Does Energy Have Mass?

PSI Blog 20221129 Does Energy Have Mass?

 

Cosmogonists still don’t realize that energy does not exist—it is simply a calculation.

The radiation produced by fire does not exist—it occurs. Credit: Vladyslav Cherkasenko, Kyiv, Unsplash.com.

Bill:

 

Glad you are enjoying www.scientificphilosophy.org and TTAOS (Borchardt, 2004).

 

Your question was:

 

“Re: E=mc², if I do the algebra and if c is constant, then c=(sqrt)(E/m). Since m can't be 0 (as far as our physical universe is defined), then doesn't E have to have some mass, even if vanishingly small?  If the above is true, then could the (even vanishingly small) amount of mass in all the electromagnetic radiation in all of the universe contribute a significant portion of the 'missing mass' problem in cosmology?  This question also gets into the current 'solution' to the missing-mass problem that proposes the existence of dark matter.  Seems to me that it's fundamentally based on a refusal to question the assumption whether Newton's Law is universal.  It seems so much simpler to both me and Occam's razor to admit we may be ignorant about the cosmos and then look at Modified Newtonian Dynamics instead of hypothesizing a theoretical substance that we can't detect but that simply MUST exist so that Newton Law can remain valid.  Anyway, just some thoughts for your consideration (or amusement :)”

 

[GB: Another interesting question. Here is a famous quote from Prof. Richard Feynman of Cal Tech:

 

"It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. It is not that way" (Feynman, 1964).

 

Unfortunately, your derivation of c won’t give those little blobs mass. You might want to review the chapter in TTAOS on inseparability along with my paper on “The Physical Meaning of E=mc²” (Borchardt, 2009). In brief, E has no mass, because it is a calculation that uses a matter-motion term for describing the motion of matter. Matter exists, while motion occurs. Other matter-motion terms include momentum (P=mv) and force (F=ma). Neither of these actually exist, they simply describe what happens when things collide. So, Feynman is right about energy not being matter. His consternation remains today, as you still won’t get a straight answer from most regressive physicists.

 

Radiation has no mass, if one assumes, as I do, that radiation is the motion of matter. Thus, aether is the medium for the motion called light, just as air is the medium for the motion called sound. Few would think of sound as having mass, but, as you have picked up on, well-studied modern physicists would be remiss if they did not consider light to be material (although a contradictory matterless particle, at that). Like most of us, you are playing with the cards that we have been dealt, so it is not surprising that we might think of “dark energy” as a “thing” having mass. The aether, like the air, indeed has mass (Borchardt, 2017, Table 11), and is an absolute necessity for Infinite Universe Theory. The Cosmic Background Radiation is evidence for the presence of the aether and its complexes, which, like all matter, vibrates to produce temperature.

 

Many of the paradoxes and many of the questions still being asked by cosmogonists and regressive physicists are based on religious assumptions (Borchardt, 2020). Once the correct assumptions are used, those disappear. I suspect “dark matter” is simply aether particles that have been decelerated when they produce the acceleration of gravitation (Borchardt, 2017, 2018). It could be that the mass of the forbidden aether is enough to satisfy some of the math once we assume that the universe is infinite and not expanding.

 

As Einstein admitted, Newton’s great work will remain so for all time. Newton’s error, similar to Einstein, was to assume finity. Your somewhat prescient call for a Modified Newtonian Dynamics was answered in the “Neomechanics” chapter of TSW (Borchardt, 2007). Instead of getting rid of the aether, however, it absolutely required it. So, no luck with that for saving the Big Bang Theory.

 

In sum, energy is a calculation, and like time, it does not exist. Energy is an attempt to describe certain collisions undergone by things that do exist.]

 

References:

 

Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The ten assumptions of science: Toward a new scientific worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p.

 

Borchardt, Glenn, 2007, The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 411 p.

 

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].

 

Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 327 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].

 

Borchardt, Glenn, 2018, The Physical Cause of Gravitation: viXra:1806.0165 (“Aether Deceleration Theory”)

 

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

 

Feynman, Richard, Leighton, R.B., and Sands, Matthew, 1964, The Feynman lectures on physics, Addison Wesley, v. 1, p. 4-2. [BTW: Feynman is famous for helping to solve the reason for the Challenger shuttle disaster of 1986.]

 

 This an update of PSI Blog 20090909

Link to Medium: https://medium.com/@glennborchardt/68d84c72cbc5?source=friends_link&sk=ec62a5ce26a4775dffd5bbb12735056a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shocking News III: 450-Million-Year-Old Spiral Galaxy Falsifies the Big Bang Theory

PSI Blog 20221118 Shocking News III: 450-Million-Year-Old Spiral Galaxy Falsifies the Big Bang Theory

Oops! Spiral galaxies like the Milky Way take over 10 billion years to form with the latest such “elderly galaxies” once again “surprising” cosmogonists.

 

The spiral at the center of this photo is said to have formed in only 450 million years. Photo credit: NASA/ESA/CSA/Tommaso Treu

 

According to the Big Bang Theory, there should be no stars, elliptical galaxies, or certainly no spiral galaxies with a cosmological redshift this great (z = 10.5).  Ashley Strickland of CNN just scooped us all with yesterday’s announcement of the latest result from the James Webb Space Telescope. She includes the above photo of what seems to be the first elderly galaxy with a clearly spiral shape. Her article is:

 

Webb telescope finds two of the most distant galaxies ever observed

 

With the erroneous assumptions and the mathematical restrictions of the Big Bang Theory, nothing in the supposedly expanding universe can be older that 13.8-billion-years. That puts the squeeze on the calculated ages of objects at high cosmological redshifts. The next shoe to drop in this lengthy adventure is our prediction that the 450-million-year-old spiral above contains elements heavier than hydrogen and helium. You see, old galaxies contain old stars, some of which are so large they develop the extremely high pressures needed to push those elements together to form heavy metals.

 

Here are a few shocking quotes from the article:

 

According to the principal investigator, Tommaso Treu: “Somehow, the universe managed to form galaxies faster and earlier than we thought. Just a few hundred million years after the big bang, there were already lots of galaxies. JWST has opened up a new frontier, bringing us closer to understanding how it all began.”

 

Strickland writes: “The first stars in the universe would have been blazing with heat and only made of hydrogen and helium. Later stars contain heavier elements that were created when the first stars exploded. So far, no Population III stars have ever been seen within our local universe.”

 

Strickland also gets this great cosmogonical quote: “These observations just make your head explode. This is a whole new chapter in astronomy. It’s like an archaeological dig, and suddenly you find a lost city or something you didn’t know about. It’s just staggering,” said Paola Santini, researcher at the National Institute for Astrophysics’ Astronomical Observatory of Rome, who was a coauthor of the October study.”

 

Of course, according to Infinite Universe Theory, and Edwin Hubble himself, cosmological redshifts are simply measures of distance. Without Einstein’s perfectly empty space, no wave or particle can travel from point A to point B without losing energy, as indicated by the redshift measurements. BTW: Because of the great distances, what we call “cosmological redshifts” tend to overwhelm other redshifts such as those caused by the doppler effect and by gravitation.

 

Stay tuned for the next outrageous Big Bang claim…

 

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. 

 

The Last Creation Myth

PSI Blog 20221110 The Last Creation Myth

 

As the last gasp of creationism, the demise of the Big Bang Theory and its replacement by Infinite Universe Theory, will have a tremendous effect on humanity.

 

Creation in the time of Covid and the James Webb Space Telescope. Photo by visuals on Unsplash.

 

Throughout history, almost every tribe has had creation myths, which have come and gone. What is unique though about the Big Bang Theory is its world-wide appeal. That there should be such tenacious agreement (at least among cosmologists) shows humanity is one big tribe. Globalization has done its job magnificently. Of course, as fallacious paradigms go, this one is arch-typical, being the toughest of all. As the cliché so often and so wisely claims: “The bigger they are, the harder they fall.” The Last Cosmological Revolution will not be achieved without a world-wide clash, with the James Webb Space Telescope having triggered a minor skirmish. Unfortunately, as proponents of Infinite Universe Theory, we expect to lose that one due to the geniosity of those who yet again will imagine new ad hocs for the salvation.

Those of us who have studied the Big Bang Theory over the last few decades are used to the process. The theory has more ad hocs than Carter has little liver pills. Soon we will present a table including over 70 falsifications, contradictions, paradoxes, and philosophical errors common to the theory. I will try to keep that updated as more of them rush in.

 

Inflation Theory: Ad hoc away…

 

By the way, my favorite ad hoc is the “inflation theory.” It is a great example of what the cosmogonists (those who assume the universe had a beginning) will do. A huge problem turned up when telescopes gathered firm evidence for large cosmological redshifts. Calculations based on the Big Bang Theory implied galactic recession was occurring at greater than the speed of light. Now, Hubble had worked only with relatively nearby galaxies and simply applied the doppler mechanism to his interpretation. Light from close ones, like Andromeda, sometimes was blueshifted because those galaxies were coming toward us. But, as he looked farther out, the number of redshifted galaxies increased, while those with blueshifts eventually dropped out. His initial interpretation was his greatest mess up, as seen in the title of his 1929 paper announcing the discovery: “A relation between distance and radial velocity among extra-galactic nebulae.”[1] From that, the little-studied cosmogonists and nearly all science reporters have ever-more promulgated the false claim that “Hubble discovered the universe was expanding.”

Hubble subsequently admitted his mistake numerous times,[2] but to no avail. Cosmogonists eagerly pushed his early mistake, in tune with the good Bishop Lemaître, who had come up with the universal expansion hypothesis a couple years earlier.[3] Good luck finding anything in mainstream literature on Hubble’s subsequent idea that cosmological redshifts simply were a function of the distance light traveled. All the graphs now are plotted as “recession velocity” vs. redshift. To recognize Hubble’s belated contribution, I had to draw my own redshift vs. distance graph.

Of course, the idea that galaxies were going away from us at faster than the velocity of light contradicted Einstein’s assumption light was the speed limit for the universe. What to do about this major falsification of Big Bang Theory? According to Guth, his inflation theory was the best answer.[4] In other words, if you can imagine the entire universe is expanding for no reason at all, you also should be able to imagine it could have expanded really, really fast in the beginning. The upshot is that the doppler explanation is no longer used, with the latest ad hoc being the cosmogonical claim that it is space itself that is expanding. Presumably, the imagined perfectly empty space has the power to expand at greater than c, carrying all those sluggish galaxies along with it. I don’t see why not, in view of the fact the latest creation myth is based on Einstein’s “Untired Light Theory,” which assumes light is a massless particle filled with perfectly empty space traveling perpetually through perfectly empty space.

 

Although there is no evidence for “perfectly empty space,” that trope fits well with the traditional idea of creation. For millennia, folks have imagined at first there was nothing, and then there was something. Of course, that is not like the kind of creation us realistic, hands-on folks otherwise are accustomed to: The making of things out of other things. That kind of creation always requires ingredients, which is one of the reasons the universe cannot be finite. The whole idea of “nonexistence,” which is fundamental to creationism and the Big Bang, is purely imaginary. Perfectly empty space, like perfectly solid matter are the imaginary endmembers of the space-matter continuum. We use them in trying to understand the reality in between. The universe can produce an infinity of things, but it cannot produce either perfectly empty space or perfectly solid matter. The upshot is that nonexistence is impossible everywhere and for all time.

---

[1] Hubble, Edwin, 1929, A relation between distance and radial velocity among extra-galactic nebulae: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, v. 15, no. 3, p. 168-173. [10.1073/pnas.15.3.168].

[2] Hubble, Edwin, 1947, The 200-inch telescope and some problems it may solve: Publications of the astronomical society of the Pacific, v. 59, no. 349, p. 153-167; Sauvé, Vincent, 2016, Edwin Hubble... and the myth that he discovered an expanding universe [https://sites.google.com/site/bigbangcosmythology/home/edwinhubble].

[3] Lemaître, G., 1927, Un Univers homogène de masse constante et de rayon croissant rendant compte de la vitesse radiale des nébuleuses extra-galactiques: Annales de la Société Scientifique de Bruxelles, v. 47, p. 49-59. [https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1927ASSB...47...49L]; Lemaître, Abbé G., 1931, A Homogeneous Universe of Constant Mass and Increasing Radius accounting for the Radial Velocity of Extra-galactic Nebulæ: Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, v. 91, no. 5, p. 483-490. [10.1093/mnras/91.5.483]; Lemaître, Georges, 1950, The Primeval Atom: An Essay on Cosmogony: New York, D. Van Nostrand, 186 p. [Note that ^{Lemaître bravely used the correct word for what he was proposing.]}

[4] Guth, Alan H., 1981, Inflationary universe: A possible solution to the horizon and flatness problems: Physical Review D, v. 23, no. 2, p. 347-356. [10.1103/PhysRevD.23.347].

 

^{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.}

 

---

 [GB1]