Multiverse theory and aether

PSI Blog 20181219 Multiverse theory and aether

From reader Abhi:

I had once claimed the following:

The universe contains many collections of galaxies instead of only one. Aether exists only inside one collection of galaxies and not outside it. So aether does not exist outside that collection of galaxies in which we live. So there is no light over there. So nobody has ever been able to see anything over there. So all scientists have assumed that the universe contains only one collection of galaxies i.e. the one in which we live. Since that collection of galaxies is filled with aether, scientists like you have assumed that the whole universe is filled with aether. I am making this claim because any form of matter is always finite and no form of matter can be infinite. Only the universe is infinite. Can you please look deeply into the matter?

[GB: Thanks for the comment. You are hypothesizing a reason for our inability to see beyond 13.8 billion light years even though you assume macrocosmic infinity. Your hypothesis will be severely tested when the Webb telescope replaces the Hubble after March 2021:

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope)

This is my prediction on p. 289 of "Infinite Universe Theory": “Improvements in instrumentation soon will result in the discovery of cosmological objects older than 13.8 billion years.” Of course, that probably would not be taken as a falsification of the Big Bang Theory—there are always recalculations and ad hocs the cosmogonists will come up with. It would not help your theory or any of the other multiverse theories, because, according to Infinite Universe Theory, there will be no aether-less gap beyond what we see now.

You give me too much credit. Many famous scientists of the past have assumed aether is universal. Still others have, like you, assumed that some regions of the universe may contain nothing at all. Of course, that is only an idealization (reread the IUT Glossary on “MATTER-SPACE CONTINUUM). The empty space assumption also is the petard that threatens to destroy Einstein’s Untired Light Theory.

You say “any form of matter is always finite and no form of matter can be infinite.” You may reject microcosmic infinity all you want, but that is a theoretical dead-end. Matter is infinitely subdividable, with each division producing what appears to us as ideal “solid matter” and ideal “empty space.” Matter is an abstraction implying that all things must contain other things. As I have mentioned many times, macrocosmic infinity and microcosmic finity are not consupponible.]

 
Abhi: Now I can prove my claim to be correct by using what mainstream physics calls a black hole. See the first sentence on 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

It says that nothing—not even particles and electromagnetic radiation such as light—can escape from inside it. Actually this claim is wrong. There is no light over there because there is no ether over there. So particles which go there cannot be seen anymore because there is no light over there. So there are actually no such things as black holes in the universe. Since particles which go over there cannot be seen anymore, mainstream physics has assumed that the region is a black hole from where particles cannot escape. That region is only a place in the universe where ether does not exist. Can you please look deeply into the matter?

[GB: As far as I can tell, “Black Holes” certainly are not “holes” and no one has ever seen one. They appear to be the product of mathematical imagination. Before he died, Hawking recanted, admitting that, at most, they were “grey holes.” My interpretation is this: Any physical evidence is really evidence for a galactic nucleus as we see in this NASA photo of Andromeda:  

It looks like the nucleus is where stars go to die. Typical of many vortices, the center therefore contains the great mass assumed for “Black Holes,” but without the “blackness” initially calculated by cosmogonists such as Hawking. With the new claim that they actually are “grey holes,” your "lack of aether" hypothesis is unnecessary.]