Why does the Big Bang Theory supersede the Steady State Theory?

PSI Blog 20190327 Why does the Big Bang Theory supersede the Steady State Theory?

Thanks to Jowanna Daley for this question.

Both the BBT and SST rely on Einstein’s “Untired Light Theory” to interpret the cosmological redshift as evidence for an expanding universe (See: Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 349 p. [Infinite Universe Theory: Glenn Borchardt 1, Glenn Borchardt]). The Untired Light Theory needed 8 ad hocs to overcome Sagnac’s and de Sitter’s proofs light was a wave instead of a classical particle. Two of the most important were: light is a massless particle (a violation of E=mc^2) and that it undergoes perpetual motion (a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics).

SST accepted universal expansion, but hypothesized an infinite universe. The only problem: An infinite universe cannot expand—it is already full. In addition, SST assumed hydrogen formed out of nothing (Like the BBT, this was a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics). Cosmogonists, like the religious folks preceding them, assumed the universe was finite and had a beginning. The result: Despite all these violations of well-accepted laws, the BBT won. That is why progressive scientists consider the BBT to be a creationist theory based on religious assumptions accepted by most people (See also the free download at: Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The Ten Assumptions of Science: Toward a new scientific worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/TTAOS].)

What keeps things together?

PSI Blog 20190320 What keeps things together?

From Abhi, one of our best respondents:

“You wrote that ‘for the balloon to keep its shape, it simply must have enough pressure inside (submicrocosms in motion) to counteract the pressure outside (supermicrocosms in motion). This is true for all microcosms (things). Decrease the pressure inside and the microcosm implodes; decrease the pressure outside and microcosm explodes. The velocities of the submicrocosms and supermicrocosms are secondary.’

But all microcosms do not behave like balloons. For example, a pot has a rigid shape and size which does not change even if we change the pressure inside or outside it. Can you please look deeply into this?”

[GB: Thanks Abhi for another excellent question.

The answer goes back to the formation of baryonic (ordinary) matter from aether particles in the first place. In Infinite Universe Theory I assume aether particles have short-range velocities analogous to those of nitrogen molecules in the atmosphere. In other words, we know individual nitrogen molecules travel 50% faster than the wave motion produced by that medium (i.e., 343 m/s X 1.5 = 515 m/s). For aether, this would be: 300,000,000 m/s X 1.5 = 450,000,000 m/s.

The formation of baryonic matter simply involves the process of slowing some of the aether particles down long enough for them to form complexes of aether. This would never happen if all aether particles were identical—some of them must be larger than others. The required deceleration is similar to what occurs when aether particles are decelerated during gravitational acceleration.[1] The decelerated aether particles surround all baryonic matter and are otherwise known as “dark matter.”

Back to the balloon example: Everything we know consists of aether complexes. Each complex is in motion, from high-velocity aether pairs to the most massive, slow-velocity chunk of lead. The balloon is an excellent example of univironmental interactions. It clearly shows why a microcosm might stay in one piece instead of simply flying apart. So why doesn’t the pot fly apart when the air pressure inside and outside is not equal? That is because solids, unlike the gases in the atmosphere, have fewer “degrees of freedom.” In other words, they consist of atoms comprised of aether particles that previously were pushed together by still higher velocity aether particles and aether complexes. Of course, even an iron pot can “fly apart” under appropriate conditions. It simply would have to absorb enough motion to do so. That is what overheating does when you forget to turn off the stove. Heat is a vibratory motion. Enough of it and the atoms in your pot will attain more “degrees of freedom,” possibly turning into a river of liquid with any plastic parts turning into gases.

The deceleration of high-velocity aether particles can occur in many ways in addition to that which produces the “dark matter” halo around other microcosms. Of primary importance is the formation of vortices. In this case, much of the otherwise linear motion of aether particles is forced to travel in a circle around some more massive aether particle or complex. I say “forced” because the more sluggish aether particles tend to be pushed around by the more active ones. In the figure below, microcosm A, because of its size, provides shelter for microcosm B, possibly resulting in a new aether complex.

    

Microcosms in motion. Note that large microcosm A in the center shelters microcosm B from impacts from the left. Consequently, B will be pushed toward A, with the likelihood it might even end up rotating around A or combining with it.[2]

The upshot: The macrocosm (environment) is of utmost importance for the formation and continued existence of any microcosm (portion of the universe). That is why a finite universe surrounded by perfectly empty space makes no sense at all.]

---

[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2018, The Physical Cause of Gravitation: viXra:1806.0165.

[2] IUT, Chapter 16.4, Where does matter come from?, Figure 46.

Another regressive outrage--negative gravity

PSI Blog 20190313 Another regressive outrage--negative gravity

Thanks to Jesse for this news article showing how math assumptions control regressive speculation:

He writes:

“Too good. These mathemagicians never give up. Negative gravity.....what’s next?”

https://nypost.com/2018/12/06/this-theory-may-explain-why-95-of-the-universe-is-missing/amp/?utm_source=quora&utm_medium=referral

In response to what's next, Piotr writes:

“I'm betting on negative & infinite dimensions.”

The "scientific" paper is published in Astronomy & Astrophysics.

An Open Response to Johanna Miller’s Column: Sorry Crackpots

PSI Blog 20190306 An Open Response to Johanna Miller’s Column--Sorry Crackpots

Guest Blog by Steven B. Bryant

An Open Response to Johanna Miller’s Column: ‘Sorry, Crackpots’

On February 1, 2019, Johanna L. Miller, an editor of Physics Today, published an article entitled “Sorry, Crackpots: A Physics Today editor explains why we’re never going to publish your cockamamie theories”. As an independent researcher, one Ms. Miller would improperly label as a crackpot, I believe that her position dangerously stifles scientific advancement and innovation. To illustrate my point, I show how bias and name calling prevents us from having a serious scientific conversation.

Let's begin with statements with which everyone should agree:

1. The average (or arithmetic mean), ξ, of two expressions s and t can be found using the equation: ξ = 0.5*(s + t). It can also be found using an equivalent equation: ξ = t - 0.5 *(t - s). If you use the second equation but fail to recognize it as an average, this does not enable it to take on new magical properties.
2. Mathematically, a circle (2D) or sphere (3D) is axiomatically defined as, the set of all points in a Euclidean plane (2D) or space (3D) that are a constant distance from a common center. If you find at least two points that belong to the same set and those points are not the same distance from a common center, then the shape is not a circle or a sphere.
3. If given the distance equation, distance=time*velocity, you can solve for any variable if the other two are known. However, you cannot use this equation to determine a velocity if you replace distance with grams, volume, cycles, or shoe size.

Now, let's create some statements with which few people should agree. I'll call these statements elements of a crackpot test:

1. On a sheet of paper. Draw a circle, an oval, a straight line, and a squiggle. Convince yourself that each of the shapes is a circle.
2. Convince yourself that each of the following equations are equivalent and will properly find the velocity of a moving object: velocity = grams/time; velocity = cycles/time; velocity = volume/time, and velocity = shoe size / time.
3. Imagine a train approaches you with a bright light on top of the locomotive. You know the wavelength, x', of the light. You measure the light's wavelength as the train approaches and again as it moves away from you as, s = x'c/(c + v) and t = x'c/(c - v). Find the average Doppler equation, ξ. Convince yourself that the average Doppler shift is the train’s spatial position.

Now for the test question: If someone builds a “cockamamie theory” (Ms. Miller's words, not mine) based on at least one of the above statements, would you label them as a crackpot and dismiss their theory?

Before you answer the question, recognize that a key theme of the scientific process is independent validation. To this end, review Einstein’s 1905 paper, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Systems, and Michelson and Morley’s paper discussing their interferometer experiment and see if you can find each of the anomalies (above). Why do I ask that you find it yourself? Because when you do, it's no longer about someone telling you what they've found. Instead, finding them independently allows us to come to the table as peers and engage in a scientific conversation rather than an emotional argument. Even if we disagree on whether a finding is "right" or "wrong", we're discussing the same finding.

Ideally, you've independently found each anomaly mentioned above. But, if you’re struggling to see the problems in the original works, you can (optionally) review an academic poster presentation that I delivered in February 2019 (see: https://goo.gl/8kaF3N ). However, I still encourage you to review the original works and confirm each finding yourself.

Returning to the test question: If you answered yes (and you've done the research mentioned above), not only have you dismissed Einstein’s theory of relativity as a “cockamamie theory”, you’ve labeled Einstein as a “crackpot”.  This is why name calling is so dangerous. While I believe relativity is invalid, I would never use such terms to describe Einstein or his work. It is this type of labeling and name calling that turns a scientific conversation into an emotional argument; at which point serious discourse no longer occurs.

So, Ms. Miller, please join me in changing the tone of the conversation. Let's agree to stop the grade school name calling because labeling someone as a crackpot does nothing but perpetuate a culture of bias and discrimination. Let's also agree to stop hiding behind the excuse of peer reviews when editors, many of whom share your biases, have no intention of publishing works that disagree or challenge their beliefs - no matter how well-argued and researched that work might be. Name calling and exclusion were (ineffective) tools we used as kids on a playground when we didn't know any better. But as mature scientists, we owe it to ourselves and to the broader community to find more effective ways of handling crucial conversations. Fortunately, I've met many scientists who are quite open to exploring material that challenges their beliefs. We can use them as role models.

Scientific innovation and discovery advance best when we examine what others have to say and remain open to reexamining our most deeply held beliefs. I think it would be a huge benefit to the scientific community if more journals were open to publishing well-researched, critical submissions that challenge our understanding. Ms. Miller, will you please join me in moving the conversation from the playground to places more appropriate for serious scientific discussions?

 Steven B. Bryant is a futurist, researcher, and author who investigates the innovative application and strategic implications of science and technology on society and business. He is the author of DISRUPTIVE: Rewriting the rules of physics, which is a thought–provoking book that shows where relativity fails and introduces Modern Mechanics, a unified model of motion that fundamentally changes how we view modern physics. DISRUPTIVE is available at Amazon.com, BarnesAndNoble.com, and other booksellers!

For the latest on no-nonsense physics and cosmology, see:

Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 327 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].

Video review of my Blog on regressive name calling

PSI Blog 20190301 Video review of my Blog on regressive name calling

David de Hilster, president of the Chappell Natural Philosophy Society, gives a spirited and detailed analysis of the attack on critics of relativity and the Big Bang Theory:

https://youtu.be/BEYNi60G2OM?t=3