The Scientific Worldview

This is a blog that takes the name of my magnum opus on scientific philosophy called "The Scientific Worldview." Reviewers have called it “revolutionary,” “exhilarating,” “magnificent,” “fascinating,” and even “a breathtaking synthesis of all understanding.” There is very little math in it, no religion, no politics, no psycho-babble, and no BS. It provides the first outline of the philosophical perspective that will develop during the last half of the Industrial-Social Revolution.

20260330

Space-time is Aether I

PSI Blog 20260330 Space-time is Aether I

Einstein’s imagined perfectly empty space needed an upgrade.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wave-particle Duality

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

Space-time Salvation

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

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

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

Here is Gemini AI:

"Key points regarding Einstein’s view on gravity:

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

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

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

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

How Misinterpretation Sometimes Advances Science

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

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

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

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

Einstein Leans Toward Aether

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

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

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

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

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

PSI Blog 20260330

Thanks for reading Infinite Universe Theory! Get your copy of the just-released Second Edition of “The Scientific Worldview” to see the step-by-step logic leading to the rational view of the cosmos. Be part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution,” the demise of the “Last Creation Myth,” and the age of enlightenment to come. Buy Now.

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

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

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

[4] Infinite Universe Theory, Fig. 35.

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

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

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

20260309

Getting Your Philosophical Ducks in a Row

PSI Blog 20260309 Getting Your Philosophical Ducks in a Row

Know your fundamental assumptions before philosophizing.

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

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

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

Understanding Philosophy

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

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

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

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

“Cherry Picking” from Both Sides

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

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

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

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

The Religious Logic of Regressive Physics and Cosmogony

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PSI Blog 20260309

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

[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The Ten Assumptions of Science: Toward a New Scientific Worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p. [https://gborc.com/TTAOS; https://gborc.com/TTAOSpdf].

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

20260216

Distance

PSI Blog 20260216 Distance

We are nothing without distance.

Photo by Roma Kaiuk🇺🇦 on Unsplash.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PSI Blog 20260216

Thanks for reading Infinite Universe Theory! Get your copy of the just-released Second Edition of "The Scientific Worldview" to see the step-by-step logic leading to the rational view of the cosmos. Be part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution,” the demise of the “Last Creation Myth,” and the age of enlightenment to come. Buy Now.

20260126

Solution to the Muon Paradox

PSI Blog 20260126 Solution to the Muon Paradox

Do muons really travel 15 km through the atmosphere?

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

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

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

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

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

YouTube · Dec 17, 2021

The "Paradox" Explained

1. The Setup:

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

2. Classical Expectation:

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

3. The Observation:

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

The Relativistic Solutions

From Earth's Perspective (Time Dilation):

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

From the Muon's Perspective (Length Contraction):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to reality…

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

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

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

PSI Blog 20260126

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

[2] Ibid, p. 201.

20251229

Solution to the Tired Light Theory

PSI Blog 20251229 Solution to the Tired Light Theory

Why the cosmological redshift occurs.

“One hundred and eight extremely distant, small and red galaxies were identified within the Hubble Ultra Deep Field.” Credit: NASA

Thanks to Anon for these questions, which inspired me to come up with the reason for the cosmological redshift:

“If starlight is redshifted (flashlight to be seen on Mars) at which distance from the starting point does the stretched wavelength start being calculated or start for that matter (from the beginning?).

[GB: Yes.]

“Is there a mathematical formulae and does the formulae (if there is one) apply to every star and light source?”

[GB: Yes.]

“Then how is the speed of light constant?”

[GB: The speed of light, like the speed of sound, and all other wave motions are dependent on the medium through which they travel—mostly dependent on the elasticity and closeness of the particles that make up the medium. For light it is 300,000,000 m/s in aether and for sound it is 343 m/s in air and over 5,000 m/s in steel. Here is what Gemini says about it:

“The velocity of sound in steel is very fast, typically around 5,000 to 6,000 meters per second (m/s), significantly faster than in air or water, because its high elasticity and density allow sound waves to transmit efficiently through its tightly packed particles. The exact speed varies slightly with the specific steel alloy and temperature, but it generally falls within this range, making it about 15 times faster than in air."]

[GB: Here are some details from my glossary:

COSMOLOGICAL REDSHIFT. The redshift is due to energy loss that occurs when light travels long distances. Waves lose energy and their wavelengths increase due to imperfect wave replication. This occurs because each wave must interact with the macrocosm (the aether medium). The velocity of light remains constant because it is a wave, not a particle as being promoted by regressive physics and cosmogony. Light is a wave in a medium filled with particles just like sound is a wave in the air filled with nitrogen molecules. Sound has a “constant” velocity of 343 m/s while light has a “constant” velocity of 300,000,000 m/s.

Here is a little history and more details:

For nearby light sources the Doppler equation is used for the cosmological redshift: z = v/c. Early cosmologists only saw nearby galaxies, with many being blueshifted since those, such as M31 in Andromeda, were coming toward us. Better telescopes looking further saw many more that were redshifted than were blueshifted. This was mistaken as proof that all galaxies were receding from us and that the universe was expanding. This approach broke down in 1996 when even better telescopes saw redshifts greater than 1.0.^{^[1]} This meant that their assumed velocities were greater than c, which contradicted relativity and the experimentally determined velocity of light.

To keep the expanding universe trope, cosmogonists then invented another ad hoc: the claim that space (i.e., space-time) itself was expanding. While that was not true, cosmological redshifts kept being determined, with z values increasing as telescopes looked increasing distances.

The Cosmological Redshift Formula (z):

λ_obs is the observed wavelength

λ_rest is the emitted wavelength

The z value for the Sun is 0, because it is too close for the wavelengths of hydrogen to have changed significantly. Knowing its primary wavelength (656 nm), astronomers can measure light from distant galaxies that contain hydrogen. The greater the increase in the 656 nm band, the greater the distance the light has traveled. The farthest galaxy so far has a z of 14.44, with the 656 nm band appearing at 9,473 nm in the infrared part of the spectrum, which can be seen by the JWST telescope.^{^[2]}

And here is the solution:

Tired Light Theory

Unlike Einstein’s magical photon, all real things and all real waves lose energy over distance.^{^[3]} The opposing “Tired Light Theory” (TLT) has been the subject of much speculation since Hubble’s discovery of the cosmological redshift in 1929.^{^[4]} Unfortunately, his initial mistake seen in the title of his paper was to claim it was entirely the result of galactic recession. He later recanted, suggesting it was due to some “unknown process” occurring over distance (TLT), but by then it was too late.^{^[5]} Ever since, regressive physicists and cosmogonists have been claiming Hubble discovered the universe was expanding. He denied that until his dying day. Unfortunately, he was a close follower of Einstein, who had made aether unpublishable. As far as I am aware, neither Hubble, nor anyone else has ever discovered the unknown process.

Actually, TLT was implied by others long before Einstein and relativity:

“That however ether propagates light, being its medium, necessarily involves that it should also offer resistance to light, otherwise light could not set it in vibration.”^{^[6]}

This 19^th-century statement is instructive. Remember that neomechanics teaches us that all events are the results of collisions. Light waves traveling through aether are no different. Nonetheless, waves are motions, not things. The waves occur in a medium containing trillions of aether particles. A wave is initiated by collisions from a light source (such as the Sun or a flashlight). The bigger the source, the greater will be the disturbance in the aether medium.

Note that what is being accelerated here by those collisions is not the wave, but the constituents of the wave: aetherons (aether particles). Their subsequent motions involve collisions with still other aetherons. Like all particles, aetherons are subject to deceleration as well as acceleration. Some of the motion of some of those aetherons is absorbed internally. Some is dissipated via geometric spreading (The Inverse Square Law). Light waves radiate outward from their source in a spherical shape, with the same amount of energy covering a larger and larger area. As light waves move through aether, aetherons interact with other aetherons and rare molecules, causing them to vibrate. Some of this mechanical motion is lost as heat due to friction and viscous forces. Because collisions between aetherons are almost, but not perfectly elastic; some motion is always lost. Despite all this loss of internal motion within the wave, its velocity remains unchanged at 300,000,000 m/s. Nevertheless, the loss of internal motion amounts to what we calculate as a loss of the energy needed to form the next wave. Particle deceleration means it will take more time for the slowed aetherons in the first wave to produce the next wave. For example, for every second (1 Hz) in the first it might take two seconds in the second (0.5 Hz) to travel a nm. The wave, the en masse, however, will still keep traveling at a velocity of c. The result will be a cosmological redshift since the new frequency is less and the new wavelength is greater than the old.

Believe it or not, this “stretching” of the wave is what cosmogonists assume to be a result of universal expansion. Being afflicted with aether denial, they would never come up with this simple reason for the occurrence of the cosmological redshift and the cause of “Tired Light.” Now you can see why Einstein’s “Untired Light Theory” and the photon trope was necessary for the Big Bang mess.

Coincidentally, the analogy with sound is once again instructive. Gemini says:

“Eventually, any sound wave becomes so faint that its energy is lower than the background "noise" of random molecular thermal motion (Brownian motion), at which point it can no longer be detected.”

In agreement with the rational explanation of the Olbers’ Paradox, I presume this happens to light as well. It may be the reason for the existence of the Cosmic Microwave Background, which probably is the faint remnants of light from distant galaxies, especially those outside the observed universe. It certainly has nothing to do with the explosion of the universe out of nothing as claimed by cosmogonists pushing their extremely profitable “Last Creation Myth.”]

PSI Blog 20251229

[1] Lanzetta, Kenneth M., Yahil, Amos, and Fernández-Soto, Alberto, 1996, Star-forming galaxies at very high redshifts: Nature, v. 381, no. 6585, p. 759–763. https://doi.org/10.1038/381759a0

[2] Naidu, Rohan P, Oesch, Pascal A, Brammer, Gabriel, Weibel, Andrea, Li, Yijia, Matthee, Jorryt, Chisholm, John, Pollock, Clara L, Heintz, Kasper E, and Johnson, Benjamin D, 2025, A Cosmic Miracle: A Remarkably Luminous Galaxy at z = 14.44 Confirmed with JWST: arXiv:2505.11263 https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.11263

[3] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, Table 6. http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook

[4] Hubble, Edwin, 1929, A relation between distance and radial velocity among extra-galactic nebulae: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, v. 15, no. 3, p. 168–173. http://www.pnas.org/content/15/3/168.short

[5] Sauvé, Vincent, 2016, Edwin Hubble... and the myth that he discovered an expanding universe. https://gborc.com/Sauve16

[6] Engels, Frederick, 1883 [1972], Dialectics of nature (2nd ed.): Moscow, Progress Publishers, p. 287.