20210329

“Is the Aether Entrained by the Motion of Celestial Bodies?”

PSI Blog 20210329 “Is the Aether Entrained by the Motion of Celestial Bodies?”

 

Thanks to George Coyne for another interesting question:

 

Glenn, I have a question for you regarding an aether paper by Joseph Levy titled “Is the Aether Entrained by the Motion of Celestial Bodies? What do the Experiments Tell Us?”
Levy sees the necessity to include aether in formulating physics theories in writing: "It is difficult, indeed, to accept that a “vacuum”, endowed with physical properties such as permittivity and permeability may be empty. The ability of such an empty vacuum to transmit electromagnetic waves is also doubtful." However, I am certain that you will find many errors with his paper. What areas do you find to be the most problematic with his concepts? Would you please critique it so that your readers will better understand how your theoretical perspective concerning aether and its role in gravitation differs significantly from Levy’s. Thanks!
Here is the link to a pdf of his paper:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1204/1204.1885.pdf

 

[GB: Here is my impression regarding Levy's mistakes:

 

1. He believes gravitation is an attraction, which it is not.

 

2. He makes no mention of aether deceleration as the reason for entrainment.

 

3. As a result, he assumes that entrainment has to be the result of planetary motion. On the contrary, like our atmosphere, planetary motion is not the cause of entrainment. The particles within the atmosphere and aetherosphere are part of Earth. They move along with Earth in its daily rotation and annual revolution around the Sun.

 

4. He is right that aether is not affected by gravitation, but for the wrong reason. That is because its deceleration and the resulting distal pressure decrease is the cause of gravitation.

 

5. He uses the absurd Lorentz length contraction to explain the Michelson-Morley Experiment, which was an experiment to detect ether, which was then defined as being a stationary medium through which Earth moved around the Sun at 30 km/s. Of course, that is the velocity of the Earth-atmosphere-aetherosphere system as it revolves around the Sun. At sea level, both the atmosphere and the aetherosphere are mostly unaffected by that motion. As I showed in “Infinite Universe Theory,” one cannot measure that relative 30 km/s velocity without doing measurements beyond the atmosphere and beyond the aetherosphere. That is why the Galaev and Miller and Michelson repetitions at high altitudes got interferometer results that were a function of altitude (Figure 1), proving aether was entrained—at least at low altitudes.

 


Figure 1. Interferometer measurements of Earth’s velocity around the Sun as determined at various altitudes above mean sea level. The three data points in red at high altitude are projections and are yet to be performed. The other data are from Galaev, who seems to be the first to show this relationship.[1]

 

George, thanks again for the link. Oh well, at least Levy is not an aether denier even though he uses that spelling for the wrong ether.]

 

 

 

 



[1] Galaev, 2002, The measuring of ether-drift velocity. Cited in Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, Figure 42. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].

  

20210322

Why Clock Speed Increases at High Altitude

PSI Blog 20210322 Why Clock Speed Increases at High Altitude

 

A question from Bill Howell:

 

“Hi Glenn- Per your request, I have a question: 

 

In IUT on pages 260-261 you describe (and depict in Figure 51) a halo of decelerated aether enveloping the Earth to explain the stable orbit of geosynchronous satellites and why gravity does not exhibit aberration.  I’ve read that without the proper application Einstein’s general theory of relativity, GPS satellites would produce inaccurate results of one’s location on Earth.  One description states: “The net result is that time on a GPS satellite clock advances faster than a clock on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day.”[1] Assuming that’s true, and given your model, couldn’t this time correction be re-interpreted to be indicative of the aether pressure gradient in the halo at the distance above the Earth that geosynchronous satellites orbit?  If so, an alternate question is could it be indicative of an aether density gradient rather than a pressure gradient?”

 

[GB: Great questions! The answer to the first is yes. To the second, an equivocal no. According to my Aether Deceleration Theory (ADT), aether pressure increases with distance from Earth, while its density decreases. This is because highly active distal aether particles have high short-range velocities, which decrease when they collide with ordinary matter. That means, of course, that these decelerated aether particles will have decreased velocities, which will decrease their potential for leaving whatever they collided with. This is where Newton made his greatest blunder regarding his push theory of gravitation. He proposed that the pushing medium increased in density with distance from Earth. He had entirely forgotten his Second Law of Motion. He should have known gravitation was an acceleration. An accelerator was called for and its deceleration was inevitable. I say the answer to your second question is equivocal only because, in this case, pressure and density are inversely related.

 

The beauty of ADT is that it shows how gravitation fosters creation by pushing things together, with its own perpetrators first doing the pushing and then sticking around to add to the creation. The deceleration produces a sort of aether vacuum around ordinary objects. That is the reason aether particles tend to travel toward those objects. Like Newton’s failed hypothesis, other push theories lack the reason for gravitational motion to be directed at baryonic matter. It is simple: particles in areas of high pressure tend to move toward areas of low pressure. So, the real actor in gravitation is pressure, not density. Pressure is the initiator; density is the result.

 

Now, with regard to your GPS question. The answer fits right in with ADT. As I mentioned, aether pressure increases with distance from Earth. That means any clock will receive more aetherial impacts at high altitude than at low altitude. Being a time piece, the clock is like any other microcosm containing submicrocosms in motion. Collisions from supermicrocosms (aether particles) in the macrocosm (environment) will increase the velocities of those submicrocosms within the clock. Think of it this way: When we reheat a cup of coffee in the microwave, those aetherial waves impact the cup, accelerating the water molecules within. Thus, whatever cyclic reactions are within a particular clock will be speeded up as a result of increased aetherial pressure.

 

Although the General Relativity Theory based explanation is just another einsteinism (right for the wrong reason), that theory is not used by engineers who developed GPS. They simply use a correction for altitude. They don’t need 4-dimensions or any other Einsteinian hocus-opus to do that.[2]]

 



[2] Hatch, Ronald R., 1995, Relativity and GPS, 3rd Natural Philosophy Alliance Conference: Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, p. 1-26 [https://go.glennborchardt.com/Hatch-GPS].

 

20210315

What is “Now”?

PSI Blog 20210315 What is “Now”?

 

A question from George Coyne:

 

“The past refers to motion that has occurred, and the future represents motion that has not yet occurred. If "now" is considered in terms of nuclear rotations in an atom, then how many, if any, transpire in the period that is considered now. There are 5 billion trillion nuclear rotations per second. Some presentists would argue that there are no nuclear rotations in the now because the present has a duration of zero. That requires the absence of motion because time is the motion of matter. Without motion there can be no matter. Thus, this leads to the conclusion that in the present there is no matter. Without matter there is no universe. So, for the present to be a reality, there can be no universe and no reality, which means there is no possibility of a present that exists or occurs. My question is: Does the concept of “now” have any reality apart from our thought? If it does, how would you define it?”

 

[GB: Thanks George. You raise a philosophical question easily answered by Infinite Universe Theory. You guessed right that there is no possibility of a present that exists. “Now” does not exist. Only XYZ portions of the universe have existence and time does not exist, it occurs. All portions have motion, however, and that is why we have existence. Philosophers have struggled with this for centuries without a satisfactory conclusion. That is because most of them were religious and assumed immaterialism. That is the  indeterministic opposite of the scientific assumption of materialism, which assumes the universe has only two fundamental phenomena: matter and the motion of matter.

 

The Infinite Universe has an infinity of microcosms in motion, with each motion having a beginning and an end with respect to all others. In other words, we can define the “now” of the universe as the motion of all things with respect to all other things. This must forever be an assumption, for we cannot prove it with any experiment whatsoever as Einstein and other positivists have pointed out. One cannot even prove the Sun exists now, because it takes 8 minutes for the light that creates its image to arrive on Earth. Thus, if I should ask you to come to my house now, I would not expect you to be here instantaneously. That would take a while.

 

Now for the resolution of the paradox you present in this statement:

 

“Some presentists would argue that there are no nuclear rotations in the now because the present has a duration of zero. That requires the absence of motion because time is the motion of matter. Without motion there can be no matter. Thus, this leads to the conclusion that in the present there is no matter. Without matter there is no universe. … and no reality.”

 

As with all paradoxes, this one has a false assumption. It is the belief that there could be a duration of zero. Math is wonderful in many ways, but this is one of its many failures as I pointed out in my first philosophically oriented comment on a scientific paper.[1] 


Catastrophe theorists were essentially proclaiming extinction could occur in zero time. Shortly after publishing that, I also became extremely skeptical of the Big Bang Theory. Something about things popping out of nothing in zero time… Now, I think I will get back to work.]

 

 



[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 1978, Catastrophe theory: Application to the Permian mass extinction: Comments and reply: COMMENT: Geology, v. 6, no. 8, p. 453. [https://go.glennborchardt.com/catheory].

 

20210308

The Demise of Black Holes

PSI Blog 20210308 The Demise of Black Holes

 

[GB: This question is from Pierre Berrigan:]

 

Hello, Glenn!

 

Great initiative. Here is my contribution.

 

Firstly, since you ask, a universe truly infinite and eternal would not change much in my life, because that’s how I always thought it would be. There is, however, one thing that bothers me, and that’s the question of « black holes ».

 

Of course, black holes as pictured by general relativity don’t really exist because they would be absurdities. Nevertheless, observation shows that plasma tend to gather itself and form stars, which eject plasma to form new stars as they go supernova at the end of their life, and so on. However, supernovae leave an inert nucleus behind, whether you call it a neutron star or a black hole being irrelevant. The point is that after an infinite time, everything in the universe would be inert dead stars nuclei.

 

So, in my view, the missing piece in an eternal universe is a recycling mechanism that could turn neutron stars or black holes into useable matter again. How do we go about this?]

 

[GB: Thanks Pierre for the interesting question. Let me approach this via univironmental analysis and neomechanics. Each portion of the universe (what I call a “microcosm”) forms from the convergence of other portions along with their respective motions. The demise of each microcosm occurs in reverse, via the divergence of the submicrocosms and their associated motions within each microcosm.

 

Wikipedia puts it this way:

 

“When particles escape, the black hole loses a small amount of its energy and therefore some of its mass (mass and energy are related by Einstein's equation E=mc2). Consequently, an evaporating black hole will have a finite lifespan.”

 

And so it goes... Nothing in the universe lasts forever. The “evaporation” comment bespeaks of the process of divergence. That is analogous to what happens to the water droplets on your bathroom mirror, which form under humid conditions and evaporate under less humid conditions. The key here is the change in the macrocosm, the environment of the microcosm of the water droplet or of the misnamed “black hole.”

 

Black holes are more properly called the nuclei of galaxies and large stars. As Steve and I mentioned in our book “Universal Cycle Theory,” cosmic bodies form via accretion and disappear via excretion. Accretion occurs when the body is rotating rapidly and excretion occurs when it slows down. The rotation causes the heaviest elements to be pushed to the center of the resulting vortex, following Stoke’s Law. That is why the Sun has accumulated about 99% of the mass of the solar system in only 4.6 billion years. On the other hand, the Milky Way’s black hole has accumulated less than 1% of the mass of the galaxy during the last 15.3 billion years.[1]

 

As we wrote in our book:

 

“…the Sun rotated about 160 million times before it accreted enough matter to clear the circum-stellar materials orbiting it. By applying 160 million rotations to the Milky Way, the calculation shows that it will take another 37,000 trillion years for the Milky Way to mature.”[2]

 

That would leave us with a bare-naked black hole, which, being mostly nonluminous, would not be easily seen with our present observational equipment. There could be billions or even trillions of these evaporating former galactic nuclei within the observable universe, but we might not be able to detect them. As you mentioned, the nuclei of large stars (over 20 times the size of the Sun) can themselves form black holes. This appears typical of what happens after a supernova explodes, scattering elements fused under pressures higher than afforded by the Sun. That itself is a recycling process, for without those explosions, the primordial solar system would not have scooped up the really heavy elements such as gold, platinum, and uranium.

 

Also, with regard to recycling, remember that all matter in the universe is always in motion. That is why the existence of any particular microcosm is only temporary. The submicrocosms within are always in motion and ever tend to “excrete” or “diverge” into the macrocosm as described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

 

Speculation

 

The whole concept of “black holes” is dubious, just like the misnomer used to describe them. In fact, “black holes” are neither black nor holes. Being derived from General Relativity Theory, the concept has an element of the usual “einsteinism” (right, for the wrong reason). As mentioned, vortices tend to form a dense core or nucleus via rotation in the same way baryonic matter forms from aether particles.[3] Sure enough, galaxies tend to have dense cores, just like Earth, Sun, supernovae and a billion other vortices—"Einstein was right again.” Hawking could use the mathematical idealism to sanctify the opposite end of Einstein’s perfectly empty space absolutism. The resulting “singularity” essentially was perfectly solid matter, suitable for starting the universe and for ending galaxies.

 

Some calculate the density of some black holes to be as great as 2 X 1015 g/cm3. In the appendix of “Infinite Universe Theory” I used Planck’s Constant to calculate the density of a single aether particle to be 1010 g/cm3. That would mean black holes would have to consist of the constituents of aether particles, the submicrocosms we called aether-2 particles in our book. Remember, in Infinite Universe Theory there is no end to the size of microcosms. We speculate that there are aether-3, aether-4 particles ad infinitum. This assumes there can be no “finite particle” consisting of perfectly solid matter, which, having no submicrocosms in motion, would be a violation of Maxwell’s E=mc2 equation. That is why the elder Hawking’s assumption that “black” holes are really gray, not black is one small step toward reality.

 

Exactly how black holes evaporate is not completely clear. The E=mc2 equation would suggest the loss of mass via the emission of motion to the aether medium across the microcosmic border as occurs for all the other microcosms in the universe.[4] The resulting emission of motion and increased illumination apparently is great enough to produce the “grayness” proclaimed by Hawking’s recant.

 

The above handles the loss of submicrocosmic motion from black holes, but what about the submicrocosms themselves? What is it about the macrocosm that would allow the internal constituents to leave the black hole via the Second Law of Thermodynamics like they do for all microcosms in the universe? Cosmogonists claim that the inside temperature of black holes is close to absolute zero, as might be expected from the super high density mentioned above. On the other hand, the outside supposedly has an exceedingly high temperature which, like the Sun’s corona, would be expected to energize the submicrocosms on the black hole’s surface, ejecting particles hither and yon. This is similar to what happens to a drop of water when it contacts the surface of a hot skillet or is placed in a room with less than 100% humidity.

 

Then what happens when the heat source becomes exhausted? How do the relatively inert, cold submicrocosms within a black hole eventually get enough motion to diverge back into the macrocosm? Once again, the answer lies with univironmental determinism, the universal mechanism of evolution (what happens to a portion of the universe depends on the infinite matter within and without). The “heat source” is never really exhausted. A bare-naked black hole is not surrounded by perfectly empty space like Einstein assumed, but by aether particles in constant motion. Their motion and the motion of their various complexes is so great that measurements indicate intergalactic temperature is 2.7 degrees Kelvin. This is much higher than the inside temperature of black holes.

 

According to Wikipedia:

 

“A black hole of one solar mass (M) has a temperature of only 60 nanokelvins (60 billionths of a kelvin); in fact, such a black hole would absorb far more cosmic microwave background radiation than it emits. A black hole of 4.5×1022 kg (about the mass of the Moon, or about 133 μm across) would be in equilibrium at 2.7 K, absorbing as much radiation as it emits.”

 

The absorption of this motion causes the submicrocosms within the black hole to vibrate, disintegrating into the various high-speed aetherial components from which they came. No matter what one thinks about the black hole calculations of the cosmogonists, it is obvious that cosmic nuclei do not contain perfectly solid matter and are not eternal. For black holes, it is ashes to ashes, dust to dust like it is for everything in the Infinite Universe.   

 

 


       

 



[1] Puetz, S.J., and Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe: Denver, Outskirts Press, p. 164 [https://go.glennborchardt.com/UCT].

[2] Ibid, p. 172. 

[3] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, Chapter 16.4 [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].

[4] Borchardt, Glenn, 2009, The physical meaning of E=mc2, Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance: Storrs, CN, v. 6, no. 1, p. 27-31 [10.13140/RG.2.1.2387.4643].

20210301

Anti-gravity?

 PSI Blog 20210301 Anti-gravity?

 

Thanks to Tao Lin for the first question of the week:

 

“I highly enjoyed your book Infinite Universe Theory. Thank you for your stunning and informative work. Now on to my question, which doesn't directly relate to the universe being infinite, but is connected.


This might sound crazy to you, depending on what you’ve read, but in my research, I’ve become pretty convinced that both extraterrestrials and humans have mastered anti-gravity, allowing UFOs, both alien and manmade, to fly in ways that defy conventional physics. Based on your theory of gravity, Aether Deceleration Theory, can you speculate on a possible way to achieve anti-gravity?

 

[GB: Tao, thanks so much. Glad you enjoyed the book. You will be getting the first prize. I listed your choices below.[1] Please let me know which one you would like.

 

Because gravitation is an acceleration, any device that counteracts that acceleration is what might be called an “anti-gravity” machine. Anything that temporarily leaves the surface of Earth could be called such. I guess I am one of those “machines” when I jump off the surface of the snow while skiing. To your point, a rocket is an anti-gravity machine. Unfortunately, all anti-gravity machines require fuel, except when getting a “gravitational assist” when passing a massive cosmological body surrounded by decelerated aether having reduced aetherial pressure.

 

With respect to visits from aliens traveling from the nearest star, Wikipedia says this:

 

“The journey to Alpha Centauri B orbit would take about 100 years, at an average velocity of approximately 13,411 km/s (about 4.5% the speed of light) and another 4.39 years would be necessary for the data to begin to reach Earth.”

 

Also:

 

“The fastest outward-bound spacecraft yet sent, Voyager 1, has covered 1/600 of a light-year in 30 years and is currently moving at 1/18,000 the speed of light [16.7 km/s]. At this rate, a journey to Proxima Centauri would take 80,000 years.”

 

So, don’t get your hopes up about traveling to the stars anytime soon or receiving visits from aliens. Looks like “social distancing” with regard to Centauri is permanent. Accessible alien life would have to be in our own solar system. NASA has looked at the planets and their moons pretty well—no sign of extraterrestrial civilizations above ground at least. Looks like we can leave the UFO trope to the conspiracy theorists.

 

Of course, the quest for a truly miraculous anti-gravity machine has been a dream even before Einstein’s perfectly empty space nonsense made it seem possible. The imagined machine would exist as a solitary system within an environment of nothingness (e.g., “space-time”). It supposedly would reverse gravitation by manufacturing “anti-gravity” within itself, perhaps by producing a magical “pull” to counter the magical “pull” some still believe to be the cause of gravitation. But those silly ideas stem from the failure to understand the univironmental nature of the physical cause of gravitation. They are some of the more grievous products of the assumption of finity and its associated aether denial.

 

Tao, as you know, univironmental determinism claims that what happens to a portion of the universe depends on the infinite matter within and without. As you surmised, the analysis of the quest for anti-gravity has very much to do with Infinite Universe Theory. As I explained in Aether Deceleration Theory,[2] gravitation is an acceleration. Per Newton's Second Law of Motion, all accelerations require an accelerator, something that can produce collisions with other things. In the case of gravitation, once having collided with baryonic (ordinary) matter, the causative particles (aether) become decelerated per Newton’s law. The aetherial pressure around massive bodies decreases as a result, while its density increases. Gravitational potential is the difference between the distal pressure of aether and its proximal pressure.

 

To reverse that situation indeed would be miraculous. That vision would have to remain imaginary—it never could happen. One would have to accelerate all the decelerated aether particles proximal to any material body to velocities greater than those of distal aether particles. Even if that were possible, the energy required would be greater than the resulting anti-gravity effect. It would be like cutting down an entire forest just to get a single piece of lumber. Looks like we will have to be satisfied with practical anti-gravity engines similar to the ones we have already.]

 

     

 

 

 

 



[1] "The Ten Assumptions of Science" (pdf, ebook, paperback, hardcover); "The Scientific Worldview" (ebook, paperback, hardcover, audiobook); “Universal Cycle Theory” (pdf); “Infinite Universe Theory”; (Kindle, b&w or color paperback), "Religious Roots of Relativity" (Kindle, b&w or color paperback).  

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