PSI Blog 20221224 Last Minute E-books for Your Super Smart Friends
How about a gift of “Religious Roots of Relativity” for only $3.99 with instant delivery?
Find out how we got to the idea of the universe exploding out of nothing.
Click here to see links and prices of our books:
https://go.glennborchardt.com/PSI-books
Click below to see this week's update of PSI Blog 20220516 on universal heat death..
https://medium.com/@glennborchardt/front-stage-at-the-end-of-the-universe-trope-dedd42a5d814?sk=4aeb23c9b62d1c1af716fe61660f55c8
Note how the consupponible scientific assumptions lead to the correct answer to this question. It is a lesson in how critical fundamental assumptions are to the survival or the demise of a paradigm.
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 20221205 JWST Dumps Olbers’s Paradox and Confirms Infinite Universe Theory
The notion that light could travel nearly infinite
distances without losing energy is old-fashioned idealism.
Light from distant galaxies loses energy
over distance, in direct contradiction of Olbers's speculation.
From George Coyne[1]:
You may find that commenting on Olbers's paradox
is an appropriate topic. One of the problems that I notice in the paradox,
is the assumption that the universe is static and homogeneous at a large
scale. Could you comment on why your infinite universe model does not result in
a completely bright night sky?
From Wikipedia: "Olbers's paradox, also known as the dark night sky paradox, is an argument in astrophysics and physical cosmology that says that the darkness of the night sky conflicts with the assumption of an infinite and eternal static universe. In the hypothetical case that the universe is static, homogeneous at a large scale, and populated by an infinite number of stars, any line of sight from Earth must end at the surface of a star and hence the night sky should be completely illuminated and very bright. This contradicts the observed darkness and non-uniformity of the night.
The darkness of the night sky is one of the pieces of
evidence for a dynamic universe, such as the Big Bang
model. That model explains the observed
non-uniformity of brightness by invoking expansion of the universe,
which increases the wavelength of visible light originating
from the Big Bang to microwave scale via a process known as redshift. The resulting microwave
radiation background has
wavelengths much longer (millimeters instead of nanometers), which appears dark
to the naked eye and bright for a radio receiver."
[GB: George, thanks for the great question.
I included this problem in my Blog on Paradox Resolution. In short, paradoxes are resolved by finding the
erroneous underlying assumptions.
The night sky in the Infinite Universe is dark because
light from distant galaxies loses energy over distance. Like his
cosmogonical descendants, Olbers assumed that space was perfectly empty. That erroneous
assumption was critical for Einstein’s “Untired Light Theory,” which is the
foundation of the Big Bang Theory. As in the Wikipedia article, that idealistic
nonsense still infects cosmology as well as physics.
In the real world, nothing, whether particle or wave,
can travel from point A to point B without colliding with other things along
the way. For light, this means a change from high-energy short wavelengths to
low-energy long wavelengths. Given enough distance, this means light eventually
reaches the infrared region (the electromagnetic radiation detected by the
James Webb Space Telescope) and finally the really long wavelengths detected as
the Cosmic Microwave Background.
This is irrefutable evidence for energy loss over
distance and makes Olbers’s conjecture moot. The universal expansion ad hoc in
the Wikipedia article won’t cut it. It is totally unneeded and appears there as
the usual erroneous special pleading to save the faltering Big Bang Theory.
About the cosmogonical argument “the universe is
static and homogeneous at a large scale”:
Two points:
1. The universe is not static. Every portion of the universe is moving with respect
to other portions. Is it dynamic? Yes. Is it evolving like the cosmogonists
assume? No. Evolution is a property of each portion of the Infinite Universe,
but it cannot be a property of the universe itself. The universal mechanism of
evolution is univironmental determinism (what happens to a portion of the
universe depends on the infinite matter within and without). Obviously, the Infinite
Universe has no “without,” and thus cannot evolve as an entity, although the
entities within are continually forming via convergence and dissipating via
divergence.
2.
Nothing,
including the Infinite Universe, is homogeneous at any scale. That statement is derived from 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). That is consupponible with the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity
(The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). BTW: the homogeneity assumed by cosmogonists is
sometimes called the “Cosmological Principle.” It is based on the Ninth Assumption of Religion, absolutism (Identities exist, that
is, any two things may have identical characteristics). That seems necessary
for their idea the universe exploded of nothing, or out of a mysterious
“singularity.” In either case, no differentiation would be expected. The
explosion would produce identical parts that later would combine as the
hypothesized finite universe evolved. The principle is sometimes stated as “an
observer's view of the universe depends neither on the direction in which he
looks nor on his location.” You can dismiss that yourself by simply looking out
your window. Cosmogonists would say you need a big enough scale. Sorry, but the
space telescopes have already proven that no two directions in the universe are
perfectly identical. Instead, each view is unique, having some characteristics
that are similar and some characteristics
that are dissimilar to all other views.]
[1] George is the Head of the Vancouver Regional Office of
the Progressive Science Institute. He is the author of: Coyne, George, 2021,
Notfinity Process: Matter in Motion (2nd ed.), JCNPS, 408 p. [https://go.glennborchardt.com/Notfinity21].
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 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.]
Link to Medium: https://medium.com/@glennborchardt/68d84c72cbc5?source=friends_link&sk=ec62a5ce26a4775dffd5bbb12735056a
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.
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.
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.