PSI Blog 20221031 Update of PSI Blog 20090521 Theory Formulation
Scientific interpretations are highly dependent on fundamental
assumptions, with the absurd Big Bang Theory being the best example of
choosing the wrong one.
You can see the rest of this update at:
PSI Blog 20090521 or at:
PSI Blog
20221024 Multiverse Theory or Infinite Universe Theory?
Infinite
Universe Theory was suggested at least as early as 1344 in reaction to
Aristotle’s Finite Universe Theory, with today’s hair-brained Multiverse Theory
being an oxymoronic compromise.
Thomas
Bradwardine (1295-1349), an early inventor of Infinite Universe Theory. Credit:
madriod.
Infinite
Universe Theory
I have
sometimes been blamed for Infinite Universe Theory, but sorry, that credit goes
to many others, with one of the first being Thomas Bradwardine of Oxford
University scooping us all by over six centuries:
“As early as 1344 Bradwardine attacked
the Aristotelian idea that the universe was finite in size, arguing that the
universe was infinite in extent as God himself was. This was a view shared by
many such as Oresme in
the 14th century. Nicholas of Cusa in
the 15th century also argued that the universe was infinite and full of
stars, and that, as the universe was infinite, the Earth could not be at its
centre.” (MacTutor).
Bradwardine was a
mathematical theologian (Archbishop of Canterbury) who like, Einstein, managed
to combine the assumptions of science with those of religion. The only
difference was the overt nature of his claims, while those of Einstein were so
subtle as to go unnoticed by those unfamiliar with the foundations of
relativity.[1]
Turns out Infinite
Universe Theory has been around ever since, with one promoter, Giordano Bruno,
being burned at the stake by the Pope in 1600. Newton later got into big
arguments when he claimed the universe had to be infinite. Otherwise,
everything in the universe would have clumped together as a result of his
claimed gravitational attraction. Like most folks at that time, he was
religious too. Apparently, Infinite Universe Theory didn’t shake his beliefs
significantly, although he managed to spend a lot of time on confusing and otherwise
ignored religious speculation toward the end of his life. Once the Big Bang
Theory is gone, we should expect the implications of Infinite Universe Theory to
be rationalized by currently religious folks. They probably will imagine some
form of pantheism to handle the cognitive dissonance.
Philosophical
dissonance certainly did not disappear when relativity and the Big Bang Theory
arrived on the scene. While the “Last Creation Myth” now sits well with
the Pope, the explosion of everything out of nothing always had more
level-headed doubters. But reformists have been cautious. Most hold fast to the
Eighth
Assumption of Religion, finity (The universe is finite, both in the
microcosmic and macrocosmic directions).[2] The universal expansion interpretation
reigns supreme, in tune with Einstein’s claim light was a massless particle
filled with perfectly empty space traveling perpetually through perfectly empty
space.
Steady
State Theory
The
first attempt to counteract the good Monsignor Lemaître’s grand-scale
creation theory was presented by Fred Hoyle.[3] In fact, it was Hoyle who
derisively coined the name for the hypothetical mess: “Big Bang Theory.” He
rejected the “universe exploding out of nothing” idea, but retained the myopic universal
expansion assumption. The resulting “Steady State Theory” included creationism,
but only a tiny bit of it—the “creation” of one hydrogen atom at a time over
long periods. According to cosmogonists, it was falsified by:
“using
two observations: (1) counts of radio sources and (2) cosmic microwave
background radiation. Observations show that the density of faint radio sources
is higher than strong ones, implying that there were more cosmic radio sources
billions of years ago than at present. The discovery of the CMB (cosmic
microwave background radiation) also showed that the universe cooled and
expanded from its very hot and dense initial state, contrary to what the steady
state theory proposed.”
Of course, a truly Infinite
Universe would exhibit those phenomena as well. Both are caused by sources
whose distances approach infinity. But, as I pointed
out, Big Bang theorists are limited by
calculations that give 13.8-billion-years as their assumed “age
of the universe.” There is not supposed to be anything beyond that timeline and
its associated distance. The James Webb Space Telescope photos, the evidence
for much more distant cosmic radio sources, and the CMB itself (z=1089) are all
confirmations of Infinite Universe Theory.
Nonetheless, we must reject Steady
State Theory for several reasons. First, it incorrectly assumes universal
expansion. The proposition that the Infinite Universe undergoes expansion is a
non sequitur—there is nowhere for it to expand into. Second, there is nothing
“steady” about the Infinite Universe, with all its parts moving with respect to
other parts. Third, the claim that the Infinite Universe looks the same from
all points is false. Per 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). No two
galaxies are exactly alike, just as no two people in the universe, and no two
snowflakes are exactly alike. You may think this is just a semantic quibble,
but it is not. The sky never looks the same even two nights in a row. The
“unsteadiness” of all portions of the universe produces heterogeneity as well
as homogeneity. Furthermore, it removes all possibility of the “time travel” so
dear to those gullible enough to believe cosmogonical propaganda.
Multiverse Theory
Cosmological agnostics have now
invented yet another popular absurdity: the oxymoronic “Multiverse Theory.” Again,
like Hoyle, they erroneously accept universal expansion—the petard for both
theories. There are other theories, with one being a cyclic theory in which
universal expansion is followed by universal contraction, both without causes
other than the fictitious “dark energy.” I guess if you can have one Big Bang,
why not have an infinite number of them? Egads!
Like many other myths, this one has
a bit of truth behind it. For instance, here are two scientific papers in which
Kashlinsky and colleagues produce evidence for galactic clusters moving in a
direction implying they eventually would move outside the observed universe:
Kashlinsky, A.,
Atrio-Barandela, F., Ebeling, H., Edge, A., and Kocevski, D., 2010, A New
Measurement of the Bulk Flow of X-Ray Luminous Clusters of Galaxies: The
Astrophysical Journal Letters, v. 712, no. 1, p. L81-L85.
[10.1088/2041-8205/712/1/L81].
Kashlinsky, A.,
Atrio-Barandela, F., Kocevski, D., and Ebeling, H., 2008, A measurement of
large-scale peculiar velocities of clusters of galaxies: Results and
cosmological implications: The Astrophysical Journal, v. 686, p. L49–L52.
Then too, many of the elderly galaxies so far discovered contain elements recycled from still
older stars. Young stars such as our Sun have
mostly hydrogen, which forms helium during fusion under high pressure. Yet,
Earth and other parts of the solar system contain heavier elements, such as carbon,
oxygen, gold, platinum, and uranium derived from much older and much larger
stars that were able to produce suitably high pressures. There was no way for the
solar system to have produced such heavy elements. Cosmologists think they are
products of supernova
explosions and merger of neutron stars.
No doubt cosmogonical apologists
will have to address this element recycling in some way commensurate with the
Big Bang Theory. Having at least one big banging “universe” next door would be
one way, although I wouldn’t want to be the one to do it. I am too much a
stickler for the meaning of words.
Parallel Universe Theory
This is an offshoot of Multiverse
Theory, although it is even nuttier. You can read that Wikipedia article, but I hope you don’t gag on
it. I don’t really know any cosmogonist who takes it seriously. One of its
claims involves a violation of relativism,
substituting the Ninth Assumption of Religion, absolutism (Identities exist,
that is, any two things may have identical characteristics) instead. A fanciful popular imagining derived from it is the idea that there may be another,
perhaps more successful, you in another universe. Really?
[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2020,
Religious Roots of Relativity: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science
Institute, 160 p. [ https://go.glennborchardt.com/RRR-ebk
]
[2] Ibid.
[3] Hoyle, Fred, 1948, A new model for the expanding
universe: Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, v. 108, no. 3, p.
372-382; Hoyle, Fred, 1956, The steady-state universe: Scientific American, v.
195, no. 3, p. 157-166.
To read this and its
updates on Medium, click here.
On Medium.com you can
read more than three essays monthly by joining for $5/month.
Half of your membership
fee supports the endowment of the Progressive Science Foundation, which will
continue advancing Infinite Universe Theory as the ultimate replacement of the
Big Bang Theory. You’ll also get full access to every story on Medium. Just
click here.
When on Medium, you can
clap a lot of times to aid the foundation, follow me, and subscribe to get
these weekly essays directly in your inbox.
PSI Blog 20221017 First Alteration of an Asteroid Orbit a
Huge Success for Humanity and Infinite Universe Theory
Another
instance of Einstein’s relativity being left in the dust by NASA’s Newtonian
Mechanics
Figure 1.
The 170-m wide Dimorphos just before the collision. Credit: NASA.
Readers know
I have been outrageously critical of relativity because of the religious
assumptions hidden beneath all the math (see especially "Religious Roots of Relativity").
The universe does not work that way—everything simply is matter in motion, as
implied by Newton’s three laws. While some of NASA’s experiments have been
erroneously interpreted as though they support Einstein, DART is not one of
them.
NASA’s great
achievement demonstrated that it is possible to send a rocket over 10 million
kilometers to collide with and alter the orbit of another cosmological object.
In this first instance, the orbit of a small asteroid (Dimorphos) was decreased
as it continued to revolve around a large asteroid (Didymos).
Jerry Coyne and his friend Jim Batterson do a great job explaining the DART
experiment: https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/10/12/the-dart-mission-was-a-success-orbit-perturbed/.
Jerry includes a link to the hour-long video of the presser and one on the 39
secs preceding the collision. The upshot, as Jim writes, is that “the orbit of
Dimorphos around Didymos changed significantly - from 11hrs 55min to 11hrs
23min – a 32 minute change.”
This
provides an educational moment for us:
Relativism
Take a look
at Dimorphos in Figure 1. Note the irregular shapes and sizes of the rock
fragments of which it is composed. This is typical of the Infinite Universe,
with this observation providing support for 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). In my lectures, I sometimes ask students
to find two identical rocks or pebbles, which would be a falsification of relativism. They never do. It also is why we
say “no two snowflakes are identical” and why so-called “identical twins” are
never completely identical. Regressives tend to assume the opposite, the Ninth
Assumption of Religion. I call that absolutism (Identities exist, that
is, any two things may have identical characteristics). That is when I get out my
hand lens or microscope. If you look hard enough you always will find some
dissimilarities.
Rocket
Science
Figure 2. “Illustration
of how DART's impact altered the orbit of Dimorphos about Didymos.” Credit: DART Mission Team.
Note that
DART is moving in the opposite direction of Dimorphos. This means the head-on collision
resulted in a deceleration of Dimorphos, causing its velocity to decrease. That
follows from Newton's Second Law of Motion in which the motion of the collider
decreases as the motion of the collidee increases. Of course, in this case, the
imparted motion subtracts from that of DART. When the velocity of a satellite
decreases, it enters a lower orbit. That is, it is pushed toward the object it revolves
around due to gravitation. Despite the decrease in velocity, the trip around
Didymos became shorter, with its period of revolution decreasing by the 32
minutes.
Imagine what
would have happened if DART was able to travel in the same direction as
Dimorphos. If it had a higher velocity than Dimorphos, it might be able to
catchup with and collide with it. This would have increased the velocity of
Dimorphos per Newton's Second and cause an increase in the length of its orbit.
The period of revolution would then increase instead of decrease.
Here is a
great cartoon
illustrating how rockets can change orbit by speeding up or slowing down by
reversing thrust direction. Again, all this has to do solely with Newtonian
mechanics, the same theoretical physics that got us to the Moon, Mars, and
beyond—no “relativists” need apply.
Vortex
Formation
As Steve
Puetz and I pointed out in our technical book “Universal Cycle Theory,”
vortices are common throughout the cosmos.[1] Vortex formation is why
smaller bodies revolve around larger ones, with the Dimorphos-Didymos system
being a good example (Figure 2). The orbits of revolving bodies tend to decay
over time for the same reason Dimorphos’s orbit just did: deceleration. The Infinite
Universe always contains something that gets in the way. There is no perfectly
empty space that would allow perpetual motion. That is one reason I changed
Newton’s First Law of Motion from “unless” to “until” in "The Scientific
Worldview."[2]
It is one reason the subtitle of that book is “Beyond Newton and Einstein.”
Orbital
decay like that shown in the DART experiment is why Earth has an iron-nickel
core denser than the siliceous crust. It is why stars in spiral galaxies like
the Milky Way end up being pushed toward its extremely dense nucleus. It is
why, once that part of the evolutionary process is completed, the results could
be called “naked black holes.” Evidence for these starless nuclei is
accumulating rapidly as I write, with each one attesting to the validity of Infinite Universe Theory.
In
“Universal Cycle Theory” we speculated that it would take trillions of years
for the Milky Way to reach that state. We based this on the analogy to our
solar system, in which about 99% of the mass is centered in the Sun. The
nucleus of the Milky Way, has only 1% of its mass. Even so, cosmologists
generally assume the Sun will shine for at least another 4 billion years, with
its eventual remnants taking billions more to reach the nucleus of the galaxy.
[1]
Puetz, S.J., and Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics
of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe: Denver, Outskirts Press, 626 p. [https://go.glennborchardt.com/UCT].
To read this and its updates on Medium, click here.
On Medium.com you can read more than three essays monthly
by joining for $5/month.
Half of your membership fee supports the endowment of the
Progressive Science Foundation, which will continue advancing Infinite Universe
Theory as the ultimate replacement of the Big Bang Theory. You’ll also get full
access to every story on Medium. Just click here.
When on Medium, you can clap a lot of times to aid the
foundation, follow me, and subscribe to get these weekly essays directly in
your inbox.
PSI Blog
20221010 JWST Photos of 4,265 High Redshift Galaxies Show No
“Younging” of the Universe
These data
support our prediction that the Infinite Universe should look
similar at all distances.
Figure 1.
Evolution of galaxies suggested by Hubble. Credit: NASA & ESA.
According to
Big Bang Theory, the further we look into space cosmological objects should
look increasingly young. However, as I have been pointing out numerous times since 2009, this is
not the case. Cosmogonists assume the 13.8-billion-year age of the universe
is fixed. The
discovery of extremely high redshifts puts the squeeze on the ages, with the
calculated ages of those galaxies being less than our own Sun. As I have said
many times, that is akin to finding a teenager in your bassinet.
All galaxies
consist of stars, with many being similar in age to our Sun (4.6 billion years),
which is an average star in the Milky Way, which has stars as old as 13.6 billion
years. Some cosmogonists no doubt will favor extremely rapid star formation in
their imagined “early universe” as an ad hoc to save the Big Bang Theory.
Unfortunately for Big Bang enthusiasts, a recent survey of the morphology
(shape) of 4,265 galaxies existing at various distances from the James Webb
Space Telescope makes that ad hoc stillborn.[i]
You see, Hubble’s
“tuning fork” classification shows how galaxies evolve, first forming as
spherical conglomerations of stars, then becoming elliptical, and finally
becoming spiral as they begin to rotate (Figure 1).
While this visualization
is highly simplistic due to the
galactic crashes produced in our non-expanding infinite universe, it
nonetheless gives a rough idea of what is happening. According to the Big Bang
Theory, as we look back into space, we should see a “younging” effect. The flat
spirals should drop out, being replaced by perfectly empty space, stars, or, at
most, only spherical galaxies. However, according to Infinite Universe Theory there
should be no “younging” effect. Indeed, that is exactly what Ferreira and
colleagues[ii] just found by observing
the morphologies of those 4,265 galaxies in photos taken by the James Webb
Space Telescope (JWST). For this heads-up I am grateful to Louis Marmet who
brought this to my attention in an email from the “A
Cosmology Group”
website in Quebec, Canada. It seems opposition to the Big Bang Theory has been
in his family for over thirty years![iii] Here is his
contribution, which he allowed me to use. I include it here because it is so
good at explaining the latest challenge to the theory:
By
Louis Marmet
“Just like a cube seen from any distance
looks like a cube, the observed shape of a distant galaxy is not affected by
our cosmological model. Ferreira et al. (authors of the
"Panic! ..." paper) have studied the morphological evolution of a
total of 4265 galaxies observed with JWST:
"The JWST Hubble Sequence: The Rest-Frame Optical Evolution of Galaxy
Structure at 1.5<z<8"
Ferreira et al. https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.01110
As opposed to 'luminosity' and 'angular
size' which are distorted by the assumption of space expansion, the observed
morphology is a reliable property of distant galaxies (when gravitational
lensing and dust absorption are negligible). However, the paper reads
like a struggle to detect evolution when there is not much observed difference
between galaxies at z = 2 and z = 7. The paper claims that galactic
evolution models work 'in principle' [the controversial statement], but the
incompatibilities between JWST observations and models are blamed on the lower
observational power of the HST [the obvious statement - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy].
At least two problems stand out. "Amongst other things, we
confirm that these early galaxies have predominantly disk morphologies, and
that the Hubble sequence appears to be already established as early as z ∼ 8." This claim that the Hubble sequence was
established 650 Myr after the assumed Big Bang is not credible.
There is barely enough time to form a galaxy in 150 Myr, how could the
different types of galaxies already be established 500 Myr later? Every
physical system requires a time that is much longer than the duration of
interactions (galaxy collisions) to reach equilibrium (the Hubble sequence).
The second problem appears on Fig. 8 where the authors hope to show
morphological evolution with redshift while including "other =
unclassifiable sources". I brought this up with Ferreira on Twitter,
explaining that distant galaxies are harder to classify: their Fig. 8 shows our
ignorance increasing with redshift! This adds a bias that is redshift
dependent… So I parsed the info, plotting the data without counting
unclassified sources. The result is on my graphs at the bottom of the
attached image. The relative fraction of three types of galaxies,
"disk", "spheroid", and "peculiar", as a function
of redshift, is compatible with no morphological evolution during
the past 13 billion years.
Without space expansion the transformation to the so-called 'rest-frame'
of the galaxies is quantitatively and qualitatively wrong, and the descriptions
in the rest of that paper have no resemblance to reality.”
Figure 8 of
Ferreira et.al. (2022) modified by Marmet to eliminate unclassifiable sources
as mentioned above. Data for the smaller galaxies are on the left graph and the
data for the larger galaxies are on the right graph.
Thanks once
again to Louis for his kindly contribution to this essay.
To see this
on Medium.com, click here: https://medium.com/@glennborchardt/87323c9323d8?source=friends_link&sk=41dc0258222d05f8375743d8461d0b52
[i]
Ferreira, Leonardo, and others, 2022, The JWST Hubble Sequence: The Rest-Frame
Optical Evolution of Galaxy Structure at $1.5 < z < 8$, p.
arXiv:2210.01110 [https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv221001110F].
[ii]
Ibid.
[iii]
Marmet, Paul, 1990, Big Bang Cosmology Meets an Astronomical Death: 21st
Century, Science and Technology (P.O. Box, 17285, Washington, D.C. 20041), v.
3, no. 2, p. 52-59. [https://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/bigbang/index.html].
James
Webb Space Telescope continues its destruction of the Big Bang Theory
Thanks to George Coyne for the heads-up on:
This article was written by Laurence Tognetti shortly after
the scientific paper was submitted to a pre-publication site. That paper by Donnan and others mentioning
this galaxy is still under peer review. A free download with all the
complicated details is at https://arxiv.org/pdf/2207.12356.pdf.
Long-time readers know we have been mentioning the “elderly
galaxies” that undermine the Big Bang Theory since the first ones were
discovered. The reach of the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has continued
this trend begun by the Hubble Space Telescope in 2009. According to cosmogonists,
the first cosmological objects should be no older than 13.8 billion years,
their currently assumed age
of the universe. As our telescopes look further and further into space, we
should see younger and younger objects as shown in NASA’s illustration of the Big
Bang prediction:
The region predicted to contain only stars actually contains
galaxies. Now, galaxies take a long time to form. Stars currently are forming
throughout the universe. Further complexification occurs when those stars are pushed together to form an agglomeration (galaxy)
like the farthest one Donnan and others analyzed. Light from
that agglomeration had a redshift of z=16.7, the greatest ever measured. Note
that the James Webb Space Telescope theoretically could reach z>20, so even 200-million-year-old
galactic ages might be in store.
Of course, there are ways to escape falsifications. Ad hocs
involve special pleading, with the Big Bang Theory having plenty
already. One or two more no doubt will be readily accepted by cosmogonists who,
by definition, are creationists. I suppose they could say star formation was
much faster than it was for our 4.60-billion-year-old Sun and that stars were “attracted”
to each other faster than occurred in our own 13.61-billion-year-old Milky Way.
All magic stuff, but no worse that accepting universal expansion and the
explosion of the entire universe out of a singularity the size of this period: .
To read this on Medium.com go to:
https://medium.com/@glennborchardt/shocking-news-ii-infinite-universe-theory-confirmed-by-galaxy-where-only-stars-were-predicted-by-34a5cb8bd8cb?sk=06f49a4030f493c3fac0c79e5fd34066