macrocosm? Once again, the answer lies with univironmental determinism, the universal mechanism of evolution (what happens to a portion of the universe depends on the infinite matter within and without). The “heat source” is never really exhausted. A bare-naked black hole is not surrounded by perfectly empty space like Einstein assumed, but by aether particles in constant motion. Their motion and the motion of their various complexes is so great that measurements indicate intergalactic temperature is 2.7 degrees Kelvin. This is much higher than the inside temperature of black holes.


According to Wikipedia:


“A black hole of one solar mass (M) has a temperature of only 60 nanokelvins (60 billionths of a kelvin); in fact, such a black hole would absorb far more cosmic microwave background radiation than it emits. A black hole of 4.5×1022 kg (about the mass of the Moon, or about 133 μm across) would be in equilibrium at 2.7 K, absorbing as much radiation as it emits.”


The absorption of this motion causes the submicrocosms within the black hole to vibrate, disintegrating into the various high-speed aetherial components from which they came. No matter what one thinks about the black hole calculations of the cosmogonists, it is obvious that cosmic nuclei do not contain perfectly solid matter and are not eternal. For black holes, it is ashes to ashes, dust to dust like it is for everything in the Infinite Universe.   





[1] Puetz, S.J., and Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe: Denver, Outskirts Press, p. 164 [https://go.glennborchardt.com/UCT].

[2] Ibid, p. 172. 

[3] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, Chapter 16.4 [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].

[4] Borchardt, Glenn, 2009, The physical meaning of E=mc2, Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance: Storrs, CN, v. 6, no. 1, p. 27-31 [10.13140/RG.2.1.2387.4643].



 PSI Blog 20210301 Anti-gravity?


Thanks to Tao Lin for the first question of the week:


“I highly enjoyed your book Infinite Universe Theory. Thank you for your stunning and informative work. Now on to my question, which doesn't directly relate to the universe being infinite, but is connected.

This might sound crazy to you, depending on what you’ve read, but in my research, I’ve become pretty convinced that both extraterrestrials and humans have mastered anti-gravity, allowing UFOs, both alien and manmade, to fly in ways that defy conventional physics. Based on your theory of gravity, Aether Deceleration Theory, can you speculate on a possible way to achieve anti-gravity?


[GB: Tao, thanks so much. Glad you enjoyed the book. You will be getting the first prize. I listed your choices below.[1] Please let me know which one you would like.


Because gravitation is an acceleration, any device that counteracts that acceleration is what might be called an “anti-gravity” machine. Anything that temporarily leaves the surface of Earth could be called such. I guess I am one of those “machines” when I jump off the surface of the snow while skiing. To your point, a rocket is an anti-gravity machine. Unfortunately, all anti-gravity machines require fuel, except when getting a “gravitational assist” when passing a massive cosmological body surrounded by decelerated aether having reduced aetherial pressure.


With respect to visits from aliens traveling from the nearest star, Wikipedia says this:


“The journey to Alpha Centauri B orbit would take about 100 years, at an average velocity of approximately 13,411 km/s (about 4.5% the speed of light) and another 4.39 years would be necessary for the data to begin to reach Earth.”




“The fastest outward-bound spacecraft yet sent, Voyager 1, has covered 1/600 of a light-year in 30 years and is currently moving at 1/18,000 the speed of light [16.7 km/s]. At this rate, a journey to Proxima Centauri would take 80,000 years.”


So, don’t get your hopes up about traveling to the stars anytime soon or receiving visits from aliens. Looks like “social distancing” with regard to Centauri is permanent. Accessible alien life would have to be in our own solar system. NASA has looked at the planets and their moons pretty well—no sign of extraterrestrial civilizations above ground at least. Looks like we can leave the UFO trope to the conspiracy theorists.


Of course, the quest for a truly miraculous anti-gravity machine has been a dream even before Einstein’s perfectly empty space nonsense made it seem possible. The imagined machine would exist as a solitary system within an environment of nothingness (e.g., “space-time”). It supposedly would reverse gravitation by manufacturing “anti-gravity” within itself, perhaps by producing a magical “pull” to counter the magical “pull” some still believe to be the cause of gravitation. But those silly ideas stem from the failure to understand the univironmental nature of the physical cause of gravitation. They are some of the more grievous products of the assumption of finity and its associated aether denial.


Tao, as you know, univironmental determinism claims that what happens to a portion of the universe depends on the infinite matter within and without. As you surmised, the analysis of the quest for anti-gravity has very much to do with Infinite Universe Theory. As I explained in Aether Deceleration Theory,[2] gravitation is an acceleration. Per Newton's Second Law of Motion, all accelerations require an accelerator, something that can produce collisions with other things. In the case of gravitation, once having collided with baryonic (ordinary) matter, the causative particles (aether) become decelerated per Newton’s law. The aetherial pressure around massive bodies decreases as a result, while its density increases. Gravitational potential is the difference between the distal pressure of aether and its proximal pressure.


To reverse that situation indeed would be miraculous. That vision would have to remain imaginary—it never could happen. One would have to accelerate all the decelerated aether particles proximal to any material body to velocities greater than those of distal aether particles. Even if that were possible, the energy required would be greater than the resulting anti-gravity effect. It would be like cutting down an entire forest just to get a single piece of lumber. Looks like we will have to be satisfied with practical anti-gravity engines similar to the ones we have already.]







[1] "The Ten Assumptions of Science" (pdf, ebook, paperback, hardcover); "The Scientific Worldview" (ebook, paperback, hardcover, audiobook); “Universal Cycle Theory” (pdf); “Infinite Universe Theory”; (Kindle, b&w or color paperback), "Religious Roots of Relativity" (Kindle, b&w or color paperback).  

[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 2018, The Physical Cause of Gravitation: viXra:1806.0165



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!