What Questions Do You Have About Infinite Universe Theory?

PSI Blog 20210222 What Questions Do You Have About Infinite Universe Theory?

 

To all my readers:

 

It should be clear by now that we have beaten the horse called “Big Bang” to death many times over. We now await the excuses cosmogonists will dream up when the Webb telescope discovers galaxies older than their imagined 13.8-billion-year age of their finite universe. We should all get a kick out of that.

 

Now I would like to switch from the negative to the  positive like I did in the second half of “Infinite Universe Theory.” Like all theories, it needs continuous development. We need more predictions that can be tested. We need to resolve any paradoxes or contradictions that I am unaware of. This is where you come in. Many heads are better than one, so I would like to answer any questions you can think of. Makes no difference whether they are basic or advanced. Each week I will pick the best question and answer it on Monday.

 

Think of it this way: What if the universe really was infinite and eternal? How would that realization change your interpretations of natural phenomena? For that matter, how would it change your life? Here is one way: Prizes will be awarded for the best questions. Good luck!

Dark Energy is Physics’ Most Embarrassing Problem

PSI Blog 20210215 Dark Energy is Physics’ Most Embarrassing Problem

 

Here is nice article highlighting one of the greatest contradictions faced by cosmogonists. this is a paragraph from Nature summarizing the problem:

 

“A cosmological conundrum

 

Theoretical physicists are devising new solutions to a decades-long cosmic mismatch. Vacuum energy, caused by ‘virtual’ particles popping in and out of empty space, is thought to be behind the Universe’s ever-faster expansion. But quantum theory suggests a vacuum energy so massive that galaxies would never have formed. Theory’s inability to explain the vacuum energy’s oddly small measured value is known as the ‘cosmological constant problem’. Some theorists think this is a non-issue. Others are tweaking the fundamental theories and hypothesizing new ones (such as that space-time is made of foam). “It's generally regarded as one of the most awkward, embarrassing, difficult problems in theoretical physics today,” says physicist Antonio Padilla.”

 

Of course, readers know that energy, much less dark energy, does not exist—energy is a calculation. All energy calculations must involve matter and its motion (e.g., E=mc²). Without matter, there can be no energy calculation. Previously, this contradiction has not bothered cosmogonists who have assumed “dark energy” caused the Big Bang. Let me repeat a key element of the above quote: “Vacuum energy, caused by ‘virtual’ particles popping in and out of empty space, is thought to be behind the Universe’s ever-faster expansion.” This “popping in and out of empty space” is a clever, but nonetheless disingenuous attempt to juggle the “perfectly empty space” required by relativity[1] visa vie the matter required by physics otherwise not based on religious idealism. Also remember that the whole problem started when z values (cosmological redshifts[2]) of especially distant galaxies indicated that their assumed recessional velocities were greater than c. As Hubble suspected, and as Infinite Universe Theory assumes, distal z values are primarily measures of distance—energy loss as light waves travel through the aether due to the Tired Light Effect. They are not evidence that the universe is expanding. Here is the article referred to by Nature. Read it and weep:

 

The Cosmological Constant Is Physics’ Most Embarrassing Problem

 

 

---

[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2020, Religious Roots of Relativity: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 160 p. [ https://go.glennborchardt.com/RRR-ebk ]

[2] Note, z values include doppler effects, which must be subtracted or added to get the “cosmological” redshift due to the Tired Light Effect. Also, the claim by some cosmogonists that “perfectly empty space” or “space-time” itself is expanding is an embarrassing non sequitur.    

Finite Laws in an Infinite Universe

  PSI Blog 20210208 Finite Laws in an Infinite Universe

 

Thanks to my most dedicated reviewer  of Infinite Universe Theory, Abhishek Chakravartty, who did the math and concluded:

 

"So, when acceleration is not constant, Newton’s second law is not applicable."

 

Right. Each law of nature is applicable to an assumed finite number of conditions. In this case, F=ma of Newton's Second Law of Motion only applies to one collision. That single collision is what we call a "cause." In the Infinite Universe this never really applies completely (as with all laws in physics). Any colliding microcosm[1] must do so within a macrocosm[2] containing an infinity of supermicrocosms (the microcosms within the environment).

 

Newton’s First Law of Motion is similarly idealistic. The microcosm stays in motion only if space is perfectly empty (Newton’s agnostical “unless”). Because space is not empty, the law fails as it travels through the macrocosm filled with an infinity of supermicrocosms. Nonetheless, it has been called the "law of the universe." It is good enough for us to see how the universe works.

 

The beauty of Infinite Universe Theory is that a "first cause" is unnecessary, in tune with the Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed). With our assumed infinity, there is always yet another microcosm around to accelerate any sluggish microcosm. Thus, everything in the universe is always in motion. While each event requires collisions, the universe "itself" does not. That is yet another reason any finite universe theory, like the Big Bang, eventually will fail. It also is why the Big Bang Theory is presently so popular among religious folks who tend to believe in an imagined "first cause" and in Einstein's "perfectly empty space" (i.e., "nonexistence").[3] For that reason Infinite Universe Theory will receive only grudging acceptance. The switch from finity to infinity has global philosophical as well as cosmological implications. Once established, there will be no turning back. That is why we call it the “Last Cosmological Revolution.”

 

 

---

[1] MICROCOSM. An xyz portion of the universe surrounded by an equally important environment called a macrocosm. Note that in conventional science microcosms are referred to as systems, which generally are considered more important than the environments in which they exist. In Infinite Universe Theory, microcosms cannot exist without their equally important macrocosms. Regardless of the immensity of a microcosm, in an Infinite Universe an infinitely large macrocosm still surrounds it. The boundaries of a system sometimes are obvious: An apple, for instance, has a skin that roughly distinguishes it from its surroundings. At other times, the boundaries are not so obvious: A bee colony, for instance, has rather obscure boundaries when many of its members are far afield gathering nectar. Boundary selection is often difficult, always important, and frequently arbitrary. As scientists, we try to reduce arbitrariness by recording the location of boundaries with as much accuracy as possible. Our designation of a particular xyz portion of the universe as a microcosm faces the same problems, although in that instance, we treat its environment (the associated macrocosm) as equally important. Also, by attempting to treat the microcosm and the macrocosm equally, we are not as likely to miss important factors, as we would if we were biased toward one or the other (Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, p. 319 [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook]).

 

[2] MACROCOSM. The environment of a microcosm. Strictly speaking, the macrocosm contains the rest of the infinite universe. Practically speaking, only the nearby portions of the universe generally have much influence on a particular microcosm (Ibid, p. 317).

 

[3] Borchardt, Glenn, 2020, Religious Roots of Relativity: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 160 p. [https://go.glennborchardt.com/RRR-ebk].

More Falsification of “Perfectly Empty Space” and the Big Bang Theory

PSI Blog 20210201 More Falsification of “Perfectly Empty Space” and the Big Bang Theory

 

Thanks be to Mike Dwyer who sent me this light-hearted heads up:

 

“Scientists have used the New Horizons spacecraft, billions of miles from Earth, to measure the darkness of space.

NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory/Southwest Research Institute”

 

Scientists Discover Outer Space Isn't Pitch-Black After All

https://www.npr.org/2020/11/18/936219170/scientists-discover-outer-space-isnt-pitch-black-after-all

 

Here is a nice summary quote from this article by Nell Greenfieldboyce of NPR:

 

“In fact, the amount of light coming from mysterious sources was about equal to all the light coming in from the known galaxies, says Marc Postman, an astronomer with the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore. So maybe there are unrecognized galaxies out there, he says, "or some other source of light that we don't yet know what it is."

The new findings are sure to get astronomers talking.

"They're saying that there's as much light outside of galaxies as there is inside of galaxies, which is a pretty tough pill to swallow, frankly," notes Michael Zemcov, an astrophysicist at Rochester Institute of Technology, who was not part of the research team.””

 

Duh? Another hard pill for the cosmogonists, but just another confirmation of Infinite Universe Theory. The evidence is two-fold:

 

1.    It implies there are over twice as many galaxies as the 2 trillion we can observe with the Hubble telescope. It is a prelude to the >13.8-Ga galaxies Infinite Universe Theory predicts we will see with the Webb telescope.

2.    There is no such thing as “perfectly empty space.”[1] The evidence for that is valid whether you believe correctly that light is a wave traveling through the aether medium or incorrectly that light is a particle traveling through what you imagine to be “perfectly empty space” in tune with Einstein.   

 

BTW: There is no mention in this article concerning what the cosmological redshift of this light might be. The fact that an infrared expert was quoted might be a hint. At present, the greatest z value is 11.09, which calculates to a supposed distance of 13.4 billion light years. Infinite Universe Theory would predict that the z values for this “mysterious” light are much greater than that. In addition, the z values probably would vary depending on the direction of the measurement, much like the microwave background:

"Figure 28 Cosmic microwave background radiation measured by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) showing the heterogeneous/homogeneous nature of intergalactic temperature. The red and yellow areas are greater than 2.7^oK and the blue areas are less than 2.7^oK, although the variation is tiny: +5 X 10^{-5 o}K."[2]

---

[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2020, Religious Roots of Relativity: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 160 p. [ https://go.glennborchardt.com/RRR-ebk ]

[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, p. 173. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].