When Did Time Really Begin? The Little Loophole in the Big Bang

PSI Blog 20200622 When Did Time Really Begin? The Little Loophole in the Big Bang

Time is motion, but by definition, regressive physicists and cosmogonists do not know what time is. Their confusion seems boundless—well, almost. At least Hawking knew there would be no time without a universe. Although he was not a particularly good materialist, he seems to have had a vague recollection of Hegel’s famous dictum, which is the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion).

Read this article and watch how regressives dance all around the “mysterious” concept of time:

https://go.glennborchardt.com/regressive-time

“In this invigorating PBS segment, New York-based Australian astrophysicist Matt O’Dowd delves into the science and splendor of when time actually began and what that illuminates about the nature of a universe which contains everything we know, including the mind that does the knowing, yet one which we are still getting to know”:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8gV05nS7mc

“In this next segment, O’Dowd considers the possibilities, as presently understood, of what might have happened before the Big Bang:”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chsLw2siRW0

Note how certain Matt is about the expanding universe interpretation. He obviously is not aware it is based on Einstein’s “Untired Light Theory”[1] and its assumption that space must be perfectly empty. Hope these two bits of PBS-sanctioned propaganda don’t make you too sick.

---

[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 337 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].

The Aether: Against the biggest mistake in the history of physics

PSI Blog 20200622 The Aether: Against the biggest mistake in the history of physics

Thanks to Bill Howell for this heads up on Jean de Climont’s latest. In many respects he is on the same page we are, though he seems a bit reluctant to say the word “aether,” instead calling it the “medium,” just like Newton did in his push theory.

Here are just a few things he gets right:

1.    Light is a wave in the aether.

2.    Photons do not exist.

3.    Aether is entrained around baryonic objects, including electrons.

4.    Sagnac proved the existence of aether.

5.    Gravitation is a push; not a pull.

6.    The LIGO experiment proved the detected motion was transmitted as a wave through the aether at the velocity of light.

7.    The cosmological redshift is a function of distance—not galactic recession.

8.    The universe is not expanding.

9.    There was no Big Bang.

The 30-minute video is a bit technical and covers a lot of ground pretty fast, but it is worth looking into, for the history, if nothing else:

https://youtu.be/CHrOn2at8Ec

Death of the Universe Nonsense Again

PSI Blog 20200615 Death of the Universe Nonsense Again

Nerissa Escanlar/Earth-Life Science Institute

Leave it to New Scientist to broadcast the latest woo-woo in cosmogony:

The surprising benefits of contemplating the death of the universe

“Cosmologist Katie Mack spends her days pondering the end of everything. Whether the cosmos dies a slow heat death or winks out of existence tomorrow, she finds it helps put everyday troubles in perspective”

Read more: 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24632831-500-the-surprising-benefits-of-contemplating-the-death-of-the-universe/#ixzz6NYeBoGLM

Wow! You can even get paid for that? All you have to do is assume the universe had a beginning like all the other Big Bangers do. Of course, if regressives were not generating and publishing this nonsense, then New Scientist could not write about it. Maybe they would have to turn to Jesus stories and homeopathic nostrums like National Geographic did when Murdoch got hold of it for a couple years.

The only thing good about this article is the interview with a woman evangelist instead of the usual suspects such as the venerable deGrasse.

Some quotes from cosmogonist Katie Mack:

“We can say what fraction of the universe’s energy density is matter and what is radiation, and we found out that a large proportion of the universe is made up of these invisible substances called dark matter and dark energy.”

Readers know "dark energy" does not exist--it is a calculation.

“Surely there are some other big things that we don’t understand?

There are also questions around the beginning of the universe. We think that the big bang, which was the beginning of the universe as we know it, happened about 13.8 billion years ago, and the first tiny fractions of a second after that saw the universe expand exponentially in a process called inflation. Most cosmologists agree that it happened, but there’s no solid theory on what would have caused it.”

Right—it surely must have been a miracle.

“There are several possibilities that I discuss in my book. The one that I think is most likely based on current data is called the heat death.

If the universe is expanding, and if its expansion continues to speed up, then space will get more and more dilute over time, which is to say there will be more and more space between each galaxy.”

Yeah sure, this is as “diluted” as the universe looks like as far as we can see:[1]

There are over 10,000 galaxies seen in this photo of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field. It comprises a tiny patch on the sky 1/10 the size of the Moon.^[2] Credit: NASA, ESA.^[3]

As readers know, the “heat death of the universe” trope is a logical conclusion of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that an isolated system only can undergo an increase in entropy (or disorder). Aside from the Big Bang Theory itself, that interpretation is one of the greatest achievements of systems philosophy (overemphasis on the system and underemphasis on the environment). The correct interpretation is founded on the Sixth Assumption of Science, complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things).[4]

It would be nice if Katie would think a bit more “outside the box,” consider Infinite Universe Theory, and join us in promoting the Last Cosmological Revolution.

---

[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 327 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook]. Figure 8.

[2] http://go.glennborchardt.com/HUDFpic

[3] H. Teplitz and M. Rafelski (IPAC/Caltech), A. Koekemoer (STScI), R. Windhorst (Arizona State University), and Z. Levay (STScI).

[4] Borchardt, Glenn, 2008, Resolution of the SLT-order paradox, Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance: Albuquerque, NM, v. 5 [10.13140/RG.2.1.1413.7768].

Backwards Parallel Universe?

PSI Blog 20200608 Backwards Parallel Universe?

Here’s another nutty one from regressive physics and cosmogony:

We may have spotted a parallel universe going backwards in time

“Strange particles observed by an experiment in Antarctica could be evidence of an alternative reality where everything is upside down”

A mystery particle spotted by ANITA in 2016 could be evidence of a parallel universe. Ryan Nichol (UCL Physics & Astronomy)

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24532770-400-we-may-have-spotted-a-parallel-universe-going-backwards-in-time/#ixzz6LrksM3VE

  

The contraption above was said to have found a “right-handed neutrino” as evidence in support of these crazy ideas. This is what New Scientist wrote about it:

“Yet there is potentially a spanner in the works. If ANITA has indeed caught the right-handed neutrino that the anti-universe idea predicts, common sense dictates that other neutrino observatories ought to have caught it, too. Towards the end of last year, the neighbouring IceCube experiment – which continuously watches for flashes of light generated as the decay-products of neutrinos blast through a cubic kilometre of Antarctic ice – announced that it had found no high-energy neutrinos coming from the direction claimed by ANITA.

This isn’t a killer blow for the anti-universe. Anchordoqui points out that the track of a high-energy tau neutrino can be mistaken for that of a lower-energy muon neutrino, of which IceCube has spotted at least one. It is a controversial view, but it suggests that both ANITA and IceCube may have discovered tantalising evidence for a parallel universe.”

Nothing like finding one of something to make grand pronouncements about the universe. Can’t imagine who would support such stuff with a straight face, but they should realize the interpretation violates at least two important assumptions of science:

Seventh Assumption of Science, irreversibility (All processes are irreversible).

Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions).

Of course, the indeterministic opposites are: reversibility and finity.

Regressives who assume “time can flow backwards” invariably must also assume finity, which requires an ignorance of the macrocosm (environment) in which the observed phenomenon is occurring. True reversibility cannot occur in the Infinite Universe. Lab experiments we consider reversible are not really so. That is why we always get a slightly different result each time we run an experiment.

The oxymoronic “parallel universe” trope is only a tiny, misguided step away from finity. It is perhaps the archetype of reformist physics and cosmogony. It erroneously assumes, along with Einstein and Big Bang Theory, that the observed universe is expanding. Evidence is gathering that indicate galaxies are being pushed toward massive cosmological objects outside the observed universe.[1] According to Infinite Universe Theory,[2] that is exactly what is expected. Reformists invented the silly “multiverse” ad hoc to save the Big Bang Theory and its equally silly claim the observed universe is expanding in all directions at once. The Infinite Universe cannot expand, for it exists everywhere and for all time (which is not, and never was reversible).

---

[1] Kashlinsky, A., Atrio-Barandela, F., Ebeling, H., Edge, A., and Kocevski, D., 2010, A New Measurement of the Bulk Flow of X-Ray Luminous Clusters of Galaxies: The Astrophysical Journal Letters, v. 712, no. 1, p. L81-L85. [http://doi.org/10.1088/2041-8205/712/1/L81].

Kashlinsky, A., Atrio-Barandela, F., Kocevski, D., and Ebeling, H., 2008, A measurement of large-scale peculiar velocities of clusters of galaxies: Results and cosmological implications: The Astrophysical Journal, v. 686, p. L49–L52.

[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 337 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].