Infinite Universe Theory in High School

A question from a future cosmologist:

I am a 10th grade high school student and I was reading about how you believe that the BBT will be replaced by the IUT. I have not been able to find much info about the IUT though and was wondering if you could simply explain it to me. It would be appreciated.

Ruben MacKenzie

Cle Elum Roslyn High School

Dear Ruben:

You are well on your way to becoming one of the first cosmologists to benefit from the Infinite Universe Theory. This subject is so complicated that I am writing a book on it, so this will be only a smidgeon of what it is all about. There is a short paper on IUT at the PSI website and a 2-hr podcast on beginning assumptions necessary for overthrowing the BBT.

Actually, the IUT, unlike the BBT, assumes that the universe is infinite, not finite. However, like all fundamental assumptions (see The Ten Assumptions of Science, either the book, or chapter 3 in “The Scientific Worldview”), this cannot be proven either true or false. One cannot go to the end of the universe to observe whether or not the universe is infinite. One only can assume one or the other. Today’s cosmologists actually are cosmogonists, those who assume that the universe is finite and that it had a beginning. I simply don’t believe that anything, much less the universe, could explode out of nothing (or a pinhead-size “singularity”). That also is an assumption of course, but a pretty good one, I think.

Here are a few objections to the BBT:

• The galactic redshift proves that the universe is expanding. False. Light is a wave in the ether, which like all wave motion, is absorbed in the medium. This is why the sound waves produced by my voice cannot be heard in Seattle or why California earthquakes are not felt by people in New York.

• The universe is 4-dimensional. False. Time is motion, so it cannot be a dimension (unlike what Einstein said). Unlike things, which have xyz dimensions (length, width, and height), time does not exist, it occurs. All this means that any dimension greater than 3 must be purely imaginary. It might be interesting math, but it still is imaginary all the same. Without the claimed 4th dimension, it would be fortuitous (exceedingly unlikely) for us to be at the center of a finite universe having a hundred billion galaxies, each with a hundred billion stars. The oldest galaxies are 13.7 billion light years away, in all directions. That is simply because light is completely absorbed by the ether medium over that distance.

• Einstein showed that the ether did not exist. False. He even admitted that this was untrue in 1920. He thought that light was a particle traveling through empty space. The temperature of empty space would be 0 degrees Kelvin. We have since discovered that outer space has a temperature of 2.7 degrees Kelvin. Because temperature is vibratory motion, there must be something besides empty space between the galaxies, namely the ether.

• Not all galaxies are red. Andromeda is blue, indicating that it is coming toward our Milky Way galaxy. The BBT theory states that everything is moving away from everything else as the universe expands.

Here are some reasons that the IUT is better:

• One can never avoid infinity and the fact that the universe is eternal. The universe just goes on and on. Even if you believed that the universe was created by an imaginary friend, you still would have to ask: “Who or what created my imaginary friend?” You could try to save the BBT by inventing an infinite number of “Big Crunches” and “Big Bangs” or separate, oxymoronic “multiverses” or “parallel universes,” but you always must come back to infinity.

• Remember that empty space and solid matter are only ideas. Neither exists, anywhere. Space always has “matter” in it and “matter” always has “space” in it. All real things have both properties. When we cut a real thing in two, we find that the two parts also have what appears to be empty space and solid matter. This means that empty space is impossible and therefore that nonexistence is impossible. Thus, a finite, 3-D universe surrounded by pure, empty space is impossible.

• IUT satisfies all the demands of “The Ten Assumptions of Science,” which, unlike many of the assumptions underlying the BBT, are in agreement with each other and with the assumption of infinity.

• The IUT resolves (solves) many of the paradoxes found in the BBT and the relativity theories that it is founded upon. For instance, BBT folks believe, like Einstein, that light is both a particle and a wave. In IUT, however, light is a wave that occurs in a medium (like air or water). Thus, my cell phone does not shoot little light bullets (photons) to the cell tower; it simply tickles the ether. Like a water wave, this disturbance is what travels, not the actual ether or H2O molecules.

• Unlike the BBT, the IUT states that the infinite universe consists equally of things coming together and things coming apart. For every birth, a death, etc. Galaxies, like everything else, come together, and then come apart, with the various parts (and motion within the ether) from dying galaxies coming together in the intergalactic space to form new galaxies.

Ruben, you obviously are tackling one of the biggest questions one can ever ask. My prediction is that you might become one of the best cosmologists, perhaps one of the first to actually be employed as an advocate of the IUT. By 2050, the BBT will be on its last legs and your generation will be erasing all the mistakes that mine has made. Good luck on your Ph.D.!