Untired Light Theory and Regressive Attempts to Support It

PSI Blog 20201026 Untired Light Theory and Regressive Attempts to Support It

 

The reason the Big Bang Theory is hanging on so long is not because of any data the regressives have accumulated. It is entirely how those data are interpreted. Thanks to Jesse Witwer for asking my opinion on this enduring use of Einstein’s Untired Light Theory:

 

"Tired-Light" Hypothesis Gets Re-Tired

 

Whether light was a particle, a wave, or an idiotic combination of both, it would be impossible for it to travel over cosmic distances without losing energy. The only way that could happen is for space to be perfectly empty, as assumed by Einstein and his idealistic followers.

 

They claim: “For the tired-light theory to be correct, young galaxies would have to be dimmer, rather than brighter, than old ones.” Ask yourself: How much sense does that make? Furthermore, how much sense does perfectly empty space make?

 

As usual, regressives hold fast to their religiously based assumptions and are wont to emit borderline insults to nonbelievers: ‘Even so, "I don't think it's possible to convince people who are holding on to tired light," says Ned Wright, an astrophysicist at the University of California, Los Angeles. "I would say it is more a problem for a psychological journal than for Science."’

 

Maybe they should publish their Untired Light Theory stuff in religious journals.

 

Imperfect Transmission of Waves

 PSI Blog 20201019 Imperfect Transmission of Waves

 

[GB: Another great question from faithful reader Abhishek Chakravartty:]

 

“On page 55 of IUT, you wrote the following sentences:

 

"Each wave involves a convergence and divergence that produces the next wave. The next wave is similar to the last one, but it is never identical. What does change is the slight decrease in the ability of a wave to produce the next wave. Eventually, waves spread out from the source, being reproduced in a form not quite as true as the last."

 

In the above sentences, when you use the words "next wave", it would mean that after a wave is formed around it and so on. But that is not the fact. The fact is that each and every wave is emitted from the source and continues to move away from the source. Then why do you use the words "next wave" instead of the words "same wave at the next position”? Can you please explain this to me in detail?”

 

[GB: Abhi: There are two different processes occurring here:

1.  Production

2.  Transmission

Waves are produced by the source and transmitted by the medium. Thus, if I drop a pebble into still water, a single T-wave[1] will be produced. The water under the pebble will be displaced, with the surrounding water being pushed back into the hole thus created. This distortion of the surface of the medium affects the surface of the water in all directions, producing peaks and valleys we call waves. However, as this disturbance spreads away from the source the production of each subsequent peak and valley never can be perfect, as mentioned in “Infinite Universe Theory”.[2] This is because the reproduction of any thing or the motion of an thing cannot be perfect, in tune with the Ninth Assumption of Science, relativism (All things have characteristics that make them similar to all other things as well as characteristics that make them dissimilar to all other things).

 

But what about the second part of your question, which involves a source that continually produces new waves? That would be like the light waves continually produced by the sun. It also would be like the waves I would produce by continually dropping a series of pebbles into still water. Each wave, like the one produced by the single pebble, would produce similar imperfect replication of the next.

 

Why is any of this important? It is extremely important because there is no perfection in Infinite Universe Theory. There is no perfectly empty space, just as there is no perfect reproduction of the waves occurring within the medium making up what, instead, is assumed by Einstein and his regressive followers to be empty space. Waves occur via the multitude of particulate collisions within what constitutes the medium. Per neomechanics,[3] none of these collisions can occur without energy (motion of matter) losses to the macrocosm (aether-2 particles in this case). In wave motion, these losses appear as increases in wavelength (i.e., a redshift). There are many types of redshift, but only one, the cosmological redshift is a direct function of cosmological distance as would be expected for this “imperfect transmission theory.”

 

So, by tossing out the idea of perfection rampant among cosmogonists we have a logical explanation of the cosmological redshift. We no longer can use the doppler effect or the ridiculous expanding empty space to support the equally ridiculous expanding universe theory. The Big Bang Theory and all its supposed mathematical perfection is destroyed by the imperfections necessary for the Infinite Universe to exist.]

   

 

 

---

[1] Remember, T-waves are transverse waves. The particles in the medium move up and down, always returning to their previous positions. The disturbance, however, moves in all directions, forming peaks and valleys as it does so. T-waves also are sometimes called shear waves, particularly in seismology. L-waves, on the other hand, are a result of oscillating particle movement in the direction of the disturbance. These are also called longitudinal waves or pressure waves, as in seismology in which they travel faster than T-waves and arrive before the T-waves produced by earthquakes.  

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

 [3] Chapter 11 in Infinite Universe Theory.

Nonsense about Space and Time as Illusions

 PSI Blog 20201012 Nonsense about Space and Time as Illusions

 

One primary characteristic of regressive physicists is the inability to know what time is. The same, it seems, goes for space.

 

Here is another one by Dr. Tim Andersen, regressive physicist, from Georgia Tech. This time it is the old “time is an illusion” trope. As readers know, time is the motion of matter.[1]

 

Space and time may be illusions

 

Of course, this discussion amounts to a contradiction of the First Assumption of Science, materialism (The external world exists after the observer does not). It illustrates once again how far regressive physics has strayed from reality.

 

  Tim writes:

 

“One of the deepest philosophical questions is: why is there something rather than nothing? A more tractable question is: why is there space and time even when there is no matter?”

 

These are “deep philosophical questions” only for naïve idealists. As readers know, perfectly empty space is an idealization. There can be no such thing. Empty space has never been and will never be found. It is impossible for “nothing” to exist. After assuming just the opposite, Tim goes on to ask his second dumb question, proving once again that regressive physicists have no idea what time is. This is a paradox for him only because his beginning assumption (immaterialism) is incorrect.

 

 

 

---

[1] This from George Coyne: “Glenn, Ever since Einstein decoupled motion from matter in his relativity, physicists have accepted that motion can occur in the absence of matter. You and I know this is nonsensical, but the mainstream physicists do not question this dogma. Thus, your phrase "time is motion" needs to always be stated in full as "Time is the motion of matter." The last 2 words may appear unnecessary for a reason that is obvious to you and I, but they are needed. In your comparison of the BBT and IUT you do use the full phrase.”  [GB: I agree.]

 

Nonsense in Five Dimensions

 

PSI Blog 20201005 Nonsense in Five Dimensions

 

Regressives and reformists are always at work trying to demolish contradictions with untoward imagination. Here is one by Dr. Tim Andersen from Georgia Tech:

 

A 5th dimension may explain quantum theory

 

“String theorists claim that the universe has many dimensions: 10, 11, or 26, but that all but the four are curled up so small that we can’t detect them.

That’s not what I’m talking about here. I’m talking about a real 5th dimension, one that is as big and uncurled as the other four.”

 

Tim goes on to give all the details to this loony idea. Like many reform attempts, this one may be attractive to Newtonians and Einsteinians who simply cannot give up the indeterministic assumption of finity (The universe is finite in the microscopic and macroscopic directions). Because there are an infinite number of causes for any effect, all measurements have a plus or minus. Readers know the Copenhagen crowd handled nature’s reluctance to conform to finity by considering probability as a cause in itself. Einstein objected because, like the old-fashioned Newtonians (and Copenhageners), he could not give up the finity assumption. Here is how Tim goes about getting rid of that nasty old infinity:

 

“If this is true, it would mean that rather than being random, quantum mechanics is simply the result of classical motion in a largely invisible dimension.”

 

What he means by “classical motion” is the Newtonian assumption that causality is finite. Here he substitutes probability as a singular cause with the imagined 5^th dimension as a singular cause. Voila! This would satisfy Einstein’s dislike of probability, possibly achieving the holy grail of reformists: the impossible unification of relativity and quantum mechanics.

 

https://go.glennborchardt.com/5th-dimension

 

Note: This is part of a website Tim calls “The Infinite Universe

First Principles in Science, Philosophy, and Religion.” I don’t think so.