20240318

 PSI Blog 20240318 Big Bang Theory and the “Bandwagon Fallacy”

 

Cosmogony is afflicted with a logical disease formally known in philosophy as Argumentum ad Populum.


 

Photo Credit: Dr. Douglas Giles, Philosopher

Just because an idea is popular does not mean it is correct. In science, we are supposed to determine truth through observation and experimentation on the external world—not by the popularity of the conclusions. Prof. Giles has this excellent short bit on truth (which may not be popular) and lies (which might make us feel socially acceptable):

 

 The Most Pernicious Logical Fallacy

 

 

Humanity has jumped from one myth to another throughout history. Even those who believe in acausality, still seek answers, the causes for events, such as: Why did I get a stomach ache? Could it have been something I ate? Any popular myth must build on a previous myth. As I explained in my book, "Religious Roots of Relativity,[1]" Einstein was a genius at doing so, suggesting light was a massless particle containing perfectly empty space traveling perpetually through perfectly empty space. Without the magical photon and the four dimensions of General Relativity Theory, the expanding universe misinterpretation would have been impossible. There would have been no “Last Creation Theory” that became ever popular and supremely durable.

 

Paradigm Shift

 

The Argumentum ad Populum is especially important for understanding paradigms. It was not until the 20th Century that the word “paradigm” “began to be used in the more specific philosophical sense of ‘logical or conceptual structure serving as a form of thought within a given area of experience,’ especially in Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" (1962).[2]” Kuhn famously pointed out that the popularity of a paradigm prevents its practitioners and promoters from making revolutionary changes to it. They are ipso facto inevitably unqualified to do so.

 

Again, scientific conclusions are not supposed to be based on popularity. Unfortunately, that is not always true. For instance, the testimony of expert witnesses can be disregarded if it flies in the face of “scientific consensus.” New forensic techniques need confirmation by other scientists before they can be accepted in court. The “scientific consensus” is that the universe is expanding. Unfortunately, that is not true even though it is extremely popular.

 

Being on the outside looking into the cosmogonical paradigm does not generate much popularity. The incessant propaganda in favor of relativity and the Big Bang Theory makes the 10,000 of us who question the dogma highly unwelcome. None of that is a conspiracy or some kind of nefarious plot. It is simply a result of traditional choices favoring certain unprovable fundamental assumptions that always have opposites according to Collingwood.[3]

 

Neither Kuhn nor Collingwood said what those assumptive choices were. As a curious scientist, I got busy discovering them and found all were centered on the choice between infinity and finity.[4] That went right to the heart of cosmogony, with its surreptitious, unacknowledged assumption the universe was finite and had a beginning. Some have demurred, saying that if neither of opposed assumptions are completely provable, then it does not matter which one you choose. But that is definitely not the case. It makes all the difference on whether you assume the universe exploded out of nothing and had a beginning or you assume the Infinite Universe is everywhere and has existed forever.

 

The ultimate paradigm shift from the Big Bang Theory to Infinite Universe Theory is a really big deal—the biggest humanity will ever undergo. In view of the current popularity of religious Dreams and Imaginings I predict it will be at least another three decades before theoretical physics and cosmology questions and acknowledges the underlying assumptions that are becoming more clear by the day. Falsifications of the BBT continue to be ignored by regressive physicists and cosmogonists even as the James Webb Space Telescope shows no evidence for a beginning. Great shifts in science and philosophy like this one depend on a global crisis. You can see that coming with the rise of fascism and the desperation with which so-called “traditional values” are being promoted—even violently. The struggle over the world’s resources will intensify as global population growth slows and its associated economic growth declines. My guess is that the old assumptions and traditional ways of thinking, including the ones that brought us the Big Bang nonsense, will be replaced by those concordant with Infinite Universe Theory.

 

 

PSI Blog 20240318

 

Thanks for reading Infinite Universe Theory! On Medium.com you can subscribe for free to receive new posts and be part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution.”  There you can support PSI financially by clapping 50 times and responding with your questions.



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

[2] https://www.etymonline.com/word/paradigm [See especially: Kuhn, T.S., 1962, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 210 p.]

[3] Collingwood, R.G., 1940, An Essay on Metaphysics: Oxford, Clarendon Press, 354 p. [https://gborc.com/Collingwood].

[4] 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].

 

20240314

Pi Day and the Infinite Universe Theory

PSI Blog 20240314 Pi Day and Infinite Universe Theory

 

What does 3.14159… have to do with infinity?

 



Today’s celebration of math was invented by Larry Shaw, a physicist employed at San Francisco’s Exploratorium, which was founded by Frank Oppenheimer (J. Robert’s brother). It is a good illustration of infinity, as pointed out by Soumya Karlamangla of the New York Times:

 

“Pi has fascinated mathematicians for thousands of years, not least because it is an irrational number — its digits seem to go on forever without falling into a repeating pattern, a tantalizing glimpse of infinity. It is the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter, and circles themselves tend to hold some mystery, as perfect shapes with no beginning or end, according to Samuel Sharkland, senior program director at the Exploratorium.”

 

Pi has been calculated to over 62.8 trillion digits with no end in sight. This is akin to what we get when we attempt to perform precise measurements in the real world. Per the Third Assumption of Science, uncertainty, it is impossible to know everything about anything. The infinite nature of the universe is why no two measurements are ever identical and why every scientific measurement has a plus or minus. It is why no two snowflakes are alike. It is why the counterpart to uncertainty is the Second Assumption of Science, causality (All effects have an infinite number of material causes). It is why Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle overthrew the finite universal causality assumed in classical mechanics and relativity.

 

Pi attests to the “irrational” messiness necessary for the universe to exist. A universe filled with Plato’s ideal spheres and Democritus’s ideal finite identical “atoms” could not exist. Events occur as the result of collisions. But the imagined collisions between perfectly and necessarily identical spheres would produce nothing at all. There would be no reason for identical aether particles to produce the complexes we see all around us as ordinary matter in our Infinite Universe. Today is the day to raise a toast to 3.14159… at precisely (sort of) 1:59 pm like they do in San Francisco!

 

Also, you will love this Pi, Pi, Pi parody of NSYNC’s rock song “Bye, Bye, Bye”:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvW5uqzHDAo



PSI Blog 20240314

 

Thanks for reading Infinite Universe Theory! On Medium.com you can subscribe for free to receive new posts and be part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution.”  There you can support PSI financially by clapping 50 times and responding with your questions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

20240311

Why the 1887 Michelson-Morley Experiment did not Disprove Aether

PSI Blog 20240311 Why the 1887 Michelson-Morley Experiment did not Disprove Aether

 

They only proved “ether” was not fixed.



 Figure 42 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[1], who seems to be the first to show this relationship (Borchardt, 2017[2]).

 

 

Many thanks to Prof. Steve Ruis for this comment:

 

“I suspect that most people, as I did, believe that the experiment disproved the existence of an aether. If you are looking for a topic to write on, explaining why that isn't so and the follow-up experiments would help people understand. Thanks for all you do!”

 

 

Through a series of notable missteps, this celebrated experiment, also known as MMX, led to the Big Bang Theory. This clever, yet naïve attempt to measure Earth’s motion around the Sun has been called the “most famous null experiment of all time.”

 

MMX was clever because it attempted to detect the velocity of light in two different directions:

 

1.   In the same direction of Earth’s travel.

2.   Perpendicular to Earth’s travel

 

It was naïve because Michelson and Morley based the experiment on four erroneous assumptions:

 

1.   Ether[3] is fixed and Earth simply moves through it. They expected to observe an “ether wind” similar to the wind in your face when you run down the street.

2.   The above was ironic since Lucretius, Galileo, Einstein, and many others assumed all things in the universe were in motion with respect to other things: An assumption otherwise known as “relativity.”

3.   Not being in motion, fixed ether particles could not accelerate ordinary matter. Newton's Second Law of Motion (F=ma) would not apply to them.

4.   The ubiquitous ether permeated everything, with ordinary matter moving through it. This assumption became especially clear in their selection of where to perform the experiment: the basement of a campus dormitory.

 

In reality, this would be like trying to measure the jet stream in your backyard at sea level. They did not imagine aether might form an “aetherosphere” that surrounded the Earth and was attached to Earth just like our atmosphere. Then there could be no differential motion between Earth and the aether that was moving along with it. 

 

Nonetheless, their apparatus was cleverly designed to observe the fringe (fuzziness) when the two perpendicularly intersecting beams of light met after traveling identical distances. The assumed light “corpuscles” would have recorded an “ether wind” of 30 km/s—the velocity of Earth around the Sun. Light traveling perpendicular to the direction of Earth’s motion would be unaffected. There actually was a fringe, but it was tiny and generally ignored by budding regressive physicists as experimental error. The final interpretation: a null result. MMX proved there was no fixed ether.

 

But was there a more reasonable aether[4] that was not fixed? Why should aether particles be unlike other portions of the universe, being in motion with respect to other things? Why wouldn’t aether particles interact with ordinary matter by colliding with it, undergoing acceleration and deceleration per Newton's Second Law of Motion? The truth is that real aether particles have all those properties and then some. Most of the research on aether is in dissident literature where it is ignored by regressive physicists, who are, after all, are defined by “aether denial,” which appears necessary for graduation.

 

After MMX, subsequent measurements that used improved technology showed they were a function of altitude (Figure 42 above). The MMX measurements were at low attitude (about 210 m at Cleveland, Ohio). They only made 36 crude measurements, but thousands have been performed and interpreted by numerous investigators at various altitudes. None have been especially simple because Earth rotates as it revolves around the Sun. The results change minute-by-minute and the complete width of the fringes have not always been included in the measurements, especially by MMX. In addition, the solar system’s rotation around the center of the Milky Way at about 230 km/s may or may not be a factor.

 

I think Figure 42 is evidence for an “aetherosphere,” which, like our atmosphere, surrounds Earth and moves along with it. I also have concluded it is a result of the accumulation of aether particles that were decelerated after colliding with Earth during the acceleration we call gravitation. Consequently, the density of the aether medium is greatest near Earth, becoming less dense though more active and less sluggish with distance from Earth. Thus, the full 30-km/s motion Michelson and Morley were trying to detect only can be measured at a great distance from Earth—probably beyond the troposphere.

 

The readoption of the aether medium results in data interpretations that are more logical than the “anti-common sense” we were taught. Among these are:

 

1.   Abandonment of the perfectly empty space idealization and the false assumption that nonexistence is possible.

2.   Abandonment of Einstein’s false assumption light was a massless particle containing perfectly empty space traveling perpetually through perfectly empty space.

3.   Its source does not contribute velocity to light because light is not a particle.    

4.   Light velocity is constant because light is a wave whose velocity is, like all waves, controlled by the medium as long as the properties of the medium remain unchanged.

5.   The so-called “gravitational redshift” is a result of slight changes in the medium as a function of altitude. Distal increases in aether pressure cause light waves to speed up, lengthening the distance between waves.

6.   Both clock speed and mass increase due to increases in aether pressure with increases in altitude.

7.   Einstein’s “gravitational waves” are shock waves that travel through the aether medium at the same velocity as light waves. They have nothing to do with gravitation.

8.   The acceleration of gravitation is produced by high-velocity local aether particles that become decelerated upon colliding with ordinary matter.

9.   The “Dark Matter” contributing to the mass of rotational galaxies probably is decelerated aether like the aetherosphere surrounding Earth.

 

 

PSI Blog 20240311

 

Thanks for reading Infinite Universe Theory! On Medium.com you can subscribe for free to receive new posts and be part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution.”  There you can support PSI financially by clapping 50 times and responding with your questions.

 

 

 

 

 

 



[1] Galaev, Y.M., 2002, The measuring of ether-drift velocity and kinematic ether viscosity within optical waves band (English translation): Space-time & Substance, v. 3, no. 5, p. 207-224. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/Galaevaether].

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

[3] I use “ether” as the proper spelling for fixed ether and for the class of organic chemicals. The “aether” spelling has precedent with Descartes (1844) who suggested it was the ubiquitous medium responsible for light transmission, gravitation, and the formation of ordinary matter.

[4] See above.

20240304

Recovering from the Loss of Free Will

 PSI Blog 20240304 Recovering from the Loss of Free Will

 

Belief in free will: One reason regressive physics and cosmogony has been so durable.


Photo by Mohamed Nohassi on Unsplash

 

In "Religious Roots of Relativity" I pointed out why Einstein and the Big Bang Theory became so popular. You were born without religion, but it is unlikely you were raised without believing in free will. Most of the 4000+ religions have taken advantage of this, emphasizing that you are entirely responsible for all your decisions. Even in a secular society, we must hold people responsible for their behavior. Intelligence involves the response to the environment. Society has the means to handle inappropriate responses regardless of anyone’s belief or nonbelief in “free will.”

 

None of this becomes much of a problem unless you take physics and the rest of science seriously. It really comes to the fore in the advent of Infinite Universe Theory and the coming demise of the “Last Creation Myth.” Mere acknowledgement that univironmental determinism is the universal mechanism of evolution is enough to push one into what I call “deterministic realization” and the rejection of free will. This strikes folks in varying ways ranging from an epiphany, shock, depression, or elation.

 

In this regard, I just received this pertinent question from Jesse, who obviously is a deep thinker and understands my scientific philosophy:

 

Did the realization that you do not have free will bother you at all? The contemplation that ultimately your decisions aren't really decisions but simply predictable outcomes from your biological machinery when facing the exact forms of motion that you face?

 

It bothered me at first. Gave me that sinking feeling in my stomach like I was in free fall.

 

But then, like many things, I accepted it with this philosophy. "If I act and live my life like I believe in free will, does it really matter if I actually believe in it or not?"

 

Another take would be that free will is what we call the emergent phenomenon of infinity vs our brains and bodies. This phenomenon clearly occurs, the physical mechanism being microscopic infinity instead of divine spirit is frankly not important?

 

Jesse:

 

Nice to hear from you. With regard to free will, I had this to say in the Preface to "The Scientific Worldview":

 

The univironmental idea had an intense personal impact. In my experiments I had always considered myself outside the reactions I was observing. Now I was a crucial, historical part of them. My physicochemical model of the world ran wild. For more than a week I was in a fatalistic daze as I thought, still somewhat narrowly, but certainly not conventionally, “We are all chemicals and all our behaviors are chemical reactions.” This was a giant, if somewhat clumsy, step outside systems philosophy. In this new way of thinking, whether we consider ourselves chemicals, systems, microcosms, or just plain folks made little difference—all are influenced by both the within and the without. Behavior was simply the motion of one portion of the universe with respect to other portions. This simple yet profound conception was radically different from anything I had known. The dictionary didn’t even have a word for it. I gradually recovered by savoring the newfound perceptiveness. I would never look at anything in the same way again.[1]

 

Looks like the “deterministic realization” had a similar effect on you. Folks have said that The Scientific Worldview “blew their minds,” etc. It turns out that most people never think that deeply about anything and therefore can never know what the Infinite Universe is really all about. Of course, us newly edified, eventually get over it like you did and continue to act mostly as if we actually had free will.

 

It is impossible to consider the trillions of causes involved in your next decision. On the other hand, you might want to know about a few of them, as I demonstrate below.

 

I remember displaying a cursory rejection of free will as a freshman in college in my debates with liberal arts students. By then I had a little bit of science, but the major reason I was a believer in “there are causes for all effects” stemmed from my hands-on farm background. That probably was why I could not accept Einstein’s massless particles, time dilation, and 4-D spacetime, getting a C in Physics 1a for my trouble. Despite all that, I did not get the “deterministic realization” until I began "The Scientific Worldview" from the standpoint of the determinism-indeterminism philosophical struggle. By then, I had witnessed some vehement arguments among scientists who espoused opposing views over the interpretation of data. I found out soon that these always occurred at the frontier of science—no one needed to debate or get excited about stuff that was already settled.

 

In the ‘70s we studied a lot of dialectics and the meaning of contradictions. That helped me to focus on the frontier. I read New Scientist magazine, which was pushing a lot of Big Bang Theory stuff that seemed silly to me. After all, there was no cause ever given for the effect that supposedly resulted in the explosion of the entire universe out of nothing.

 

So now that we have surpassed the “deterministic realization,” what do we do? As a scientist, it is relatively easy. I am particularly interested in what causes what effects. Unless you are a regressive physicist, you will want to know what is colliding with what. That also implies the overall importance of history in producing the present. That is why even otherwise naïve scientists document their work by citing those who came before. It is why I have accumulated over 9,000 literature references in the last six decades. I want to know where my ideas came from so I can get more of them and avoid the ones that fail observation and experiment.

 

Human progress has accumulated a hugh database containing evidence that should not be ignored or contradicted, along with false, self-serving claims that should be pointed out, challenged, and forgotten. It is fun being part of that and knowing we all get to “change the world” even though we know also that each event follows from the infinite nexus of previous events.

 

Be reminded, however, that the determinism-free will debate always will be with us, commencing with the birth of each child. Most folks, particularly theologians, philosophers, regressive physicists, and cosmogonists cling to the free will assumption as if their life depended on it. They are probably right, especially with regard to their continued employment. Remnants of our religious birthright remain to produce the stickiness that is evident in the popularity of the Big Bang Theory. Even scientists who have given up the assumption of free will, such as evolutionist Jerry Coyne, still cling to the BBT. “Compatibilists,” such as philosopher Daniel Dennett, have moderated the contradiction by accepting a passé form of causality in tune with the fundamental assumption of finity.

 

Causality

 

It turns out my own youthful assumption that “there are causes for all effects” was insufficient. I subsequently discovered there were two types of causality:

 

1.   Finite universal causality

2.   Infinite universal causality

 

Number one assumes a finite number of causes can produce an effect. Mathematics tends to require that and it was the basis of Newton’s classical mechanics. The best demonstration of it was “Laplace’s Demon," a theoretically omniscient being that could predict and postdict effects without error. That was destroyed by Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, although he and his compatriots failed to recognize its grand significance.

 

Number two is founded on my Second Assumption of Science, causality (All effects have an infinite number of material causes). That may be hard to understand until you assume, with infinity, that matter is infinitely subdividable. The proof of this is the fact all repeat measurements have a plus or minus error associated with them. It is the basis for my “neomechanics,” which simply is classical mechanics with the inclusion of infinity.

 

Next, I had to discover exactly what was a cause. The hint was Newton's Second Law of Motion in which the motion of the collider decreases as the motion of the collidee increases. In other words, all causes involve collisions. This demand went by the wayside with the arrival of regressive physics. Thus, for instance, regressive physicists were allowed to promote the centuries' old and worthless assumption of “attraction” and Einstein was able to promote his mysterious 4-D “spacetime” assumption as the causes of gravitation. Actually, I found out the physical cause of gravitation is as simple as Newton’s Second Law. It is obvious that gravitation is an acceleration. What has always been missing is the accelerant, which like the air we breathe, is invisible to us. I was able to revive Einstein’s rejected aether in devising my “Aether Deceleration Theory of Gravitation.”[2] I was impressed by all the evidence for aether, which was necessarily being summarily rejected by regressive theoretical physics. It turns out that the “free will” trope and Einstein’s perfectly empty space trope were birds of a feather. Both led the march toward the “Last Creation Theory.”

 

In conclusion, “deterministic realization” will strike many of us as we dismantle those silly theories. Everything that happens is part of an infinite univironmental chain of events, with the abandonment of free will being part of humanity’s growth. Despite the unyielding demands of physics, we still can have the necessary “feeling of freedom,” while rejecting any notion of free will itself.

 

 

PSI Blog 20240304

 

Thanks for reading Infinite Universe Theory! On Medium.com you can subscribe for free to receive new posts and be part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution.”  There you can support PSI financially by clapping 50 times and responding with your questions.

 

 

 

 

 

 



[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2007, The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 411 p. [https://go.glennborchardt.com/TSW].

 

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


20240226

Largest Cosmological Object Found—So Far

PSI Blog 20240226 Largest Cosmological Object Found—So Far

 

Infinity assumes the Infinite Universe has no “largest object.”

 

“An illustration of the recording-breaker quasar J059-4351, the bright core of a distant galaxy that is powered by a greedy supermassive black hole. (Image credit: ESO/M. Kornmesser)”

 

With infinity, the Eighth Assumption of Science, we claim the universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions. In other words, not only are the constituents of the Infinite Universe infinitely divisible (as Aristotle claimed), but they also are infinitely integrable (additive). The records we keep are made to be broken, and Infinite Universe Theory predicts this will not long remain the largest cosmological object. 

 

“Brightest quasar ever seen is powered by black hole that eats a 'sun a day.'”

 

Here is a quote from Robert Lea’s article:

 

“A newly discovered quasar is a real record-breaker. Not only is it the brightest quasar ever seen, but it's also the brightest astronomical object in general ever seen. It's also powered by the hungriest and fastest-growing black hole ever seen — one that consumes the equivalent of over one sun's mass a day.

The quasar, J0529-4351, is located so far from Earth that its light has taken 12 billion years to reach us, meaning it is seen as it was when the 13.8 billion-year-old universe was just under 2 billion years old.

The supermassive black hole at the heart of the quasar is estimated to be between 17 billion and 19 billion times the mass of the sun; each year, it eats, or "accretes" the gas and dust equivalent to 370 solar masses. This makes J0529-4351 so luminous that if it were placed next to the sun, it would be 500 trillion times brighter than our brilliant star.”

 

Of course, this is just another case of an “Elderly Galaxy” being discovered in the cosmogonical crib falsifying the Big Bang Theory. A black hole 18 billion times the mass of the Sun and 500 trillion times as bright: Just imagine how long it would take for that to form! In order to fit the Big Bang Theory, the claim here is for it to be less than 2 billion years old. Our own 13.6-billion-year-old Milky Way has a black hole with a mass equivalent to 4.3 million Suns—which means that the black hole in this so-called “quasar” is 4186 times as big. At the Milky Way accretion rate, this would mean J0529-4350 is about 57 trillion years old!

 

One could invent an ad hoc assuming the accretion rate for this quasar was over 4186 times faster than the one for the Milky Way. That seems unlikely in view of what it takes to form a cosmological object in the first place. Like all objects in the Infinite Universe, it would have to exist in an environment containing sufficient ingredients. In general, those ingredients are complexes of matter formed from aether particles as explained in my “Infinite Universe Theory.”[1] Although the densities of the aether medium vary somewhat, I doubt it is anywhere near the 4186 times needed in this instance. The formation of anything proceeds one converging aether particle at a time. That is a lengthy process characteristic of evolution in general: the bigger a microcosm is, the longer it has taken to agglomerate. Cosmologists and other evolutionists observe this all the time. Thus, for instance, the tree in your backyard may form a 1-cm thick ring each year. But you would be shocked to find a 4186-cm thick ring after cutting it down. Cosmogonists are simply being super naïve in hypothesizing super-fast galactic development. Looks like they need to get out the office more. Barring that, maybe reading “Infinite Universe Theory” wouldn’t be a bad idea.

 

 

PSI Blog 20240226

 

Thanks for reading Infinite Universe Theory! On Medium.com you can subscribe for free to receive new posts and be part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution.”  There you can support PSI financially by clapping 50 times and responding with your questions.

 

 

 

 

 

 



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

20240219

“JWST Sees More Galaxies than Expected”

 PSI Blog 20240219 “JWST Sees More Galaxies than Expected”

 

Excuses being made up for the “elderly galaxies” being found in the cosmogonical crib.

The galaxy CEERS-93316 was originally determined to date from 250 million years after the big bang. Astrophysicists have since revised this number to 1.2 billion years after the big bang. Photo credit: S. Jewell and C. Pollock/University of Edinburgh.

 

Thanks to George Coyne for this heads up. He says: “I thought you would find the recalculation of the age of the galaxy to be as amusing, unjustified and silly as I did.”

 

 

https://physics.aps.org/articles/v17/23?fbclid=IwAR1spJLTCBicncmQMv6Lc9lG_-1JX_vqMiOK357KNSelpeszC-uX8S8uk7Y

 

As most readers know, the Big Bang universe is supposed to be younger and younger as we look back in time. Not so…

 

More serious ad hocs (theoretical add-ons designed to save a faltering theory) are now appearing. First you do some recalculations. Then you hypothesize some never-before seen special properties to help maintain what is left of your theoretical mess.

 

Remember that is what Einstein did in his famously well received hypothesis that light was a particle and not a wave. The result was his “Untired Light Theory,” which assumes light is a massless particle filled with perfectly empty space traveling perpetually through perfectly empty space. There is no evidence for any of that, but it remains the foundation of the ridiculous expanding universe interpretation. The cosmological redshift is mostly a result of energy loss over distance, with very little of it being a result of the Doppler effect and none of it being the result of the magical >c expansion of perfectly empty space.

 

It's not my theory, so I haven’t studied the recalculations used to drop the redshift from what was once thought to be z=16.7 to z=4.9. But here is a salient quote from Katherine Wright’s article:

 

“So far, only about 10 of the high-redshift galaxies found in the initial JWST images have had spectroscopic follow-ups. Among them is CEERS-93316. That more detailed view led Donnan and his colleagues to revise the galaxy’s redshift down to 4.9, which came as a relief to the researchers. ‘If CEERS-93316 had kept its high redshift, that would have been very difficult to reconcile with the models,’ says Pablo Arrabal Haro, the lead researcher…”

 

Let’s all hope the “more detailed view” doesn’t lead to a recalc of our own Milky Way, which has been a proud 13.61 Ga (billions of years old) for quite some time.

 

We now have 23 falsifications of the Big Bang Theory. Most of those are ad hocs like the first one I listed,[1] which is a violation of the Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed). The ad hoc is the Fifth Assumption of Religion, creation (Matter and motion can be created out of nothing).

 

 

PSI Blog 20240219

 

Thanks for reading Infinite Universe Theory! On Medium.com you can subscribe for free to receive new posts and be part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution.”  There you can support PSI financially by clapping 50 times and responding with your questions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

20240212

Aliens, Faster than Light Travel, and the Mysterious “Zero-point Energy”

 PSI Blog 20240212 Aliens, Faster than Light Travel, and the Mysterious “Zero-point Energy”

 

A PSI member has some popular questions.

 

Oumuamua, a 400-m long cosmological object best avoided during high-speed interstellar flight. Photo credit: NASA.

 

Thanks to Rick Doogie for his comment:

 

“Thanks for your work. It's always a pleasure to read your articles, especially when you are interacting with someone new who has questions for you.

 

Two suggestions; Here's a popular "science" topic. What do you have to say about zero-point energy? And how about faster-than-light travel and/or communication? My conspiracy-minded friends love suggesting that the government has this technology that it is keeping secret. Of course, they reverse-engineered it from crashed alien spacecrafts. (I laugh to think that aliens have the tech to traverse many light-years, but they crash easily once they are in the Earth's atmosphere.)”

 

Aliens

 

Ever since the first stranger was sighted, humans have been curious and fearful about strangers: Was that new creature good or evil? Peaceful or warlike? That was nothing new. You only have to take a walk in the woods to observe animals in the wild who are always on the lookout for who or what might get them. It is why we now have door cameras and we look out our windows to see what other folks are up to. It is why some folks are fearful of anything “alien,” with immigrants or those who look different being good examples.

 

The alien hysteria that received great impetus after World War II seems to have been stimulated by the great fearfulness that continues today. It is no wonder. That war killed 60 million of us. Cosmological observations and communications have broadened our horizons. With an estimated 20 trillion galaxies, each containing upward of one trillion stars, it is a near certainty that there are aliens on other “Goldilocks” planets. We just won’t be meeting any of them soon.

 

So far, there is no concrete evidence that such visits have occurred during the last 3.8 billion years that the earth has existed. That includes a lot of observations of the sedimentary rocks all over the globe. Not a single crash site or other evidence of alien contact has been confirmed. All the UFO[1] sightings, tall tales, science fiction, “superheroes saving humanity movies,” and conspiracies are simply products of our usual Dreams and Imaginings™. We have been examining our sister planets, with no sign of life on any of them so far. SETI has been a big disappointment—seems no one even wants to talk to us. Still, someday those efforts might succeed, providing a huge shock to those who still think everything in the universe was created just for us.

 

The nearest star, Alpha Centauri, is over four light years away and we don’t even know if any of its planets contain life, much less, being capable of sending some of it here. It would take our fastest, long distance rocket (Voyager) 74,000 years to get there.

 

Faster Than Light Speed

 

That’s what it would take to make a trip to the nearest star possible in reasonable time. I don’t subscribe to Einstein’s “speed limit,” because that is only for wave motion through the aether medium. We are talking particles here, that is, rocket ships. I am no rocket scientist, but it seems the main problem is that traveling at anything near or greater than c would be disastrous for a rocket that collides with even a small cosmological object. That could be why we have not been visited yet by an alien ship.

 

What the Heck is Zero-Point Energy?

 

Wikipedia has the answer here:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

 

That’s a pretty long and sophisticated answer from folks who don’t even know what energy is. Truth be told, energy simply is a calculation we use to describe the motion of matter. It neither exists (like matter) nor occurs (like motion). The subject comes up in theoretical physics most often with regard to quantum mechanics and Einstein’s assumed perfectly empty space.

 

It is somewhat hopeful that the wiki article mentions aether, which has been banned from theoretical physics ever since Einstein. His treatment of Maxwell’s E=mc2 as the conversion of matter into some kind of ghostly matterless motion underlies the confusion, as I explained in:

 

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].

 

In brief, the motion of submicrocosms within a microcosm (portion of the universe) can be transferred to its surroundings. The surroundings can be anything, but the aether is especially important, as indicated by the bi-directional use of the velocity of light in the equation. There is nothing magical, mysterious, or difficult to understand about it. It is simply the transfer of the motion of internal matter to external matter. Without the aether particles in the aether medium, the equation would not work much of the time.

 

Note that the equation works in reverse, such as when the motion of aether particles in light waves is transferred to the submicrocosms in a microcosm. That is the approach Maxwell used in developing the E=mc2 equation in 1862 to understand the absorption of light by plants and the otherwise unfathomable increase in some of the mass.

 

Remember Martin Gardner’s wise dictum: “When the coffee cools, mass is lost.” As with Maxwell, the reverse is true: When the coffee is heated, mass is gained. Also remember that mass is the resistance to acceleration by already existing matter. That “already existing matter” is assumed by the Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed), which underlies Infinite Universe Theory.

 

Back to zero-point energy. As in my study and eventual explication of the E=mc2 equation, I suspect most of the mystery surrounding that concept involves the motions of aether particles. Much of the consternation involves philosophy because most theoretical physicists are afflicted with aether denial. Theories breaking away from that are unlikely to be accepted without some surreptitious, back-door maneuvers never mentioning the word “aether.”

 

Thus, we have claims of “energy” coming in and out of existence. We have claims of “virtual” particles magically appearing and disappearing to produce the universe out of nothing.[2] Some have thought the imaginary Big Bang itself was produced by one big quantum fluctuation.

 

So, what to make of zero-point energy? Individual aether particles in the aether medium obviously are in motion—possibly as great as 1.5c. In any case, Einstein’s imagined perfectly empty space does not exist. If it did, the intergalactic temperature would have been 0 degrees instead of the 2.7 degrees Kelvin that was actually measured. Temperature, of course, is the motion of matter. Any fluctuations in temperature are due to those motions. I suspect quantum fluctuations simply are the result of collisions with unseen matter, with aether particles being likely at the smallest scale. Like other microcosms, aether particles accelerate other microcosms, becoming decelerated in the process, producing fluctuations with each collision. In any case, quantum fluctuations cannot be the result of matterless motion in perfectly empty space.

 

Rick, thanks again for the interesting questions. I enjoyed your humorous contradiction involving imagined crash sites of high-tech visitors smart enough and desperate enough to travel over 4 light years to visit us. Hope your friends stop being afraid of aliens and don’t interfere with top secret military inventions that inevitably have a few mishaps during development.

 

 

PSI Blog 20240212

 

Thanks for reading Infinite Universe Theory! On Medium.com you can subscribe for free to receive new posts and be part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution.”  There you can support PSI financially by clapping 50 times and responding with your questions.

 

 

 

 

 

 



[1] I like West’s invention of LIZ (Low Information Zone) for this. He points out that to be designated “unidentified,” observations of an object must be at the limit of resolution. Cameras and telescopes have improved, but, each time, the improved equipment produces photos of UFOs that are always fuzzy [West, Mick, 2023, Inventing skeptical language: Skeptical Inquirer, v. 47, no. 4, p. 28-30]. This is predicted from Infinite Universe Theory, which in particular, is founded on the Third Assumption of Science, uncertainty (It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is often possible to know more about anything). Because the universe is infinite, there always will be causes for effects we will not be able to explain. Nonetheless, the whole UFO nonsense was put to bed by the Condon report over a half century ago [Boffey, P.M., 1969, UFO study: Condon group finds no evidence of visits from outer space: Science, v. 163, p. 260-262.] The most recent investigation pushed by the latest gang of conspiracy theorists came to the same conclusion [Kirkpatrick, Sean, 2024, Here’s What I Learned as the U.S. Government’s UFO Hunter: A forthcoming investigational report from an office of the Pentagon has found no evidence of aliens, only allegations circulated repeatedly by UFO claim advocates, Scientific American, Accessed 20240128 (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heres-what-i-learned-as-the-u-s-governments-ufo-hunter/).]

 

[2] Krauss, L.M., 2012, A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather Than Nothing: New York, Free Press.