PSI Blog 20220725 Infinite Universe Theory Goes Big on
Medium.com
Loyal readers:
Thanks so much for following our Blog all these years.
We have published 644 PSI Blog entries since 20070626 when "The Scientific
Worldview" was published. With the Webb photos revealing a ten-fold
increase in the number of elderly galaxies, the Big Bang Theory becomes increasingly
dubious.
While the paradigm probably has not reached its zenith, you younger folks can enjoy watching its collapse during the next few decades. The James Webb Space Telescope has stirred up a lot of interest, so it is an opportune time to think more about going bigger. With upwards of 100 million monthly viewers, Medium.com seems to be just what we need. Below, I have a copy of my first essay—an introduction to Infinite Universe Theory. It already has 546 views and 55 “followers.” With Medium, having over 100 followers is a big deal, so if only 45 of you push that “follower” button it will put us over the top in the Infinite Universe Theory world.
What I term “Infinite Universe Theory” is the ultimate alternative to the Big Bang Theory, which was based on the assumption that the universe was finite.
The Big Bang Theory was fantastic fun, but it was founded on imagination instead of reality. Illustration compiled from photos of Bryan Lopez and Khojdeal.
In my book “Infinite Universe Theory” I begin with
NASA’s Hubble photos of the “elderly” galaxies at the observational edge of the
universe. These contradict the current belief that the universe should have
increasingly younger objects as we view greater distances.
James Webb Space Telescope to Destroy the Big Bang
Theory
I predict NASA’s new telescope will gather even more
evidence disproving the Big Bang Theory. Instead of juvenile galaxies, young
stars, or perfectly empty space, it will reveal galaxies older than the
currently promoted 13.8-billion-year-old “age of the universe.” Furthermore, as
the old Hubble Space Telescope has already shown, many galaxies at the limit of
observation also will contain heavy elements. These only form under extremely
high pressures that exist only in stars much older than our
4.6-billion-year-old Sun. Those distant galaxies could not possibly have been
present at the hypothesized “beginning of the universe.” Instead, they are
exactly what we expect for a universe that is infinite and eternal, containing
throughout cosmological objects varying in age from newly forming stars to
dissipating “black holes.”
Cosmological Unbelief and Curiosity
You may ask: How did I come to the conclusion the
universe was infinite? Being a classically trained scientist, I simply could
not believe the entire universe could have exploded from nothing. I could not
believe the universe had four dimensions or that it was expanding in all
directions for no reason at all. The brilliant folks pushing those ideas must
have had good reasons to do so. I set about finding what those deep-down
reasons could be.
Fundamental Assumptions
In studying scientific philosophy, I found out all our
theories ultimately are based on fundamental assumptions that cannot be
completely proven. After all, that is why there are endless debates between
those who start with opposing assumptions. For instance, in science we assume
there are causes for all effects. We will never be able to prove that in all
cases, for there are an infinite number of effects. Nonetheless, to be a
scientist, we just have to assume there are causes for all effects. Of course,
we also could assume the opposite: that there may not be a cause for some
effects. If you were not curious, or did not care what the cause was, the
assumption of acausality might be fine for you. On the other hand, without the
scientific faith there are causes for all effects, one could not be a competent
scientist, detective, or lawyer for the matter.
So, my curiosity got the best of me: What were the
cosmologists assuming that I was not? The main clue was this: 20th century
cosmologists actually were cosmogonists, those who study the origin of the
universe. Of course, to do that, they had to assume there was an origin — that
there once was no universe, and now there is. Such a universe with an origin
would have to be finite, like the everyday things that originate all around us.
But what if we assumed just the opposite, that the universe was infinite? Granted,
some cosmologists are now leaning toward that radical assumption, what with
parallel and multiuniverse theories becoming all the rage. Unfortunately, I
suspect one of those theories will be a handy ad hoc for explaining the Webb
data and thus preserving the expanding universe and the Big Bang Theory beyond
its expiration date once again.
Make no bones about it, multiverse theory is not
Infinite Universe Theory in the same way Hoyle’s Steady State Theory is not
Infinite Universe Theory. Both theories are “reformist” in that they use
portions of Big Bang Theory to receive acceptance in a world traditionally
opposed to infinity. They both incorrectly assume, along with Einstein, that
light can travel billions of years without losing energy. Nothing, whether
wave, particle, or the imagined wave-particle, can go from point A to point B
without losing energy. That assumption requires perfectly empty space, for
which there is no evidence. That unprecedented ad hoc is one of many Einstein
used in what I call his “Untired Light Theory,” which underlies the erroneous
interpretation distant galaxies are receding from us and that the associated
cosmological redshift means the universe is expanding.
The Ten Assumptions of Science
Once I assumed infinity, I put together nine
additional fundamental assumptions that clearly showed where the cosmogonists
went wrong. Both Kuhn and Collingwood implied all paradigms are based on
fundamental assumptions. When we get weird results in science, we need to
double check our assumptions. This seems not to have been done by cosmogonists
or the so-called “modern physicists,” not only because they were married to
finity, but also because their fantastic conclusions were widely accepted by
the public. As it turns out, this was because their underlying, unrecognized
presuppositions were based on religion rather than science.
Taking some of Collingwood’s advice to heart, I
searched for, and finally discovered what I call “The Ten Assumptions of
Science.” While he did not know what they were, he wisely enunciated three
strict criteria for discovering fundamental assumptions: 1) they cannot be
completely proven, 2) they always have opposites, 3) if there are more than
one, they must be “consupponible,” that is, they must not contradict one
another. Cosmogonists have not, and will not be able to perform this task even
if they wanted to. As Collingwood proclaimed, fundamental assumptions exist as
unconscious presuppositions before they are brought into the light of day. That
is typical of cosmogony itself, in which the critical assumption of finity
normally remains well hidden.
By adhering steadfastly to those ten scientific
assumptions, I was able to write “The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and
Einstein” in which I proposed the universal mechanism of evolution:
univironmental determinism (what happens to a portion of the universe depends
on the infinite matter within and without). Unlike “systems philosophy,” which
overemphasizes the system as primary, univironmental analysis assumes both the
system and its environment to be equally important for understanding the
universe. Perhaps you can see how the idea of a finite universe surrounded by
perfectly empty space contradicts the univironmental way of viewing things.
It turns out that the perfectly empty space assumption is
an idealization, with its idealized counterpart, perfectly solid matter, being
the opposite end of the continuum we use to describe the intervening reality.
The upshot is that non-existence (perfectly empty space) is imaginary. It is
not possible for the universe not to exist everywhere for all time. Of course,
you must know that perfectly empty space is counterpart to Einstein’s denial of
aether, which is the basis for relativity. That is how he could imagine massless
particles filled with nothing but perfectly empty space traveling perpetually
through perfectly empty space. Without that perfectly empty space assumption,
the expanding universe interpretation would have been stillborn.
As shown in my most recent book, “Religious Roots of
Relativity,” that was only one of the many imaginings used to support Special
and General Relativity. While relativity is not overtly religious, its subtle
underlayment makes it just as imaginary as religion. Although most of the best
scientists are atheists, they usually come from traditional backgrounds wherein
religious fantasies were second nature. After all, if you can believe in virgin
birth and living after dying, it’s only a small stretch to believe the universe
exploding out of nothing. That is why relativity and cosmogony became so
popular. The Big Bang Theory is the last gasp of creationism. The switch to
Infinite Universe Theory is so drastic and irreversible that it is destined to
be the Last Cosmological Revolution.
You have to be a special person to appreciate Infinite
Universe Theory in the face of so much incessant propaganda for cosmogony. Here
are some comments from folks who were amenable to the alternative
to the current paradigm:
“What a great read! Thanks so much for a book full of
great ideas. I love the Q&A format; it’s very satisfying to have good
answers to clearly stated questions.” -Rick Dutkiewicz
“Truly brilliant.” -Jesse Witwer
“A radical, daring, and innovative demolition of
regressive physics, from the creation of ‘something out of nothing’ to the ‘God
Particle.’” -William Westmiller
“Glenn Borchardt’s book uses the hammer of Infinity to
explain and destroy the junk theories that plague ‘Official’ physics today.
This is a book that should be used in college courses, to give students a basic
understanding of how physics is done. Physics has ‘gone off the rails’ for a
century and it is books like Borchardt’s that will return physics from its
current unscientific and anti-materialist base and back on to a scientific and
materialist road.” -Mike Gimbel
“What a fascinating read!” -Juan Calsiano
Thank so much for reading. Please click on: https://medium.com/@glennborchardt/infinite-universe-theory-5a00efc1aa74,
follow me, and clap a couple times (bottom left corner of that web page).
