20230515

Why the Infinite Universe Will Never Reach “Thermal Equilibrium”

 PSI Blog 20230515 Why the Infinite Universe Will Never Reach “Thermal Equilibrium”

 

As Einstein admitted, everything in the universe is moving with respect to other things.

 

Classical demonstration of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Borchardt, 2017, Fig. 3.3).

We occasionally give free books to readers who present the best questions. Here is a good one from Olaf Schlüter who asks:

 

How come that an eternal universe hasn't reached thermal equilibrium and maximum entropy yet as it would be predicted by thermodynamics? The universe we live in hasn't achieved none of that by now.

 

[GB: Olaf, thanks so much for your astute question.

 

Let me first explain for others what equilibrium means. An equilibrium occurs when outputs and inputs reach a relative standoff. For instance, a helium balloon in earth’s atmosphere illustrates the temporary equilibrium between the helium molecules within and the nitrogen molecules without. Coincidentally, I presented "The Scientific Worldview" as the philosophy of univironmental determinism (what happens to a portion of the universe depends on the infinite matter within and without). Univironmental determinism also happens to be the universal mechanism of evolution that I proposed as the general replacement for Neo-Darwinism, which is only a special case limited to biology.

 

Univironmental Analysis

 

We invented the word “univironment” to emphasize the critical connection between each XYZ portion of universe (defined as a “microcosm”) and its nearby environment (defined as the “macrocosm”). As Olaf implied, the general tendency is for microcosms to reach univironmental equilibrium with their macrocosm. The trouble is, with everything in the Infinite Universe being in motion, no permanent equilibrium is possible.

 

The Second Law of Thermodynamics (SLT)

 

The figure above is what we use to explain how the SLT works. Chamber A is filled with gas and chamber B is a vacuum. Turning the intervening valve allows the gas molecules to enter chamber B under their own inertia. Inertia was described by Newton’s First Law of Motion (Every microcosm continues in uniform motion until the direction and velocity of its motion is changed by collisions with supermicrocosms.)[1] An equilibrium occurs when the number of gas molecules in both chambers is roughly equal. We also say that the result has been an increase in entropy.


The SLT only applies to systems that are ideally isolated. As shown in the figure, no matter or motion inputs are allowed. The SLT is what we call a “systems theory.” The problem with systems theory, however, is that it tends to over emphasize the microcosm and deemphasize the macrocosm (the outsides of things). In other words, that is what “isolation” amounts to. The Big Bang Theory is the archetype of such a theory. Whether imagined as a fantastic 4-dimensional space-time system or as a system surrounded by perfectly empty space, it satisfies the main criteria for application of the SLT: isolation.

 

 

Although the SLT is nice for describing local equilibria, it is only an idealization. Again, there are no truly isolated systems in the universe. In fact, if chamber A was perfectly isolated, being a finite system unto itself, there would be no vacuum chamber for its gas molecules to enter. The SLT would not even work if the isolation of any system was perfect. The misbegotten “heat death of the universe” trope presupposes that the universe is finite and isolated. In addition, the “heat” imagined therein supposedly occurs as the magical energy that travels as matterless motion through Einstein’s imagined perfectly empty space.

 

SLT and Infinite Universe Theory

 

Infinite Universe Theory aptly assumes the Sixth Assumption of Science, complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things). For that to be true, the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions) also has to be true. These two fundamental assumptions are consupponible: That is, you can assume both without contradiction. Although fundamental assumptions like these never can be completely proven, their logic supplies elegance to Infinite Universe Theory as a replacement for the Big Bang Theory. In addition, complementarity provides the resolution of the SLT-order paradox.[2] That answers the question: If the Second Law of Thermodynamics produces only disorder, how come there is so much order all around us?

 

According to Collingwood, fundamental assumptions like those above always have opposites, which also cannot be completely proven. In this case, they are the Sixth Assumption of Religion, noncomplementarity (All things are subject to divergence from all other things) and the Eighth Assumption of Religion, finity (The universe is finite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). We call them religious because their logic ultimately leads to an imagined creation and an imaginary creator. Also, according to Collingwood, if one of the fundamental assumptions is correct, then its opposite has to be incorrect.

Because most folks are religious or have religious backgrounds, the religious assumptions are taken for granted, though seldom admitted as such by today’s physicists who must therefore be considered “regressive” in their assumptive leanings toward cosmogony (the study of the beginning of the universe).

  

Another important assumption is the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion). With this assumption we can analyze the Second Law of Thermodynamics in terms of matter and the motion of matter. In the Infinite Universe any matter or the motion of matter diverging from one microcosm continues on to form yet another microcosm elsewhere. Actually, each microcosm and its containing submicrocosms appear as temporary interruptions in Newton’s First Law of Motion.

 

Still another is the Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed). This is the first of at least 20 falsifications of the Big Bang Theory. Coincidentally, it is what 9-year-old genius David Balogun used to best cosmogonist Neil deGrasse Tyson in destroying the Big Bang Theory forthwith. In the present discussion, conservation, which has never been falsified, would not necessarily prevent universal equilibrium. If one assumed the Eighth Assumption of Religion, finity (The universe is finite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions) one could imagine an equilibrium of the “ultimate constituents” of matter. As imagined by the atomists, these would have to be perfectly spherical solid particles that were all identical. Nonetheless, no such things could ever exist per 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). That assumption, too, is consupponible with infinity.

 

And, as alluded to above, the imagined “heat death of the universe” supposedly would produce a final equilibrium in which all the mass of the universe was converted into energy, construed as matterless motion. This also is a common part of the creed of regressive physics and cosmogony—that is where the dark energy trope comes from. Be reminded that energy neither exists nor occurs—it is merely a calculation describing matter in motion. In particular, mass is not converted magically into the energy construed as matterless motion. But it is true as Martin Gardner wrote: “As the coffee cools, mass is lost.”[3] How can that be possible if we don’t have matterless motion? My widely read paper on that subject explained that the submicrocosm motion responsible for the resistance we call mass is transferred across the univironmental boundary to the supermicrocosms in the macrocosm.[4] In the coffee case, those supermicrocosms happen to be your skin cells if you are unlucky or air molecules if you are lucky. Lacking an atmosphere or other baryonic particles, it necessarily would involve aether particles, whose particle-to-particle collisions, allow the transfer of motion throughout the universe.

 

Like all microcosmic motion in the Infinite Universe, wave motion in the aether medium is not merely unidirectional. Per complementarity, that motion diverges from luminous objects and converges toward them. Stars emitting the motion we call light also are subject to light from other stars emitting light. Every microcosm in the Infinite Universe is in motion with respect to other microcosms.

 

Conclusion

 

Infinite Universe Theory is in agreement with Einstein that all things in the universe are in motion with respect to other things. Of course, with the universe being infinite, there is no “first cause” required to set the universe into motion, for its various parts already are in motion, having received collisions from still other microcosms in the Infinite Universe, ad infinitum. There may be a temporary equilibrium for any particular microcosm when it forms from the supermicrocosms in its macrocosm. But, because its resulting submicrocosms are continually in motion, the eventual divergence of its constituents and their motion[5] is inevitable. For every death there must be a birth. For every divergence there must be a convergence. There is no rest for the weary in the Infinite Universe.]

 



[1] As modified in “Infinite Universe Theory.” I define a microcosm as an xyz portion of the universe and a supermicrocosm as a microcosm existing outside that microcosm.

[3] Gardner, Martin, 1962, Relativity for the Million: New York, Macmillan, p. 66.

[4] Borchardt, Glenn, 2009, The physical meaning of E=mc2, Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance: Storrs, CN, v. 6, no. 1, p. 27-31 [10.13140/RG.2.1.2387.4643]. [This shows why aether often is necessary for transmitting submicrocosmic motion to the macrocosm.]

[5] Ibid.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

When on Medium, you can clap 50 times to aid the foundation, follow me, and subscribe to get these weekly essays directly in your inbox. 

 

 

20230508

Borchardt Interview on Infinite Universe Theory

PSI Blog 20230508 Borchardt Interview on Infinite Universe Theory


Wide-ranging discussion with Michael and Anastasia at DemystifySci, a video podcast that is starting to interview progressive physicists.



I am happy to announce I have been chosen #146 in a line of interviews that ordinarily are of regressive physicists, cosmogonists, and other mainstream folks. The interview is pretty long, so you might want to stream it on your TV. Just get some popcorn, pour yourself a drink, and search for “DemystifySci” on the Youtube.com channel.


One thing you will notice from the interview and from Infinite Universe Theory in general is its relative simplicity. Once one jumps the finity-infinity divide much of the fantasy and distorted complications of regressive physics and cosmogony disappear. In particular, we consider there to be only two phenomena presented by all portions of the infinite universe: matter and the motion of matter.

 

 

 

 

 

Among the questions answered in this interview are:

 

 

 

Why is The DemystifySci Podcast able to present alternative views?

 

What assumptions are required for becoming a theoretical physicist?

 

How come I had trouble accepting relativity in Physics 1a?

 

Was I ever a believer in the Big Bang Theory?

 

Why did relativity and Big Bang Theory get so popular?

 

Why did the Sagnac experiment in 1913 prove aether existed?

 

Why was the Michelson and Morley experiment unable to detect aether?

 

What is a photon?

 

Why do people believe such fantastic imaginary stuff?

 

What is the proper application of imagination in physics?

 

What are the properties of aether particles?

 

What do the T-waves of light tell us about the morphology of aether particles?

 

Is gravitation a push or a pull?

 

Does the Pound-Rebka experiment prove time dilation?

 

What does the “gravitational redshift” tell us about variations in the properties of aether?

 

Is the cosmological redshift a distance effect?

 

Is nature a continuum or is it particles in motion?

 

What is the universal mechanism of evolution?

 

What is a microcosm?

 

What is a macrocosm?

 

What is the univironment?

 

What is a particle?

 

What is matter?

 

What is mass?

 

Can there be matterless motion?

 

Is time motion?

 

What is measurement?

 

Is everything in the universe in motion?

 

Does aether pressure affect clock measurements?

 

Is the matterless field concept valid?

 

How do we learn the difference between reality and imagination?

 

Why is theory necessary for experimentation?

 

Why and when did I discover the Big Bang Theory was nonsense?

 

What part did curiosity and multidisciplinary work have to do with the development of Infinite Universe Theory?

 

What did the questioning of authority in the sixties have to do with it?

 

What are the two types of Lutheranism and how did they lead to the development of doubt?

 

How do outrageous claims encourage doubt in religion and politics?

 

What is a cause?

 

How do authoritarianism and institution worship prevent paradigm shift?

 

Does paradigm shift occur slow or fast?

 

Did I witness the slow development of plate tectonic theory without screaming in the streets?

 

What does atomism have to do with the space-matter continuum?

 

What do the perfectly empty space and perfectly solid matter idealizations have to do with Einstein’s relativity?

 

How was an 8-year-old able to best Neil de Grasse Tyson in a debate about Big Bang Theory?

 

Why are fundamental assumptions critical in producing a paradigm shift?

 

What did Collingwood’s “Essay on Metaphysics” have to do with the development of Infinite Universe Theory?

 

How does consupponibility support Infinite Universe Theory?

 

What is a matter-motion term?

 

What is momentum?

 

What is force?

 

What is energy?

 

Why do folks have so much difficulty in switching to infinity?

 

How many stars in the Milky Way?

 

How many galaxies in the universe?

 

What do elderly galaxies mean for Infinite Universe Theory?

 

What were “island universes?”

 

Are cyclical universes possible?

 

Why do reformists have 3,500 theories?

 

Why does the universe have to be infinite for things to form?

 

Where does matter come from?

 

What does vortex formation have to do with the formation of aether complexes?

 

How is pedochronopaleoseismology used for determining prehistoric earthquakes?

 

How is it possible to know which faults are active?

 

What are earthquake planning scenarios?

 

What is the difference between aseismic creep and earthquakes?

 

Did subduction in the SF Bay area move northwest to Humboldt County?

 

What is neutron activation analysis?

 

How did we sort of predict the eruption of Mt Helens in Oregon?

 

Will the expected subduction M9.2 earthquake in Humboldt extend all the way to Canada?

 

Are Portland and Seattle ready for the Big One?

 

Why did the Soviet Union and Russia build so many seismically dangerous highrises?

 

How to find out more about Infinite Universe Theory?

 

Here is the Infinite Universe Theory Interview

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYA-QrBn_9g

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

When on Medium, you can clap 50 times to aid the foundation, follow me, and subscribe to get these weekly essays directly in your inbox.



 

 

20230501

James Webb Images Produce Cognitive Dissonance for Astrophysicists Kaku and Tyson

PSI Blog 20230501 James Webb Images Produce Cognitive Dissonance for Astrophysicists Kaku and Tyson

 

Here are some great videos debunking the Big Bang Theory.

 

Thanks to George Coyne, Director of the Vancouver Regional PSI Office, for these links. George, a counselor by trade, is one of the most active members in the Progressive Science Institute. His story of youthful skepticism and subsequent examination of the current cosmology is similar to many followers of Infinite Universe Theory. In fact, he has written his own book on the subject (Coyne, George, 2021, Notfinity Process: Matter in Motion (2nd ed.), JCNPS, 408 p. [https://go.glennborchardt.com/Notfinity21]).

 

The first video is a grandiose illustration of the speculations of the Big Bang Theory with no mention that it is based on the assumption the universe had a beginning. It is only at the very end where it mentions there may be trouble ahead because of the James Webb Space Telescope photos.

 

The second video shows two doyens with very different interpretations of the “elderly galaxy” falsification of the theory. Kaku severely doubts any galaxy could form in a mere 500 million years and be ten times bigger than our 13.6-billion-year-old Milky Way. Tyson uses some shouting and a lot of hubris in defending the “surety” of the redshift-expansion interpretation and the assumed explosion of the entire universe out of nothing.

 

As a scientist, I find it somewhat disconcerting to have to air such disagreement among colleagues, but it is what it is. There will be much more of that to come.

                  

By George Coyne

 

These two videos provide the ultimate debunking of the ridiculous Big Bang model.  

 

Another Blow to Big Bang! James Webb Telescope Detects a Structure that Should Not Exist

 

Credit: LAB 360.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b84yW_t2TAM

 

 

Neil deGrasse Tyson and Michio Kaku Break Silence on James Webb Telescope's Shocking New Image!

 

Credit: T Territory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLry_CT-iwc

 

Tyson and Kaku seem amazed when referring to the 6 massive galaxies that had grown up to 10 times larger than the Milky Way within 500 million years after the hypothesized Big Bang.

 

How soon will it be before all the Big Bang theorists begin distancing themselves from the debunked theory and claim that they always had massive doubts about it?

 

  

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20230424

Death Throes of the Big Bang Theory-JWST Keeps Finding Galaxies That Shouldn’t Exist

PSI Blog 20230424 Death Throes of the Big Bang Theory-JWST Keeps Finding Galaxies That Shouldn’t Exist

 

Paradigms: The bigger they are, the harder they fall.

 

Spiral galaxy. Credit: Yahoo! Finance.

 

Folks not in the business of cosmogony look askance at the silly claims of the Big Bang Theory. Although its absurdities are obvious to outsiders, that is not true for those financially dependent or formerly dependent on the paradigm.

 

Remember that, according to Kuhn[1], a paradigm is more than just a theory. It includes all the publications based upon it, which include all the interpretations based upon the fundamental assumptions underlying the theory. It includes all the paraphernalia used to justify those interpretations. The longer a false theory exists, the greater the number of accoutrements it gathers. The Big Bang Theory is the biggest of them all, for it is a theory about all that exists.

 

   

Thanks to George Coyne for the heads up on reporter Andrew Griffin’s recent article charting the demise of the Big Bang Theory:

 

James Webb Space Telescope keeps finding galaxies that shouldn’t exist, scientist warns

 

Here is a quote that sums up the conundrum:

 

“Professor Boylan-Kolchin’s paper, ‘Stress testing ΛCDM with high-redshift galaxy candidates’, has been published in Nature Astronomy this week.

 

It suggests that the information from the JWST proposes a profound dilemma for scientists. The data indicates that there might be something wrong with the dark energy and cold dark matter paradigm, or ΛCDM, that has been guiding cosmology for decades.

 

Usually, galaxies convert around 10 per cent of their gas into stars. But the newly discovered galaxies would have to be converting almost the entirety of it into stars.

 

That is theoretically possible. But it is a departure from what scientists would ever have expected.

 

Further observation of the galaxies should better clarify their ages and masses. It might show that the observations are incorrect: that supermassive black holes at their centre are heating the galaxies up, so they look more massive than they are, or that they are actually from a later time than expected but look older because of imaging problems.

 

But if they are confirmed, then astronomers may have to change their understanding of the cosmos and how galaxies grow, to adjust their model to account for the unusually large and mature galaxies.”

 

The Other Shoe Prediction

 

We predicted there is yet another shoe to drop on the properties of these “elderly galaxies”: the discovery of heavy elements that have been recycled from large stars that take billions of years to develop the required pressures. Many of these eventually become neutron stars, whose collisions end up scattering heavy elements throughout the galaxy. Soon we will be hearing about those heavy elements causing additional puzzlements for cosmogonists looking at spectra from the farthest galaxies.

 

As always, the mainstream papers and summaries tend to present the contradictory data and some speed-up ad hocs, without mentioning any hint that the Big Bang Theory is done for and must be replaced by Infinite Universe Theory.

 

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

 

 

 



[1] Kuhn, T.S., 1996, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (3rd ed.): Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 212 p.

 

  

20230417

One Way Black Holes Get Naked in the Infinite Universe

 PSI Blog 20230417 One Way Black Holes Get Naked in the Infinite Universe

 

Black hole hurtling through space leaves a trail of stars in its wake

 

 “An artist's rendition of the runaway black hole with the stream of stars trailing behind it. Its former host galaxy is in the upper right of the image. NASA, ESA, Leah Hustak (STScI)”

 

Misnamed “Black holes” are really not holes, but the super-dense nuclei of galaxies. As with most vortices, the center of a galaxy tends to become dense as the remains of ancient stars are pushed therein by gravitation, generally aided by rotation. In other words, black holes are where stars are pushed as they lose momentum during inevitable collisions with their macrocosm.

 

Lately, there have been numerous discoveries of “naked black holes” that are so ancient that they presumably have swallowed all their stars. The Milky Way has only about 1% of its mass in its nucleus, so don’t worry, it will take probably trillions of years before the Milky Way meets its engorged end state.

 

Now, this article by Will Sullivan in the Smithsonian Magazine reviews the recent discovery of a naked black hole that presumably was ejected from its galaxy by a collision with yet another black hole.

 

“In its wake, the black hole left behind a trail of young, hot blue stars birthed from gas. ‘Gas in front of [the black hole] gets shocked because of this supersonic, very high-velocity impact of the black hole moving through the gas. How it works exactly is not really known,’ van Dokkum [co-author of study] says in the statement.”

 

I find it interesting that these mainstream researchers hypothesize that gas existing in front of the black hole contributes to star formation. Looks like Einstein’s perfectly empty space necessary for his particle theory of light is still to be found anywhere. Do you think light traveling through that stuff might lose energy over distance? 


Thanks to Roger Tobie for his questions:

“Eh? Who or what sends the stars to die? Sounds very melodramatic And having gone into a black hole is the matter of the stars lost forever? Or are you just poking fun at the whole concept? From the way your blurb is written I can’t tell for sure.”

[GB: Let me break it down:]

“Eh? Who or what sends the stars to die?”

[GB: You got me. At first I was going to use the old teleology “where stars go to die,” but thought better of it. Obviously, the “sends” wasn’t much better. Per Newton’s First Law of Motion (as I modified it in tune with Infinite Universe Theory) all inertial objects stay in motion “until” they collide with other things. The “sent” was my way of emphasizing that gravitation was a push, not a pull, as assumed by regressive physics (see Borchardt, Glenn, 2018, The Physical Cause of Gravitation: viXra:1806.0165). Per your implication, I have now changed the semi-teleological “sent” to an explicit “push.”]

“Sounds very melodramatic And having gone into a black hole is the matter of the stars lost forever?”

[GB: Of course not. Remember our Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed) and the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion) does not allow that. Also, per the Sixth Assumption of Science, complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things). I wrote about the ultimate demise of black holes here.]

“Or are you just poking fun at the whole concept? From the way your blurb is written I can’t tell for sure.”

[GB: Not really, only about the “black” and the “hole” part. Remember that even Hawking finally admitted they had to be gray, not black. That implies black holes lose some of their internal motion via transfer to the surrounding aether. (See my paper: 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].]

 

 

 

 

 



20230403

Earliest galaxies challenge ideas about star birth in imaginary infant universe

 PSI Blog 20230403 Earliest galaxies challenge ideas about star birth in imaginary infant universe

 

Even Science, the journal I subscribed to for over half a century, is nervous about the coming demise of the Big Bang Theory.

 

“Within Pandora’s Cluster, the JWST space telescope has spotted a few galaxies from the early universe. NASA; ESA; CSA; IVO LABBE/SWINBURNE; RACHEL BEZANSON/UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH; ALYSSA PAGAN/STSCI”

 

Cosmogonists (those who assume the universe had a beginning) cling to their “Last Creation Myth” despite all the evidence piling up indicating the universe is infinite. Even so, the estimate that over 20 trillion galaxies exploded out of nothing has not phased believers very much. Now, even this mainstream journal reflects the beginning of the end for the most ridiculous of theories:

 

Earliest galaxies challenge ideas about star birth in infant universe

 

“Discoveries by giant new space telescope JWST are getting too big for theorists to ignore.”

 

Author Daniel Clery concludes that the paradigm is just too big to fail:

 

‘Few want to countenance an even more extreme option: that the LCDM [current version of the Big Bang] model is at fault. It could be tweaked to produce more dark matter halos or larger ones able to concentrate gas more quickly into bigger galaxies. But theorists are loath to tinker with it because it explains so many things so well: the observed distribution of galaxies, the abundances of primordial gases, and the accelerating expansion of the universe. “We’d be at risk of screwing everything else up,” Ferrara says. “You’d need to be pretty desperate.”’

 

Of course, the desperation has always been there. Remember, I listed 20 falsifications (disproofs) of the Big Bang Theory. It is a fact that the distribution of galaxies show no expansion whatsoever, much less an accelerating one. The cosmogonists still are “loath to reject” the confirmation bias engendered by Bishop Lemaître’s explosive conjecture in 1929.

 

 

20230327

What is Energy?

 PSI Blog 20230327 What is Energy?

 

For relativity and the Big Bang Theory to survive, the nature of energy must remain a mystery.

 

Baseball displaying motion (velocity) that we use in calculating kinetic energy (i.e.: KE=1/2mv^2) — no fields required (except maybe a baseball field). Credit: Chris Chow in Unsplash.com.


Another great question from George Coyne:

 

“Glenn,

 

In your papers and books. you define "energy" as a calculation used in describing matter and its motion, In Universal Cycle theory, you refer to it as "a matter-motion term concerning the exchange of matter's motion representing a calculated result from a number for mass times the square of a velocity number."

 

In this video, physicist Don Lincoln talks about what physicists mean when using the word energy. He states:

 

"At the deepest level of reality potential energy is force fields and objects that interact with them. Kinetic energy is the motion of fields. Kinetic and potential energy of all kinds slosh back and forth into one another in an endless dance, changing identity but never changing the amount; forced to be the same by the mathematical structure of the laws of motion."

 

As Lincoln does not define energy in the same way as you do, then perhaps he is talking about something else. In your model, if he is not referring to what you call energy, then what would you call what he is defining?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u36H4Uo3rPM

 

[GB: Thanks George for the question, which keeps coming up because of the confusion necessary in supporting the Big Bang Theory. It is obvious that, like most regressive physicists, Don Lincoln doesn’t really know what energy is. Nothing has changed in that regard since Feynman's famous quote:

 

"It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. It is not that way." (p. 4-2)

 

I think the best way to answer your question is to deconstruct your Don Lincoln quote:

 

 

"At the deepest level of reality potential energy is force fields and objects that interact with them.”

 

The term “force field” here is just as ambiguous as “energy.” Force is another matter-motion term for calculating the motion of matter (F=ma) per Newton's Second Law of Motion. Contrary to Einstein, a force field cannot be “immaterial” and it cannot contain any magical “force.” To be legitimate, a force field must contain matter in motion, like the aether particles that become decelerated during the acceleration we call gravitation.[1] Thus, a book lying on your table is imagined to have potential energy because we know it is continually being bombarded by aether particles. You can demonstrate this was the case by removing the table and allowing the book to be pushed to the floor, by aether particles, exhibiting what Don would call kinetic energy.

 

 

“Kinetic energy is the motion of fields.”

 

This is false. Kinetic energy is a calculation describing the motion of things. It does not necessarily require a causative field. For example, a baseball exhibits motion when hit by the bat. From that motion (velocity) and its mass (m) we can calculate the kinetic energy of the ball (KE=1/2mv2). That is useful for comparisons with other things having a different mass and/or velocity. Would you rather be hit by a 145 g baseball or a 400 g American football thrown by the best player who ever threw one?

 

 

“Kinetic and potential energy of all kinds slosh back and forth into one another in an endless dance, changing identity but never changing the amount; forced to be the same by the mathematical structure of the laws of motion."

 

This is only partly true. This is the classical description of the motions of a pendulum. Like all Newtonian statements, it assumes finity, which is inappropriate for the Infinite Universe. There is no pendulum that does not exhibit some resistance, however small. The “endless dance,” like Einstein’s photonic perpetual motion that got us the Big Bang Theory, cannot occur despite the idealism engendered by mathematics.]

 



[1] Here is what causes the acceleration called gravitation:


Borchardt, Glenn, 2018, The physical cause of gravitation: viXra:1806.0165