Univironmental Analysis of Nucleosynthesis

Comments and Questions from Bill Howell:

Hello Dr. Borchardt- 

I finished TSW.  Wow!  It’s amazing to me that any person can write such an extensive treatise.  That some people are able to develop a comprehensive new worldview during a lifetime of observation and study is amazing (and inspiring), but at least I can comprehend that it is possible.  But to depth of your synthesis, the extensive references and background material you cite, and the comprehensiveness of your theory is truly incredible.  Thank you for your efforts.  I wish you success in promulgating your ideas over the next few hundred years.

[Bill, thanks for the kind words.  Glad you got a lot out of TSW. I might need a little help on the next hundred years.  Good thing there are younger folks like yourself around.]

Any new worldview must provide an alternative explanation to the phenomena described by the old worldview.  The Copernican worldview versus the Ptolemaic worldview is a good example.  But to replace it, the new worldview must also be able to explain phenomena that the old worldview can not.  For example, your Assumption of Infinity would explain the “zoo” of subatomic particles that physicists find, and it can explain red-shift problems with the BB model; but as long as instrumentation is unable to peer below the Plank limit or ad-hoc explanations such as an accelerating-universe modification to the inflationary-universe modification of the BB model can be postulated, your theory will only be an alternative explanation to the status quo.  And ideally, a new worldview must be able to predict phenomena that is at variance with the old worldview (and this may not even be enough, as the Eddington eclipse measurement of stellar shift may represent).  I encourage you to think about possible concrete testable predictions. 

For example, the aether experiments are examples of variance with the standard model, but they really only undermine Relativity theory and not the BB model (an old (1978) paper by Richard Muller describing the detection of CBR describes it as the ‘New Aether’).  Your explanation for the CBR provides an alternative explanation for the BB event but doesn’t overthrow the conventional explanation. 
[You are right about the CBR (Cosmic Background Radiation), which was predicted by the BBT (at 10oK) and by classical theory (at <5oK).  The actual temperature was determined to be about 2.7oK.  If the space between galaxies had been perfectly empty, as proposed by Einstein, then the temperature would have been 0oK.  Temperature is the vibratory motion of matter, so any temperature at all meant that outer space was filled with matter: ‘New Aether,’ regular old ether, or today’s trendy incantation, “dark matter.”  The CBR case is a neat example of data that can be interpreted in many ways depending on the initial assumptions of the observer.  Thus the BBT folks assume that light is matterless motion (Einstein’s massless photon) and would not agree that the CBR is indicative of the presence of matter.  However, if we assume INSEPARABILITY (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion) instead, it becomes clear that Einstein and the BBT cannot be correct. 

You have to realize that relativity and the BBT are intimately related.  The demise of one means the demise of the other.  For example, Einstein’s objectification of motion is absolutely required to make the BBT believable.  Einstein did this in SRT when he treated motion (i.e., time) as a thing.  Once time was a thing, it could expand and contract as a thing.  Time “dilation” became all the rage for indeterminists lurking at every turn.  From there it was no problem to invent “space-time,” a matter-motion term in GRT that became critical to acceptance of the BBT.  The key is to understand that common physical terms such as momentum, force, energy, and space-time are mere calculations.  They are not things or the motions of things.  They are descriptions of matter in motion.  Thus space exists, but space-time does not.  The BBT absolutely requires the opposite, indeterministic interpretation that space-time exists.  Otherwise, how could we be at the center of a finite universe that is 13.7 billion light years in all directions?  With 3 X 1023 stars observed, how probable is it that we would be in the center?  If there really had been a “Big Bang” we at least would be off to one side, maybe seeing galaxies 9 billion light years in one direction and 18 billion light years in the opposite direction. The UD solution is that this is all a matter of perception in an infinite 3-D universe in which light is absorbed over distance.  Our presently available tools cannot see light that originated more than 13.7 billion light years from us.]  

I’d love to try to help but I don’t have the depth of scientific knowledge (or the depth of understanding about your theory) that you do.  What I might be able to do is help identify concepts that lack a Univironmental alternative explanation, if you’re willing to entertain them. 

One such concept involves nuclear synthesis.  The BB model is cited to explain the formation and the ratios of He4 to H that permeate interstellar space.  What I’ve read is that the universe had to briefly pass thru an extremely hot dense phase to create He4 from H, and that if this phase had lasted more than minutes in length, the ratio of He4 to H would be much larger (as well as having produced some percentage of stable nuclei larger than He4). 

[The transformation of H to He4 occurs via fusion in stars.  This is a fact.  The BBT stuff regarding the reaction is pure conjecture.]

A Big Bang event with a subsequent inflationary event can explain this (where the expansion of space reduces density/temperature to prevent additional He4 from forming).  Yes, it may be ad-hoc, and was probably an empirical basis for the development of the BB model, but it is an explanation.  Given an infinity of time, it is certainly possible for suns to create He4 from H, but this wouldn’t seem to explain the wide-ranging ratios of He4 to H that are (presumably) observed, or the lack of significant ratios of heavier elements. 
I know that you are not a nuclear physicist or theorist but, given the depth of your knowledge, I wouldn’t want to presume that this is outside of your area of contemplation.  Do you have an alternate Univironmental explanation?

[The “expansion of space” is not responsible for the presence or absence of He4.  In fact, just the opposite is necessary for the formation of helium.  Hydrogen atoms must converge to form helium.  This takes place in stars, such as our sun. The wide-ranging ratios of He4 to H are just what we would expect in an infinite universe that has stars of various sizes at various stages of evolution, which we observe.  In later stages, light elements form and in still later stages elements heavier than Fe form (it is said) during supernova explosions.  None of this requires the entire universe to explode out of nothing.]


Rick Doogie said...

"The key is to understand that common physical terms such as momentum, force, energy, and space-time are mere calculations. They are not things or the motions of things. They are descriptions of matter in motion. Thus space exists, but space-time does not."

Here's an expansion on that idea.
Even the terms "space" and "particle" are flawed concepts in our heads.

The concept "space" too often evokes the idea of "emptiness".
The concept "particle" evokes the idea of a closed system enclosed by some kind of shell.
When we use these flawed concepts to create mathematical formulas and "Laws of Physics", our formulas are just as flawed. We end up with laws and formulas that reinforce and perpetuate our flawed concepts of reality.

"Space" is the 3 dimensions that matter moves in. "Dimensions" don't exist. Dimensions are scientific and mathematical concepts. "3 dimensions" is nothing but the concept we use to measure distance and motion between microcosms.

If we look at the "space" in between tiny particles, we see this "space" is full of tinier particles. Then, if we look between those tinier particles, we find even smaller particles. And so on, infinitely. So, I wonder; is it accurate to say that "space exists"?

On the opposite end of this enigma, we look at so-called "particles". We find that they are mostly filled by "empty space" with a few small particles zipping about a nucleus. If we look within these small particles, they themselves are filled by "empty space" with a few more infinitesimal particles zipping around inside. Ad infinitum, we assume.

Thus, space is full of particles. And particles are full of space. Hmm. Not the best "handles" for grasping reality. We are screwed as soon as we use the words "space" or "particle".

The quality of our understanding is tied to our definitions of concepts and words. That's why the terms "infinity", "univironment", "microcosm", and "macrocosm" are indispensable for the evolution of scientific thought. Now, there are some "handles" we can get ahold of. Instead of trying to define a particle moving through space, we would be better off defining a microcosm interacting with a macrocosm.

Although our words and concepts can never be perfect, they can always be better. "It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is always possible to know more about anything". Thank you, Dr. Borchardt, for working toward popularizing new, more useful concepts and terminology.

Words are the meat and potatoes of our "real world" concepts. That's why it's so important to have new words to define new understanding. "Consuponibility" and "univironmental determinism" are important concepts on the road to better scientific understanding.

I can't wait for that next book.

Rick Doogie said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Glenn Borchardt said...


Thanks again for the compliments. I agree with your comments about the dubiousness of the terms "space" and "particle." We tend to think of these in absolutist terms. As you mentioned, empty space does not exist and particles without empty space do not exist. The space between you and me exists, because it contains microcosms, so what we call space really is matter. That is why I say that space exists. I don't necessarily consider space and particle to be flawed concepts--if we use them correctly. It is just that each portion of the universe appears to have material characteristics that appear to be more dominant or less dominant than other portions. Thus in UD, the macrocosm contributes 50% to the UD interaction whether it is resistant or less resistant. I really don't think of "space" as the 3 dimensions matter moves in, because "space" is matter as well. Space simply is "weaker" matter that allows other microcosms to move through it, just as you are able to move through the space filled with the air (or water) around you. Nevertheless, once again, you have gotten the jist of TSW.

Bill Howell said...

I understand (and agree with) both rickdoogie's and Dr. Borchartd's comments. I think it's also important to keep in mind the 'evolutionary' concept of 'how do you get there from here'. By that I mean that the concepts of space and particle are a way to comprehend and study the subject. It's not that these words are "flawed" so much as that they are incomplete, but they give us a handle for describing the concepts which are essential for being able to build on them and then transcend the concepts they convey. Math is an example. Whole numbers are a way to begin to conceptualize (thru approximation) a description of nature when the concept of the fractal nature of reality is not yet known. We aren't able to conceive of a new scientific worldview until we have been able to develop the prior worldview and then begin to test it. 'Flawed' worldviews are the vehicle for conceiving of a different worldview so that it can then be perceived (i.e. "you don't perceive what you can't conceive").