Heavy Elements Produced by Convergence in the Infinite Universe

PSI Blog 20230130 Heavy Elements Produced by Convergence in the Infinite Universe

 

Supernova explosions finally are rejected as the progenitors of elements heavier than iron.

 

I have always been suspicious of the assumption that heavy elements were produced by explosions. Even common sense indicates everything in the universe is produced by things coming together, not coming apart. My thesis work used neutron activation analysis in which we bombarded volcanic ash samples with neutrons—always producing radioactive isotopes that were heavier, not lighter than the naturally occurring isotopes.[1] Apparently, this experience had a significant influence on me. I was later to devise the Sixth Assumption of Science, complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things).[2]

 

For the most part, our Sun, a relatively small, young star, has only enough pressure (convergence) to force hydrogen atoms close enough together to produce helium and, eventually, a few atoms as heavy as iron. All the really heavy atoms, such as gold, silver, uranium, and the rare earth elements I used came from outside the solar system. These obviously were ejected during explosions of large, elderly stars that previously had enough pressure to produce those elements before the explosions took place.

 

Explosions do not create anything complex, but I suppose that mistake might be expected from naïve cosmogonists who assume the entire universe was created in an explosion either of a singularity or of nothing. So, you can see how the supernova recantation is another step in the rejection of the Big Bang Theory and its ultimate replacement by Infinite Universe Theory. Of course, change in cosmogony takes a while, with the original symposium article being produced in 2008 and the summary article in 2018. Here is the article by Frebel and Beers announcing the recantation. It’s not bad if you ignore the cosmogonical propaganda:

 

The formation of the heaviest elements

The rapid neutron-capture process needed to build up many of the elements heavier than iron seems to take place primarily in neutron-star mergers, not supernova explosions.

 

 “Figure 1. A cosmic dance with a fiery end. This artist’s conception visualizes, from left to right, the ripples in spacetime created as two neutron stars orbit each other and eventually coalesce. During the merger, copious amounts of heavy elements are produced. (Courtesy of NASA.)”

 

 

Figure 2. Absorption lines for light from two old stars, labeled by element symbols. The blue spectrum corresponds to a small low-pressure star, while the red spectrum corresponds to a large high-pressure star.[3]

---

[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 1970, Neutron Activation Analysis for Correlating Volcanic Ash Soils: Corvallis, OR, Oregon State University, Ph. D., 219 p. [http://hdl.handle.net/1957/21727]. Theisen, A.A., Borchardt, Glenn, Harward, M.E., and Schmitt, R.A., 1968, Neutron activation for distinguishing Cascade Range pyroclastics: Science, v. 161, no. 3845, p. 1009-1011. [10.1126/science.161.3845.1009].

 

[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The Ten Assumptions of Science: Toward a New Scientific Worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p. [https://go.glennborchardt.com/ttaos-amazon] or [https://go.glennborchardt.com/TTAOSfreepdf]

 

[3] Adapted from: Frebel, 2008, in Proceedings of the 10th Symposium on Nuclei in the Cosmos, SISSA, article 025.

Interview with the Father (of the Big Bang)

PSI Blog 20230123 Interview with the Father (of the Big Bang)

 

English translation of the rediscovered 1964 French video of the Reverend Monsignor Georges Lemaître.

 

Father Lemaître and Professor Einstein at Caltech in 1933

 

Thanks to Pierre-Réal Gosselin via A Cosmology Group for this heads up. Here is the English translation of the interview:

 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2301.07198.pdf

 

This is the original video in French with Dutch subtitles:

 

VRT:  https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/fr/2022/12/31/la-vrt-a-retrouve-dans-ses-archives-une-interview-de-1964-de-geo/

 

[GB: Here are some neat quotes from the translation by Gontcho A Gontcho and others:

 

First some history… Lemaître, a Jesuit priest, presented his theory in 1927, just two years before Hubble mistakenly used the Doppler effect in his atrocious title: “A relation between distance and radial velocity among extra-galactic nebulae.” Lemaître knew about Hubble’s work in 1925 and interpreted Hubble’s results as evidence for “universal expansion.”

 

In reaction to Lemaître’s explosion of the entire universe from a “primeval atom” Fred Hoyle invented his Steady State Theory. That became the only recognized alternative to the Big Bang Theory, probably because it also accepted universal expansion, which was becoming all the rage despite Hubble’s later rejection of that assumption.

 

It is somewhat ironic and hypocritical that Lemaître challenges the creationist aspects of Hoyle’s 1948 Steady State Theory:]

 

“Now this is the key point of Hoyle’s theory: it all starts with hydrogen. The essential difference is whether this hydrogen is produced naturally by a reasonable physical process or, on the contrary, it is a kind of phantom hydrogen which appears with just the right amount of hydrogen to verify an a priori law.” (p. 3)

 

“Hoyle…said that when he started this theory, he thought he had to reject it. The expression he wrote down: “well nothing much happens, nothing much happens” [...] because, he said, there should be creation. What does this mean... creation? This word, creation, brings with it a whole philosophical or religious resonance that has nothing to do with the question. Behind this word, creation, what is there? There is simply that the apparition of hydrogen, as Hoyle supposes, is something quite fantastic and unexpected. That’s why he used the word creation. It is absolutely unexpected. And if I had to use another imagery to express the same thing, I would say that this hydrogen appears in a totally unexpected way like a ghost [dramatic emphasis on the word "ghost"]. It’s a kind of ghost as it would appear in castles in Scotland. To introduce a kind of ghostly hydrogen in this way would avoid the difficulty that the principle of Steady State seemed to be in opposition to the Principle of Conservation of Energy. In opposition with basically the most secure and solid thing in physics [i.e., the Energy Conservation Principle]. In order to maintain all this, one admits a... ghostly production of hydrogen. And what can we expect from hydrogen appearing without any physical reason, without any normal connection?” (p. 2)

 

[GB: In the last reference below he pulls no punches, even referring correctly to his proposal as cosmogony. Some of his statements are quite humble even though lacking in introspection:]

 

“…I am not defending the primeval atom for the sake of whatever religious ulterior motive. Of course, nobody knows exactly what one’s psychology is, really. But, not only consciously I don’t have this idea at all…” (p. 3)

 

“…if my theory is correct, it makes the philosophical problem of creation disappear, in a way.” “When one poses the problem of the beginning of the world, one is almost always faced with a rather essential difficulty: to ask oneself, why did it begin at that moment? Why didn’t it start a little earlier? And in a certain sense, why wouldn’t it have started a little earlier? So it seems that any theory that involves a beginning must be unnatural. To say “we decide at this point that it begins” ... This is what was expressed by saying: “it is made of nothing.” That is to say that we expected it to come from something; and we say “it doesn’t come from this something, it’s made of nothing”. Well... the point of view I’m coming to is quite different. That is, the beginning is so unimaginable, so different from the present state of the world that such a question does not arise.” (p. 4)

 

[GB: This defensive line of thought is sometimes expressed by cosmogonists to this day. The general assumption is that the laws of physics did not exist before the universe existed. Thus, there could be no violation of conservation if that law did not exist before the universe existed. Lemaître’s hypocrisy is thereby removed if one believes that.]

 

 

Lemaître’s papers:

 

[GB: Note that all these were “peer reviewed,” meaning they were well accepted by those holding the fundamental religious assumptions of finity and creation, which remain popular to this day.]

 

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., 1931a, 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, G., 1931b, The Beginning of the World from the Point of View of Quantum Theory: Nature, v. 127, no. 3210, p. 706-706. [10.1038/127706b0].

 

Lemaître, Abbé G., and Eddington, A.S., 1931, The Expanding Universe: Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, v. 91, no. 5, p. 490-501. [10.1093/mnras/91.5.490].

 

Lemaître, Georges, 1950, The Primeval Atom: An Essay on Cosmogony: New York, D. Van Nostrand, 186 p.

List of Falsifications of the Big Bang Theory

PSI Blog 20230116 List of Falsifications of the Big Bang Theory

 

Here I present 19 reasons the “Last Creation Myth” cannot possibly be true.

 

Falsifications provide contrary evidence disproving or at least questioning a theory.[1] Because the universe is infinite, a correct theory cannot be completely proven, although it can be supported by evidence gathered from the external world. It takes only one falsification to disprove a theory, but as you can see, the list disproving the Big Bang Theory is long. There are many reasons for its tenacity, with proponents either ignoring the contradictions or inventing ad hocs, which are special pleadings that attempt to bypass a particular falsification. Many of these are based on violations of The Ten Assumptions of Science.[2]

 The overthrow of a paradigm must begin with an evaluation of its fundamental assumptions.

 

1.                The Big Bang Theory claims the universe exploded out of nothing. That is in violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics, which properly states matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed.[3]

2.                The assumed explosion of the universe out of nothing has no physical cause. The claimed “dark energy,” is a calculation; dark energy does not exist.[4]

3.                The Big Bang Theory predicts that we should observe only young cosmological objects at great distances. Instead, we see elderly galaxies and galaxy clusters at the limit of observation, which now is almost 13.8 billion light years away—the assumed age of the universe.[5]

4.                The Doppler effect, once considered responsible for the cosmological redshift and the interpretation that most galaxies are receding from us, only occurs in a medium. Einstein’s corpuscular theory of light, denies the presence of a medium.[6]

5.                At cosmological redshifts greater than z=1.5 the assumed galactic "recession" velocities based on the Doppler effect are greater than the velocity of light. Nothing travels at greater than the speed of light.[7]

6.                The greater than c recession velocities are now interpreted instead as the result of space expansion, which supposedly carries the galaxies along with it at greater than c. There is no evidence that perfectly empty space can expand all by itself.

7.                Because the imagined explosion of the universe either from the creationist’s “perfectly empty space” or from Hawking’s “singularity” would have no diversification it would produce a homogenous universe per the Cosmological Principle of Big Bang Theory. The universe is heterogenous, with the view in every direction being unique as predicted by Infinite Universe Theory.[8]

8.                Universal expansion theory requires massless light particles traveling perpetually through perfectly empty space. Massless particles and perfectly empty space have never been found.[9]

9.                Cosmogonists assume a spiral galaxy near the limit of observation formed within 450 million years after the Big Bang. That is a fantastic ad hoc in view of the fact it took our own Milky Way 13.6 billion years to form.[10]

10.           Cosmogonists predicted the Cosmic Microwave Background would be about 10^oK. It is 2.7^oK.[11]

11.           The predicted “Heat Death of the Universe” assumes the universe is finite and isolated. The opposing assumption, infinity, implies neither is true.[12]

12.           Cosmogonists assume the cosmological redshift indicates the universe is expanding. The cosmological redshift simply indicates light waves lose energy over distance like everything else.[13]

13.           Galaxies and other cosmic bodies are converging. True explosions involve only divergence.[14]

14.           Galaxy clusters and superclusters have been shown to have developing nuclei. That means they must be much older than any single galaxy they contain.[15]

15.           The galactic nucleus (black hole) in the center is only 1% of the mass of our 13.6-billion-year-old Milky Way. It would take trillions of years for its 400 billion stars to be pushed into the nucleus to form a “naked black hole.”[16]

16.           The recent discovery of naked black holes without stars implies they are the end-stage nuclei of former galaxies. These could not have formed during the mere 13.8 billion years ascribed to the Big Bang universe.[17]

17.           Cosmogonists assume the lack of a physical origin point for the universe means it is 4-dimensional. This assumes time to be a dimension, which it is not; time is motion and does not have dimensions.[18]

18.           Big Bang Theorists surreptitiously assume finity. The correct assumption is infinity, with over 20 trillion galaxies in the observable universe suggesting the universe cannot expand because it is already full.[19]

19.           Cosmogonists who propagate the “Last Creation Myth” assume there was nothing before the universe exploded out of perfectly empty space. The very existence of the universe implies that nonexistence, the perfectly empty space imagined by the idealist, is impossible.[20]

 

Einstein’s “Untired Light Theory” is the assumed foundation for universal expansion. That theory, too, had eight ad hocs contradicting Sagnac’s evidence light was a wave and not a particle.[21] Without those ad hocs, cosmogonists would have been less likely to entertain the notion light was a massless particle filled with perfectly empty space traveling perpetually through perfectly empty space.

 

The Untired Light Theory and the Big Bang Theory are highly popular with almost daily propaganda being spread among gullible folks amenable to religious indoctrination. The continued success of those theories is based on the religious opposites of fundamental scientific assumptions. The first falsification above presents this starkly. Conservation (The Fifth Assumption of Science) has been a stalwart of science since 1850. It is a seldom recognized direct contradiction of its religious opposite: creation. If cosmologists really were scientific, there would be no Big Bang Theory.

 

The list above is by no means exhaustive. I invite others to contribute additional falsifications I am not aware of. You or your nom de plume will receive proper credit. Please remember that falsifications involve solid undisputed evidence and interpretations thereof based on The Ten Assumptions of Science. The numerous questions (e.g., What came before?), paradoxes (e.g., Light both a wave and a particle?), contradictions (e.g., Time is a dimension?), and fantastic speculations (e.g., Wormholes?) engendered by the Big Bang Theory make it highly suspect, but those are not necessarily falsifications.

 

---

[1] http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2021/11/infinity-and-falsification-of-big-bang.html

 

[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The Ten Assumptions of Science: Toward a New Scientific Worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p. [https://go.glennborchardt.com/ttaos-amazon] or [https://go.glennborchardt.com/TTAOSfreepdf]. [Note that any challenge to an erroneous paradigm must begin by uncovering the erroneous fundamental assumptions upon which it is based. Cosmogonists are unqualified to do this because, by definition, they begin with today’s most significant erroneous assumption: finity.]

 

[3] This is usually called the conservation of “energy,” with energy being a calculation that attempts to combine matter and motion, which is not possible. Energy is a matter-motion term, which simply tries to describe matter in motion.

 

[4] “Dark Energy” is matterless motion, and thus posits no physical cause for the explosion of the universe out of nothing. See: https://medium.com/@glennborchardt/does-energy-have-mass-68d84c72cbc

 

[5] https://medium.com/@glennborchardt/shocking-news-webb-confirms-infinite-universe-theory-87e504dcd8e2

https://medium.com/@glennborchardt/shocking-news-ii-infinite-universe-theory-confirmed-by-galaxy-where-only-stars-were-predicted-by-34a5cb8bd8cb

https://medium.com/@glennborchardt/jwst-photos-of-4-265-high-redshift-galaxies-show-no-younging-of-the-universe-87323c9323d8

https://medium.com/@glennborchardt/shocking-news-iii-450-million-year-old-spiral-galaxy-falsifies-the-big-bang-theory-a06b27065867

https://medium.com/@glennborchardt/shocking-news-iv-diversity-of-distant-galaxies-similar-to-local-galaxies-as-predicted-by-infinite-9d536d7bd876

 

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

 

[7] https://medium.com/@glennborchardt/why-the-big-bang-universe-can-never-be-older-than-13-8-billion-years-bbb48b4f5e19 [Also explains why redshifts greater than z = 1.5 would indicate recession velocities greater than the speed of light.]

 

[8] https://medium.com/@glennborchardt/shocking-news-iv-diversity-of-distant-galaxies-similar-to-local-galaxies-as-predicted-by-infinite-9d536d7bd876

 

[9] Borchardt, 2020, Religious Roots of Relativity.

 

[10] https://medium.com/@glennborchardt/shocking-news-iii-450-million-year-old-spiral-galaxy-falsifies-the-big-bang-theory-a06b27065867

 

[11] Assis, A.K.T., and Neves, M.C.D., 1995, History of the 2.7 K temperature prior to Penzias and Wilson: Apeiron, v. 2, no. 3, p. 79-84. [We test theories by comparing predictions with the evidence. This was a clear case of a predictive failure of the Big Bang Theory, with some of the predictions of opponents subsequently being supported by the evidence. There are many such technical details similarly ignored by cosmogonists.]

 

[12] https://medium.com/@glennborchardt/front-stage-at-the-end-of-the-universe-trope-dedd42a5d814

 

[13] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, Ch. 7. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].

 

[14] Ibid. Ch. 2.

 

[15] Ibid. Ch. 3

 

[16] Puetz, S.J., and Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe: Denver, Outskirts Press, p. 185. [https://go.glennborchardt.com/UCT].

 

[17] http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2020/05/psiblog-20200518-elderly-black-hole-in.html

 

[18] https://medium.com/@glennborchardt/time-is-motion-1cb1d47a0e78

 

[19] Siegel, Ethan, 2020, This Is How We Know There Are Two Trillion Galaxies in the Universe: Starts with a Bang! Accessed Dec 22 [https://go.glennborchardt.com/2-trillion]. [Recent photos from the James Webb Space Telescope have ten times the resolution of the ones used in this essay.]

 

[20] Borchardt, 2020, Religious Roots of Relativity.

 

[21] Borchardt, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory, Table 6.

 

You also can read this on Medium.com, where this list of falsifications of the Big Bang Theory will be updated in the future: 

https://medium.com/@glennborchardt/f5097445a5bf?source=friends_link&sk=e259a7c7891dbeb5292567f39a57885c

 

 

Shocking News IV: Diversity of Distant Galaxies Similar to Local Galaxies as Predicted by Infinite Universe Theory

 

PSI Blog 20230110 Shocking News IV: Diversity of Distant Galaxies Similar to Local Galaxies as Predicted by Infinite Universe Theory

Yet another study fails to find evidence for universal “younging” predicted by the Big Bang Theory in 850 James Webb Space Telescope photos.

 

“This image—a mosaic of 690 individual frames taken with the Near Infrared Camera (NIRCam) on the James Webb Space Telescope—covers an area of sky about eight times as large as Webb’s First Deep Field Image released on July 12. It’s from a patch of sky near the handle of the Big Dipper. This is one of the first images obtained by the Cosmic Evolution Early Release Science Survey (CEERS) collaboration. It contains several examples of high redshift galaxies with various morphologies. Credit: NASA/STScI/CEERS/TACC/S. Finkelstein/M. Bagley/Z. Levay; Cutout images: NASA/STScI/CEERS/TACC/S. Finkelstein/M. Bagley/J. Kartaltepe” (Auburn, 2023).

Cosmogonists (those who assume the universe had a beginning) predicted we would see the “early universe” in photos of cosmic objects 13.8 billion light years distant. The James Webb Space Telescope attempted to do just that. Unfortunately, the predicted evidence for young stuff (empty space, dust clouds, or proto-stars) did not appear. Instead, fully-formed galaxies were obvious, and by no means young. Some even were spirals like our own Milky Way, which is 13.6-billion-years-old. All this is just another falsification of the Big Bang Theory.

 

Here is a nice quote from the senior author of the latest study:

 

‘“There have been previous studies emphasizing that we see a lot of galaxies with disks at high redshift, which is true, but in this study we also see a lot of galaxies with other structures, such as spheroids and irregular shapes, as we do at lower redshifts,” said Kartaltepe, lead author on the paper and CEERS co-investigator. “This means that even at these high redshifts, galaxies were already fairly evolved and had a wide range of structures.”’

 

Of course, as a cosmogonist, one always has to hold out hope:

 

‘“This tells us that we don’t yet know when the earliest galaxy structures formed,” said Kartaltepe. “We’re not yet seeing the very first galaxies with disks. We’ll have to examine a lot more galaxies at even higher redshifts to really quantify at what point in time features like disks were able to form.”’

 

Those quotes are from the short report linked below. If the “inflationary universe” ad hoc is any guide, cosmogonists invariably will come up with some “brilliant” excuse to save the theory. Of course, it just gets harder with each turn of the evidence machine. Sure will be nice when we can dump the Big Bang and clear our heads of all the nonsense.

 

Here is the link to reporter Auburn’s short summary of the study:    

 

James Webb Space Telescope study reveals wide diversity of galaxies in the early universe