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:

Table 1. The Basic Science Meter: Distinguishing Rationality from Irrationality.

No.		Scientific		Religious
1	Materialism  The external world exist after the observer does not because the universe consists of matter.		Immaterialism Material things have no objective existence, strictly being products of consciousness.
2	Causality All effects have an infinite number of causes.		Acausality Some effects have no material causes.
3		Uncertainty It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is often possible to more about anything.		Certainty It is possible to know everything about some things.
4		Inseparability Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion.		Separability Motion can occur without matter and matter can exist without motion.
5		Conservation Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed.		Creation Matter and motion can be created out of nothing.
6		Complementarity All things are subject to convergence and divergence from other things.		Noncomplementarity All things are subject to divergence from all other things.
7		Irreversibility All processes are irreversible.		Reversibility Some processes are reversible.
8		Infinity The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions.		Finity The universe is finite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions.
9		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.		Absolutism Identities exist, that is, any two things may have identical characteristics.
10		Interconnection All things are interconnected, that is, between any two objects exist other objects that transmit matter and motion.		Disconnection There may be perfectly empty space between any two objects.

This table just summarizes “The Ten Assumptions of Science,”^[2] which underlie all the books and all the blog posts published by the Progressive Science Institute. 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 in No. 1 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

 

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] 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

 

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.

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

 

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

[2] Ibid, p. 201.

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

 

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] 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.

 

 

Are Infinity and Finity Reconcilable?

PSI Blog 20251222 Are Infinity and Finity Reconcilable?

 

No.

 

            Credit: philosophynews.com.

Thanks to Doug Gill for this comment on the definition of infinity:

 

“Glenn, thanks for this detailed summary and position on the problem. As you point out, infinity introduces the problem of infinite regression (or extension) in logic and mathematics. Another proposal on resolving the issue is paraconsistent logic.[1] I am not sure how this would tie with your approach, but I would be interested to hear. It posits the counterintuitive view that things can be both true and false at the fundamental level. In that regard, Russell’s paradox is the key theoretical argument that defines the property found in all logical paradoxes (including the infinity of the Universe). The Institute of Art and Ideas (iai) is a valuable resource for discussions on this topic (and of all topics) and is worth the fee to join. Every “A-list” physicist and philosopher has appeared in their presentations. Graham Priest (at iai seminars) and Jc Beall argue for the paraconsistent logic approach and have YouTube videos and online seminars.”

 

[GB: Sounds to me like paralogistics (i.e., illogic). These folks must all be paralogists.^[2] For instance, the Liar Paradox[3] is simply nonsense. Many paradoxes have at least one false assumption. An example is Olbers’ Paradox, which states that if the universe was infinite the night sky would be entirely lit up by the infinite number of stars.

 

Here is AI’s regressive explanation:

 

“Olbers' Paradox asks why the night sky is dark, when a universe infinite in size and age, filled uniformly with stars, should have every line-of-sight end on a star, making the sky blaze brightly. This conflict with observation is resolved by the reality of a dynamic, expanding universe that is also finite in age, meaning light from extremely distant sources hasn't reached us yet, and the light that does arrive from far away galaxies is stretched Olbers' Paradox asks why the night sky is dark, when a universe infinite in size and age, filled uniformly with stars, should have every line of sight end on a star, making the sky blaze brightly. This conflict with observation is resolved by the reality of a dynamic, expanding universe that is also finite in age, meaning light from extremely distant sources hasn't reached us yet, and the light that does arrive from far away galaxies is stretched (redshifted) out of the visible spectrum by expansion.”

 

Of course, the false assumption is that light could travel an infinite distance without being scattered or losing energy (e.g., your flashlight would be seen on Mars). But even as admitted in their explanation “light is redshifted out of the visible spectrum” and so is no evidence for finity or expansion. The Infinite Universe has the same property. The ideal replication of each subsequent wave is impossible in the imperfect Infinite Universe. The cosmological redshift is simply a function of distance. It is not a result of the assumed recession of all galaxies due to universal expansion. The calculated recession assumed due to the Doppler effect broke down when it exceeded the velocity of light. Cosmogonists had to invent yet another ad hoc: the magical expansion of perfectly empty space and the inflationary universe. The Big Bang paralogists keep grasping at straws that are irrational, but durable. Twenty-five falsifications have not fazed the “Last Creation Myth.”

 

I suspect the logicians and the techniques you mention are doing the same thing. They are faced with contradictions all the time while attempting to straddle the science-religion fence in the interest of popularity and book sales. "The Ten Assumptions of Science" and their opposites “The Ten Assumptions of Religion” don’t do that. Each set forms a constellation in which all ten “fundamental assumptions” are consupponible, that is, none of the ten contradict one another. The beauty of these two constellations is that if one is true, then its opposite is false.

 

Thus the universe is either infinite or finite. It is not possible for it to be a little bit infinite. It is just like pregnancy: You is or you ain’t. Religious scientists might favor paraconsistent logic, cherry picking among fundamental assumptions. A popular one is the Second Assumption of Religion, acausality (Some effects have no material causes). Although false, that one allows for freewill, making threats of hellfire and damnation profitable.]

 

 

PSI Blog 20251222

 

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] In classical logic, if you accept "It is raining" (\(A\)) and "It is not raining" (\(\neg A\)), you can logically derive anything, including "The moon is made of cheese" (\(B\)), because the premise is contradictory. In a paraconsistent logic, you can have \(A\) and \(\neg A\) as true, but still conclude that \(B\) is false, preserving the meaning of \(\neg A\). 

 

[2] Google AI “A paralogist is a person who makes unintentional logical errors or fallacious arguments, reaching incorrect conclusions without intending to deceive (unlike a sophist), often described as using faulty reasoning or paralogism.”

 

[3] Google AI: “The Liar Paradox is a self-referential statement, most famously "This sentence is false," that creates a logical contradiction: if it's true, it must be false, and if it's false, it must be true, leading to an endless loop where it can't be consistently assigned a truth value. It challenges classical logic and reveals issues with truth, reference, and language, with solutions ranging from defining it as meaningless "nonsense" to complex theories in formal logic that restrict self-reference or allow for “truth-value gaps.”