The Scientific Worldview

This is a blog that takes the name of my magnum opus on scientific philosophy called "The Scientific Worldview." Reviewers have called it “revolutionary,” “exhilarating,” “magnificent,” “fascinating,” and even “a breathtaking synthesis of all understanding.” There is very little math in it, no religion, no politics, no psycho-babble, and no BS. It provides the first outline of the philosophical perspective that will develop during the last half of the Industrial-Social Revolution.

20210125

Dark Matter Clumps

PSI Blog 20210125 Dark Matter Clumps

NASA spots smallest dark matter clumps

https://go.glennborchardt.com/DM-Clumps

This is an interesting observation but, as usual, I am not sure these folks have the interpretation correct. According to Aether Deceleration Theory (ADT) all baryonic matter is surrounded by aether particles that become decelerated after colliding with that matter (producing gravitation). What you see in the above illustration is not the normal dark matter halo, but four relatively distinct areas that produce the refraction instead. I am not sure what produces the four areas. It surely has nothing to do with the “curving of space-time,” which is the misinterpretation Eddington used to “prove Einstein right” back in 1919. That actually was produced by the normal refraction that occurred when light entered the Sun’s atmosphere. This type of light bending occurs when you stick a pole into a body of water. It definitely is no proof that “perfectly empty space” becomes curved near massive bodies. There is no such empty space anywhere in the Infinite Universe, especially around cosmic bodies.

I imagine this particular clumping is determined partly by the shape of the foreground galaxy. Note that the four “starbursts,” each with four major diffraction spikes, are artifacts of vision. In this case, they are produced by the telescope. They also can be produced by eyelashes and eyelids. Obviously, they are proof that refraction is occurring. This reminds me of:

“Einstein Rings”

Here is Wikipedia parroting one of the typical einsteinisms[1]:

“Gravitational lensing is predicted by Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity. Instead of light from a source traveling in a straight line (in three dimensions), it is bent by the presence of a massive body, which distorts spacetime. An Einstein Ring is a special case of gravitational lensing, caused by the exact alignment of the source, lens, and observer. This results in symmetry around the lens, causing a ring-like structure.”

Again, this is a result of simple refraction—it has nothing to do with Einstein’s so-called “space-time.” All massive bodies are surrounded by a refracting atmosphere (or, at least, an aetherosphere[2]). Note that the successful use of space-time in relativity explanations generally serves as a proxy for aetherial effects. In a similar pattern, “photons” generally serve as a proxy for aether particles. Light is a wave in the aether medium, with the particles in that medium producing the collisions attributed to the photon. The hypothetical photon, of course, had to be massless in order to fit Einstein’s relativity theory. It that were true, its collisions with baryonic matter could produce no force (F=ma = 0 if m=0). The photoelectric effect would not occur and Einstein would not have gotten his only Nobel.

[1] “A statement or prediction that is true, but for the wrong reason.” (Borchardt, Glenn, 2020, Religious Roots of Relativity: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, p. 137 [https://go.glennborchardt.com/RRR-ebk].

[2] Ibid, pp. 38, 137.

20210118

Another regressive absurdity: “Fragments of energy”

PSI Blog 20210118 Another regressive absurdity: “Fragments of energy”

Readers know that, by definition, regressive physicists and cosmogonists do not know what energy is. In particular, they have trouble with their definitions. In progressive physics, we define matter as an XYZ portion of the universe containing other matter within and without. Energy is like other matter-motion terms. Energy neither exists, nor occurs. What exists is matter and what occurs is the motion of matter. Today’s absurdity is an excellent example of the misuse of our ever-useful matter-motion terms. Their use requires at least a smidgeon of scientific philosophy, although primitive philosophy is sufficient. All languages have nouns (describing portions of the universe) and verbs (describing what those portions do).

The cosmogonical mess below arrives to us via the most important generally unacknowledged assumption underlying cosmogony: that the universe had an origin. The “fundamental building block” idea, of course, also is based on the regressive assumption of finity (The universe is finite in the microscopic and macroscopic directions).

At least the “fragments of energy” idea is consupponible with the “Dark Energy” ad hoc used to save the Big Bang Theory. Cosmogonists, like better grounded scientists, had the sneaking suspicion that the explosion out of nothing or even out of the earlier “singularity” ad hoc would not cut it. There had to be some driving force (other than an imaginary god) to initiate that grandiosity. Because energy, whether considered light or dark, really does not exist, its “fragmentation” was bound to be the imagined solution to the microcosmic end of the finity assumption as well.

A prominent energy calculation is via Maxwell’s E=mc². Obviously, if m=0, then E must also equal 0. There can be no energy without mass, just as there can be no particle without mass. But the Dark Energy of the cosmogonists hypothesizes no particle that could be the carrier of the force (F=ma) that could propel the universe into existence. Similarly, the magical objectification of energy conceived as being neither a particle nor a wave is simply mathematical nonsense at best. Energy calculations are absolutely essential in physics, but we must never forget that the calculation must always be of matter in motion and motion of matter. The article below shows how far off base regressive physics and cosmogony can get. With incorrect assumptions, the math is GIGO (Garbage In; Garbage Out). Read it and weep!

Fragments of energy – not waves or particles – may be the fundamental building blocks of the universe

https://go.glennborchardt.com/E-fragments

20210111

October launch of James Webb Space Telescope set to falsify Big Bang Theory

PSI Blog 20210111 October launch of James Webb Space Telescope set to falsify Big Bang Theory

“The James Webb telescope. Its mirror and sunshield will be folded up during launch. Credit: NASA”

From a recent Nature Briefing:

“Long-awaited telescope launch

October will see the long-awaited launch of the James Webb Space Telescope — which its developer, NASA, calls the “largest, most powerful and complex space telescope ever built”. The US$8.8-billion Webb will seek to repeat the success of the Hubble Telescope, which revolutionized astronomy when it launched in 1990 and has made more than 1.3 million observations since. Webb will cover more wavelengths than Hubble, enabling scientists to peer deeper into the Universe.”

This could be considered part of the space race initiated by the successful launch of Sputnik by the USSR in 1957. In 1958, President Eisenhower signed the National Aeronautics and Space Act, establishing NASA. James E. Webb was the head of NASA from 1961 to 1968. He favored the scientific and economic influence of the program as much as the political and military aspects. I don’t know what he thought of the idea the universe exploded out of nothing. He was neither a scientist nor an engineer, just the best manager President Kennedy was lucky enough to find.

As Bill mentioned last week, the Webb telescope is sure to find more evidence that the observable universe is older than the 13.8 billion years imagined by the cosmogonists. As in last week’s post, they will try to fit their observations into the current paradigm with still more ridiculous ad hocs. Don’t be too surprised if they end up suggesting whole galaxy clusters formed in only 6,000 years!

20210104

More evidence falsifying the Big Bang Theory—"The most distant galaxy is upending our model of the universe's history"

PSI Blog 20210104 More evidence falsifying the Big Bang Theory—"The most distant galaxy is upending our model of the universe's history"

Thanks to Bill Howell for this heads-up article by Karlis on another elderly galaxy falsifying the Big Bang Theory.

The most distant galaxy is upending our model of the universe's history

A new study confirms GN-z11 is the oldest and most distant galaxy humans have ever sighted

The galaxy GN-z11, which scientists think could be the farthest and oldest galaxy every observed, superimposed on an image from the COODS-North survey. (NASA, ESA, P. Oesch (Yale University), G. Brammer (STScI), P. van Dokkum (Yale University), and G. Illingworth (University of California, Santa Cruz))

https://go.glennborchardt.com/Elderly-GN-z11

Bill writes: “With the Webb coming online next year, it shouldn't be long before we start getting images of galaxies older than the Universe ;-).”

[GB: Here are some cosmogonical quotes:

“the light we see from it left 13.4 billion years ago — only 400 million years after the Big Bang.”

“"The detected light of carbon and oxygen suggests special physical conditions not found in present-day galaxies," Kashikawa told Salon. "The age of GN-z11 is estimated to be only 70 million years and the estimated mass of a billion times that of the Sun (the stellar component) suggests that this young galaxy was born and grew rapidly."

Kashikawa added: "The fact that carbon and oxygen were found in GN-z11 indicates that this galaxy is not the first (metal-free) galaxy in the universe." Since elements heavier than hydrogen and helium are only forged in massive stars, the presence of heavier elements like carbon indicate that the stars in the galaxy are at least second-generation, meaning one generation of large suns has already lived and died, expelling their metals into the galaxy.

This means, said, that the first galaxies in the universe are still "in a more distant universe unknown to mankind."”

Wow! A whole galaxy only 70 million years old! Not only that, but it contains elements that had to be recycled from still earlier stars. There is no way this galaxy containing a billion stars could possibly be that young. It is obvious that Kashikawa’s “distant unknown universe” is simply evidence for a portion of the Infinite Universe much like what we observe nearby. The absurd 70-million-year date is an ad hoc made up to avoid conflict with the equally ridiculous Big Bang Theory.

NASA’s official view of what the Big Bang universe should look like (seriously).[1] Credit: NASA.

[1] http://go.glennborchardt.com/NASABBT

As seen in the figure above, cosmological bodies at increasing distances are supposed to be younger and younger. There is no evidence for that. Kashikawa has found evidence for just the opposite. His oldest, recycled galaxy at the limit of present observation is confirmation of Infinite Universe Theory and a disproof of both the Big Bang Theory and the Multiverse Theory. Too bad he doesn’t even realize that.]