This question was posed on Yahoo Answers:
“I know the Big Bang Theory is pretty much the only one accepted in science, but I want to learn about the others. There's got to be others. They're soooo hard to search. I'm doing a research paper on creation theories, and so far I've got the Big Bang, Infinite Universe Theory, Theta-MEST, and Theorist Theories. Are there any others?
Oh and if you have an idea of what there was before the universe was created or how it was created I would really like to hear it. I'm mega interested in your own opinion.”
My answer:
The Infinite Universe Theory (Borchardt, 2007) should not be confused with the Steady State Theory, which it commonly is. Steady State Theory assumes that the universe is expanding, with hydrogen being created out of nothing, albeit over very long periods. Like the BBT, Steady State Theory is based on the assumption of creation, while the true Infinite Universe Theory (IUT) is based on the assumption of CONSERVATION (Matter and the motion of matter can neither be created nor destroyed), also known in its energy-based form as the First Law of Thermodynamics. Cosmological theories that assume that the universe had a beginning are referred to as "cosmogonies." They stem from the everyday observation that all things in the universe have a beginning (as their various parts converge) and an ending (as their various parts diverge). This is a non sequitur, however, for the universe as a whole. The requisite convergences and divergences may continue forever within an infinite universe. The opposing view assumes that the universe is finite, existing within an infinite void or expanding into the 4-dimensional spacetime of mathematical imagination. One cannot escape infinity. Even if one assumed there was a creator, the question always arises “Who created the creator?”
Nearly every civilization has a cosmogony, although the alternative, minority view probably can be found within most societies as well. You just have to check historical documents. For instance, in checking for evidence of pre-1849 earthquakes in California I came across this conversation between a priest and a Native American:
Priest: "You know that God created the universe, don't you?”
Native: "Why you silly man. It has always been here!"
Reference:
Borchardt, Glenn, 2007, Infinite universe theory: Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, v. 4, no. 1, p. 20-23. ( http://scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/IUT.pdf )
20100519
Review of Oler’s Unified Cycle Theory
In the early seventies Edward Oler produced numerous small books and pamphlets touting his “Unified Cycle Theory.” This recently became of interest because of the publication of the ground-breaking book “The Unified Cycle Theory: How cycles dominate the structure of the universe and influence life on earth” by Steven Puetz (OutskirtsPress.com). Puetz actually has extensive data to support his theory that the cosmos is influenced by cycles ranging from days to billions of years. Oler had none. Nonetheless, Oler also believed that he had a universally applicable theory of cycles—they just aren’t the same ones. His emphasis on “triads” became of interest because Puetz discovered that, when the wavelength of each of his cycles was divided by 3, it produced the next smallest wavelength. The triads of Oler, however, simply refer to the evolutionary processes that inevitably involve a beginning, middle, and end.
Oler has some interesting observations, but the method of “logic” he proposes doesn’t seem to amount to much more than “all things have cycles.” The closest he gets to explaining the reason for cycles involves his vague mention of the change of quantity into quality. Cycles occur, of course, as a result of univironmental interactions between microcosm and macrocosm (Borchardt, 2007). Old Faithful, the famous geyser in Yellowstone National Park, for instance, has a chamber that gradually fills with water (quantity), eventually erupting (quality) and emptying when the chamber is full and the pressure due to heating is sufficient. Economic cycles occur when production inevitably exceeds demand, causing prices to plummet. The microcosm of production exists within a macrocosm of too few consumers who desire the product and have salaries sufficient to buy it. When the previously sold production is used up or wears out and salaries improve, demand increases, prices rise, and production increases. The plant cycle is similar. The macrocosm of sunlight aids rapid plant growth during the summer and diminishes it during the winter. Where summer days are extra long, such as Alaska, plant growth may be furious, with vegetables becoming giants in a few short months. Nothing in the infinite universe can rage out of control for long, because all things (microcosms) have an environment (macrocosm). Newton’s object does not travel forever in a straight line, because, in an infinite universe there always is another object there to intercept it—the fundamental reason for all cycles in the universe.
Oler (1971) writes about “The Theory of Cycles of Science,” but his approach follows conventional wisdom rife with indeterminism: “Every free will decision has an element of determinism; and every determining factor has an element of free will when man is concerned…” (p. 2). He correctly sees subject (matter) and predicate (motion) as complements, but lumps them with matter and energy as complements, which they are not. Matter is real, but energy is an idea, being neither matter nor motion (Borchardt, 2009). Energy is a matter-motion term that we use in physics to understand matter and the motion of matter. Energy is neither a thing nor an occurrence. This mistake appears throughout Oler’s work. Even in his most recent work (Oler, 1976), he still wrote stuff such as this: “Matter is the structure of mass and energy is the function of mass (p. 49).” A quibble would be that mass is not matter, but the resistance of matter to impact from other matter. Oler then uses energy as a motion term, a common mistake for those who throw matter-motion terms around indiscriminately.
Elsewhere, he parrots Stephen Jay Gould’s erroneous view that “Since science is based on facts and religion is based on belief we are dealing with two different fields of human activity. And as long as it is understood that facts and beliefs are opposite and complementary there is no need for argument (Oler, 1971, pp. 102-103).” But the arguments do persist despite this common view among accomodationists. Why is that? Because, as I have pointed out many times (Borchardt, 2004a, 2004b and Ch. 3 in Borchardt, 2007), the difference between science and religion is not one of fact versus belief, but of opposing beliefs. One either believes in CONSERVATION (Matter and the motion of matter neither can be created nor destroyed.) or its opposite, creation of something from nothing. One cannot use facts to “prove” which one of these fundamental assumptions is correct. One only can gather bits and pieces of information from the external world in support of either one. Big Bang Theorists, for example, have forsaken their belief in CONSERVATION to adopt a belief in creation. For them, the “expansion of the universe” is a fact that outweighs belief in CONSERVATION. The thought does not occur to them that this supposed “fact” could be interpreted incorrectly and that the reddening of faraway galaxies might be due mostly to absorption in the medium instead of the Doppler Effect.
Oler (1973) provides this summary of his work: “The complementary process and triad development of change that retains constants is the basic law of CYCLES. And every entity and system is composed of this cycle constant with many kinds of change.” He finally ends it with this baffling bit of matter-motion mixology: “The cycle of an entity (the process and development) and the content of an entity (the structure and function) represents a four-fold complementary of every basic unit of nature (the force and motion of matter and energy (of mass) in space and time as cycles) as a system (p. 37).”
References:
Borchardt, G., 2004a, Ten assumptions of science and the demise of 'cosmogony': Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, v. 1, no. 1, p. 3-6. (http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/TTAOSATDOC.pdf )
Borchardt, G., 2004b, The ten assumptions of science: Toward a new scientific worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p.
Borchardt, G., 2007, The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 411 p.
Borchardt, G., 2009, The physical meaning of E=mc2: Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance (in press), v. 6, no. 1.( http://scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/The%20Physical%20Meaning%20of%20E%20=%20mc2.pdf )
Oler, E., 1971, The philosophy of science and nature: Cycle monism: Denver, Golden Bell Press, 116 p.
Oler, E., 1973, The unified cycle theory of nature: mathematical charts of complementaries and triads of cycles of man and nature: Denver, CO, Cycle Research, 40 p.
Oler, E., 1976, Research in cycle logic, Cycle Research.
Oler has some interesting observations, but the method of “logic” he proposes doesn’t seem to amount to much more than “all things have cycles.” The closest he gets to explaining the reason for cycles involves his vague mention of the change of quantity into quality. Cycles occur, of course, as a result of univironmental interactions between microcosm and macrocosm (Borchardt, 2007). Old Faithful, the famous geyser in Yellowstone National Park, for instance, has a chamber that gradually fills with water (quantity), eventually erupting (quality) and emptying when the chamber is full and the pressure due to heating is sufficient. Economic cycles occur when production inevitably exceeds demand, causing prices to plummet. The microcosm of production exists within a macrocosm of too few consumers who desire the product and have salaries sufficient to buy it. When the previously sold production is used up or wears out and salaries improve, demand increases, prices rise, and production increases. The plant cycle is similar. The macrocosm of sunlight aids rapid plant growth during the summer and diminishes it during the winter. Where summer days are extra long, such as Alaska, plant growth may be furious, with vegetables becoming giants in a few short months. Nothing in the infinite universe can rage out of control for long, because all things (microcosms) have an environment (macrocosm). Newton’s object does not travel forever in a straight line, because, in an infinite universe there always is another object there to intercept it—the fundamental reason for all cycles in the universe.
Oler (1971) writes about “The Theory of Cycles of Science,” but his approach follows conventional wisdom rife with indeterminism: “Every free will decision has an element of determinism; and every determining factor has an element of free will when man is concerned…” (p. 2). He correctly sees subject (matter) and predicate (motion) as complements, but lumps them with matter and energy as complements, which they are not. Matter is real, but energy is an idea, being neither matter nor motion (Borchardt, 2009). Energy is a matter-motion term that we use in physics to understand matter and the motion of matter. Energy is neither a thing nor an occurrence. This mistake appears throughout Oler’s work. Even in his most recent work (Oler, 1976), he still wrote stuff such as this: “Matter is the structure of mass and energy is the function of mass (p. 49).” A quibble would be that mass is not matter, but the resistance of matter to impact from other matter. Oler then uses energy as a motion term, a common mistake for those who throw matter-motion terms around indiscriminately.
Elsewhere, he parrots Stephen Jay Gould’s erroneous view that “Since science is based on facts and religion is based on belief we are dealing with two different fields of human activity. And as long as it is understood that facts and beliefs are opposite and complementary there is no need for argument (Oler, 1971, pp. 102-103).” But the arguments do persist despite this common view among accomodationists. Why is that? Because, as I have pointed out many times (Borchardt, 2004a, 2004b and Ch. 3 in Borchardt, 2007), the difference between science and religion is not one of fact versus belief, but of opposing beliefs. One either believes in CONSERVATION (Matter and the motion of matter neither can be created nor destroyed.) or its opposite, creation of something from nothing. One cannot use facts to “prove” which one of these fundamental assumptions is correct. One only can gather bits and pieces of information from the external world in support of either one. Big Bang Theorists, for example, have forsaken their belief in CONSERVATION to adopt a belief in creation. For them, the “expansion of the universe” is a fact that outweighs belief in CONSERVATION. The thought does not occur to them that this supposed “fact” could be interpreted incorrectly and that the reddening of faraway galaxies might be due mostly to absorption in the medium instead of the Doppler Effect.
Oler (1973) provides this summary of his work: “The complementary process and triad development of change that retains constants is the basic law of CYCLES. And every entity and system is composed of this cycle constant with many kinds of change.” He finally ends it with this baffling bit of matter-motion mixology: “The cycle of an entity (the process and development) and the content of an entity (the structure and function) represents a four-fold complementary of every basic unit of nature (the force and motion of matter and energy (of mass) in space and time as cycles) as a system (p. 37).”
References:
Borchardt, G., 2004a, Ten assumptions of science and the demise of 'cosmogony': Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, v. 1, no. 1, p. 3-6. (http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/TTAOSATDOC.pdf )
Borchardt, G., 2004b, The ten assumptions of science: Toward a new scientific worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p.
Borchardt, G., 2007, The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 411 p.
Borchardt, G., 2009, The physical meaning of E=mc2: Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance (in press), v. 6, no. 1.( http://scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/The%20Physical%20Meaning%20of%20E%20=%20mc2.pdf )
Oler, E., 1971, The philosophy of science and nature: Cycle monism: Denver, Golden Bell Press, 116 p.
Oler, E., 1973, The unified cycle theory of nature: mathematical charts of complementaries and triads of cycles of man and nature: Denver, CO, Cycle Research, 40 p.
Oler, E., 1976, Research in cycle logic, Cycle Research.
20100512
Elderly Galactic Clusters and the Timetable for the Demise of Cosmogony
PSI Blog 20100512 Elderly Galactic Clusters and the Timetable for the Demise of Cosmogony
Fig. 12-3. Sigmoidal growth curve for global population assuming perfect symmetry about the 1989 Inflection Point. Sources: Historical estimates and 1950–1989 data from the U.S. Census Bureau (from Borchardt, 2007b, p. 290).
I never get tired of this kind of article. This time, though, those far-away galaxies are looking "surprisingly modern."
How much more will it take to overthrow the BBT?
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2010-157&rn=news.xml&rst=2596
My answer:
Thanks Mike. This (Hadhazy, 2010) is just another bit of evidence that galaxies, and now galactic clusters, in the distant “early universe” of the BBT are really no different than nearby galaxies and clusters. If the BBT were true, galaxies at this calculated distance of 9.6 billion light years would be only 4.1 billion years old when they emitted the observed light. Our own Milky Way galaxy is about 10 billion years old, but many of the galaxies in the discovered cluster look a lot older than that. As the article states, this is like finding “modern skyscrapers in ancient Rome” or I might say, finding a teenager in your bassinet. If the universe really was expanding, all the galaxies at great distances would be babies. Infinite Universe Theory (IUT)(Borchardt, 2007a) claims, instead, that the universe is not expanding and predicts that galaxies at various distances will have various ages. This report is similar to the one I covered in my blog of 9/4/09 ”Elderly Galaxy Disproves Big Bang Theory” (Borchardt, 2009). According to conventional philosophers of science “falsifications” like this are supposed to lead to the rejection of a theory. Don’t hold your breath.
Sorry to disappoint you Mike, but the overthrow of a major paradigm, especially such a powerful one as the Big Bang Theory, normally takes at least a generation or two. All paradigms live in a special neighborhood. This one, in particular, has many friendly faces in high places. Although modern physicists don’t necessarily believe in miracles, virgin birth, walking on water, ghosts, gods, and matterless motion, their (financial) friends do. Genesis and cosmogony both are founded on the belief that the universe had an origin. As you know, the alternative to the BBT is the IUT, which claims neither creator nor beginning. Thus, in today’s environment, to switch from the indeterministic assumption of finity to the deterministic assumption of INFINITY is to give up both cosmogony and Genesis. How long do you think that will take?
I haven’t studied this subject in much detail, but it seems to me that Fig. 12-3 above provides the best clue. During the next four decades the rate of population growth and associated economic growth will decline so rapidly that it is sure to set off worldwide political upheaval. This will pose the ultimate challenge to the political, loyalty, and economic systems that flourished during the period of exponential growth that ended with the 1989 Inflection Point defining the midpoint of the global demographic transition. The assumptions underlying the BBT will not escape this upheaval. I doubt that cosmogony can survive more than a generation past the year 2033 when the upheaval will be at its greatest intensity.
As you can see, the survival of such a fundamental paradigm is dependent more on how we see ourselves than on a plethora of falsifying evidence. “How we see ourselves,” our basic philosophy, grows from our experiences with the external world. As you know, we change as the macrocosm changes, and vice versa. Most folks may think the BBT to be strange, but they really don’t care one whit about it. They would like to know, instead, how to get another job or how to prevent foreclosure. They expect the same amenities that their parents prayed for and received during the expansion phase. Will they get it? Fig. 12-3 says “perhaps, for a while, but not without a lot of struggle, both material and philosophical.”
So what do we do in the meantime? For a couple decades we have a grand opportunity! Few, if any, employed physicists or cosmologists will be interested in Infinite Universe Theory despite embarrassing elderlies at great distances. Einstein, Hawking, and the pillars of theological wisdom have prevented advancement in theoretical physics and cosmology for over a century. We should consider ourselves especially lucky. This is our chance to use the IUT to solve problems untouched by conventional wisdom. In any case, we can have a lot of fun with the stalwart defenders of the BBT as they stutter their way through “explanations” of miscreant galaxies, universal expansion, heat death, 4-dimensional space-time, twins dancing on the heads of relativistic pins, and all manner of paradox brought forth by the theory.
References
Borchardt, Glenn, 2007a, Infinite universe theory: Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, v. 4, no. 1, p. 20-23.
Borchardt, Glenn, 2007b, The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 411 p.
Borchardt, Glenn, 2009, Elderly Galaxy Disproves Big Bang Theory (http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2009/09/elderly-galaxy-disproves-big-bang.html)
Hadhazy, Adam, 2010, Ancient City of Galaxies Looks Surprisingly Modern (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2010-157&rn=news.xml&rst=2596).
20100505
Empiricism Bytes the Bullet
My response (bold and in brackets) to an email from an empiricist:
I think there are two ways to look at the world.
1) Make a set of assumptions free from any experimental data, develop a logical math and let the math that you have developed decide on how your world should behave. [This is much like the approach of religious folks and other indeterminists, who believe that “truth” can be internally derived or furnished by some authority.]
2) Don’t make any assumption, develop a logic based on experimental data, Let your logic decide your world. [Ostensibly, this is what is known by most as the “scientific method.” “Truth” is whatever is confirmed by observation or experiment with the external world. I do not agree, however, with the admonition to “don’t make any assumption” or that your “logic will decide your world.” The radical “empiricism” expressed in this statement has no practical merit. If the claims of empiricists were correct, they would be studying things willy-nilly, wasting time measuring sidewalk cracks, pebbles, and sand grains. In fact, no one ever does this. Even the measuring of sidewalk cracks has to be stimulated by a theoretical basis, which must have underlying assumptions (BTW: I have done this to study the rate of aseismic slip on California faults). As I explained in TTAOS and Ch. 3 of TSW, anyone who claims to have no assumptions actually has subconscious presuppositions. Once presuppositions are brought into the light of day, spoken or written down, they become assumptions amenable to further study. Even presuppositions do not pop into our heads out of nothing. All are the effects of living in the real world, with our “microcosms” continually interacting with the “macrocosm.” Theory and practice form an endless iteration. It is impossible to have one without the other. The “logic” that you speak of really doesn’t decide your world, the world does. We only can hope to make some sense of a part of it.]
In the prior, your world is remarkably free from any apprehensions of human intelligence and hence resembles reality exactly given that your assumptions are correct.
In the latter the assumptions are made when and where necessary supported by observations. In this small set of observations are extrapolated to universal laws.
Coming to relativity, the limited velocity of light is enough to validate the theory. If we believe the velocity of light has a limit, it has a wave nature during propagation and it travels through empty space then we have to believe that empty space should have some finite elasticity, because of limited velocity of wave in empty space. [Light is wave motion within the ether. There is no such thing as “empty space.” Even Einstein had changed his mind by 1920: "Careful reflection teaches us that special relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume its existence but not ascribe a definite state of motion to it ..." "There is a weighty reason in favour of ether. To deny ether is to ultimately assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever." Today’s “ether deniers” in modern physics are not really relativists, but absolutists. Thankfully, some of them are coming back into line with the invention of “dark matter” as a substitute for the ether that they disposed of prematurely.]
So far as time being a dimension, look at a still photograph, a 2-D cartoon movie and observe the world in which we live. Thinking it what is the difference between a still photograph, a 2-D cartoon movie the difference is occurrence of events, which gives a indication that cartoon movie is not a 2-D world it is a 3-D world with one dimension as time. [Time is not a dimension; time is motion. Time does not exist; time occurs. Existence is defined as a portion of the universe having xyz dimensions and location with respect to other portions of the universe. For an imaginary friend to have existence, it would have to have xyz dimensions and be located somewhere in the universe. So time is not “part” of the universe; it is what the various parts do. Whether matter exists as the pixels of a cartoon, video, or the atoms of photographed objects, all have 3 dimensions, otherwise they would have no existence. The illusion or observation of motion always requires the motion of some microcosms with respect to the motion of still other microcosms. Although one can plot time on a graph and treat it as a “thing” in mathematics, that does not make it a dimension.]
And does the time dilate, the elasticity of space can alter length the events taking place between the lengths appears as dilated time. [Time does not dilate, only things can dilate. This misconception was put to rest by Steven Bryant (http://www.relativitychallenge.com/archives/643), who showed the importance of treating wavelength and frequency in the correct manner. If Einstein would have done that correctly, he would not have invented relativity and today’s “modern physicists” actually would know what time is.]
I think there are two ways to look at the world.
1) Make a set of assumptions free from any experimental data, develop a logical math and let the math that you have developed decide on how your world should behave. [This is much like the approach of religious folks and other indeterminists, who believe that “truth” can be internally derived or furnished by some authority.]
2) Don’t make any assumption, develop a logic based on experimental data, Let your logic decide your world. [Ostensibly, this is what is known by most as the “scientific method.” “Truth” is whatever is confirmed by observation or experiment with the external world. I do not agree, however, with the admonition to “don’t make any assumption” or that your “logic will decide your world.” The radical “empiricism” expressed in this statement has no practical merit. If the claims of empiricists were correct, they would be studying things willy-nilly, wasting time measuring sidewalk cracks, pebbles, and sand grains. In fact, no one ever does this. Even the measuring of sidewalk cracks has to be stimulated by a theoretical basis, which must have underlying assumptions (BTW: I have done this to study the rate of aseismic slip on California faults). As I explained in TTAOS and Ch. 3 of TSW, anyone who claims to have no assumptions actually has subconscious presuppositions. Once presuppositions are brought into the light of day, spoken or written down, they become assumptions amenable to further study. Even presuppositions do not pop into our heads out of nothing. All are the effects of living in the real world, with our “microcosms” continually interacting with the “macrocosm.” Theory and practice form an endless iteration. It is impossible to have one without the other. The “logic” that you speak of really doesn’t decide your world, the world does. We only can hope to make some sense of a part of it.]
In the prior, your world is remarkably free from any apprehensions of human intelligence and hence resembles reality exactly given that your assumptions are correct.
In the latter the assumptions are made when and where necessary supported by observations. In this small set of observations are extrapolated to universal laws.
Coming to relativity, the limited velocity of light is enough to validate the theory. If we believe the velocity of light has a limit, it has a wave nature during propagation and it travels through empty space then we have to believe that empty space should have some finite elasticity, because of limited velocity of wave in empty space. [Light is wave motion within the ether. There is no such thing as “empty space.” Even Einstein had changed his mind by 1920: "Careful reflection teaches us that special relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume its existence but not ascribe a definite state of motion to it ..." "There is a weighty reason in favour of ether. To deny ether is to ultimately assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever." Today’s “ether deniers” in modern physics are not really relativists, but absolutists. Thankfully, some of them are coming back into line with the invention of “dark matter” as a substitute for the ether that they disposed of prematurely.]
So far as time being a dimension, look at a still photograph, a 2-D cartoon movie and observe the world in which we live. Thinking it what is the difference between a still photograph, a 2-D cartoon movie the difference is occurrence of events, which gives a indication that cartoon movie is not a 2-D world it is a 3-D world with one dimension as time. [Time is not a dimension; time is motion. Time does not exist; time occurs. Existence is defined as a portion of the universe having xyz dimensions and location with respect to other portions of the universe. For an imaginary friend to have existence, it would have to have xyz dimensions and be located somewhere in the universe. So time is not “part” of the universe; it is what the various parts do. Whether matter exists as the pixels of a cartoon, video, or the atoms of photographed objects, all have 3 dimensions, otherwise they would have no existence. The illusion or observation of motion always requires the motion of some microcosms with respect to the motion of still other microcosms. Although one can plot time on a graph and treat it as a “thing” in mathematics, that does not make it a dimension.]
And does the time dilate, the elasticity of space can alter length the events taking place between the lengths appears as dilated time. [Time does not dilate, only things can dilate. This misconception was put to rest by Steven Bryant (http://www.relativitychallenge.com/archives/643), who showed the importance of treating wavelength and frequency in the correct manner. If Einstein would have done that correctly, he would not have invented relativity and today’s “modern physicists” actually would know what time is.]