20230515

Why the Infinite Universe Will Never Reach “Thermal Equilibrium”

 PSI Blog 20230515 Why the Infinite Universe Will Never Reach “Thermal Equilibrium”

 

As Einstein admitted, everything in the universe is moving with respect to other things.

 

Classical demonstration of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Borchardt, 2017, Fig. 3.3).

We occasionally give free books to readers who present the best questions. Here is a good one from Olaf Schlüter who asks:

 

How come that an eternal universe hasn't reached thermal equilibrium and maximum entropy yet as it would be predicted by thermodynamics? The universe we live in hasn't achieved none of that by now.

 

[GB: Olaf, thanks so much for your astute question.

 

Let me first explain for others what equilibrium means. An equilibrium occurs when outputs and inputs reach a relative standoff. For instance, a helium balloon in earth’s atmosphere illustrates the temporary equilibrium between the helium molecules within and the nitrogen molecules without. Coincidentally, I presented "The Scientific Worldview" as the philosophy of univironmental determinism (what happens to a portion of the universe depends on the infinite matter within and without). Univironmental determinism also happens to be the universal mechanism of evolution that I proposed as the general replacement for Neo-Darwinism, which is only a special case limited to biology.

 

Univironmental Analysis

 

We invented the word “univironment” to emphasize the critical connection between each XYZ portion of universe (defined as a “microcosm”) and its nearby environment (defined as the “macrocosm”). As Olaf implied, the general tendency is for microcosms to reach univironmental equilibrium with their macrocosm. The trouble is, with everything in the Infinite Universe being in motion, no permanent equilibrium is possible.

 

The Second Law of Thermodynamics (SLT)

 

The figure above is what we use to explain how the SLT works. Chamber A is filled with gas and chamber B is a vacuum. Turning the intervening valve allows the gas molecules to enter chamber B under their own inertia. Inertia was described by Newton’s First Law of Motion (Every microcosm continues in uniform motion until the direction and velocity of its motion is changed by collisions with supermicrocosms.)[1] An equilibrium occurs when the number of gas molecules in both chambers is roughly equal. We also say that the result has been an increase in entropy.


The SLT only applies to systems that are ideally isolated. As shown in the figure, no matter or motion inputs are allowed. The SLT is what we call a “systems theory.” The problem with systems theory, however, is that it tends to over emphasize the microcosm and deemphasize the macrocosm (the outsides of things). In other words, that is what “isolation” amounts to. The Big Bang Theory is the archetype of such a theory. Whether imagined as a fantastic 4-dimensional space-time system or as a system surrounded by perfectly empty space, it satisfies the main criteria for application of the SLT: isolation.

 

 

Although the SLT is nice for describing local equilibria, it is only an idealization. Again, there are no truly isolated systems in the universe. In fact, if chamber A was perfectly isolated, being a finite system unto itself, there would be no vacuum chamber for its gas molecules to enter. The SLT would not even work if the isolation of any system was perfect. The misbegotten “heat death of the universe” trope presupposes that the universe is finite and isolated. In addition, the “heat” imagined therein supposedly occurs as the magical energy that travels as matterless motion through Einstein’s imagined perfectly empty space.

 

SLT and Infinite Universe Theory

 

Infinite Universe Theory aptly assumes the Sixth Assumption of Science, complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things). For that to be true, the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions) also has to be true. These two fundamental assumptions are consupponible: That is, you can assume both without contradiction. Although fundamental assumptions like these never can be completely proven, their logic supplies elegance to Infinite Universe Theory as a replacement for the Big Bang Theory. In addition, complementarity provides the resolution of the SLT-order paradox.[2] That answers the question: If the Second Law of Thermodynamics produces only disorder, how come there is so much order all around us?

 

According to Collingwood, fundamental assumptions like those above always have opposites, which also cannot be completely proven. In this case, they are the Sixth Assumption of Religion, noncomplementarity (All things are subject to divergence from all other things) and the Eighth Assumption of Religion, finity (The universe is finite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). We call them religious because their logic ultimately leads to an imagined creation and an imaginary creator. Also, according to Collingwood, if one of the fundamental assumptions is correct, then its opposite has to be incorrect.

Because most folks are religious or have religious backgrounds, the religious assumptions are taken for granted, though seldom admitted as such by today’s physicists who must therefore be considered “regressive” in their assumptive leanings toward cosmogony (the study of the beginning of the universe).

  

Another important assumption is the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion). With this assumption we can analyze the Second Law of Thermodynamics in terms of matter and the motion of matter. In the Infinite Universe any matter or the motion of matter diverging from one microcosm continues on to form yet another microcosm elsewhere. Actually, each microcosm and its containing submicrocosms appear as temporary interruptions in Newton’s First Law of Motion.

 

Still another is the Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed). This is the first of at least 20 falsifications of the Big Bang Theory. Coincidentally, it is what 9-year-old genius David Balogun used to best cosmogonist Neil deGrasse Tyson in destroying the Big Bang Theory forthwith. In the present discussion, conservation, which has never been falsified, would not necessarily prevent universal equilibrium. If one assumed the Eighth Assumption of Religion, finity (The universe is finite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions) one could imagine an equilibrium of the “ultimate constituents” of matter. As imagined by the atomists, these would have to be perfectly spherical solid particles that were all identical. Nonetheless, no such things could ever exist 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). That assumption, too, is consupponible with infinity.

 

And, as alluded to above, the imagined “heat death of the universe” supposedly would produce a final equilibrium in which all the mass of the universe was converted into energy, construed as matterless motion. This also is a common part of the creed of regressive physics and cosmogony—that is where the dark energy trope comes from. Be reminded that energy neither exists nor occurs—it is merely a calculation describing matter in motion. In particular, mass is not converted magically into the energy construed as matterless motion. But it is true as Martin Gardner wrote: “As the coffee cools, mass is lost.”[3] How can that be possible if we don’t have matterless motion? My widely read paper on that subject explained that the submicrocosm motion responsible for the resistance we call mass is transferred across the univironmental boundary to the supermicrocosms in the macrocosm.[4] In the coffee case, those supermicrocosms happen to be your skin cells if you are unlucky or air molecules if you are lucky. Lacking an atmosphere or other baryonic particles, it necessarily would involve aether particles, whose particle-to-particle collisions, allow the transfer of motion throughout the universe.

 

Like all microcosmic motion in the Infinite Universe, wave motion in the aether medium is not merely unidirectional. Per complementarity, that motion diverges from luminous objects and converges toward them. Stars emitting the motion we call light also are subject to light from other stars emitting light. Every microcosm in the Infinite Universe is in motion with respect to other microcosms.

 

Conclusion

 

Infinite Universe Theory is in agreement with Einstein that all things in the universe are in motion with respect to other things. Of course, with the universe being infinite, there is no “first cause” required to set the universe into motion, for its various parts already are in motion, having received collisions from still other microcosms in the Infinite Universe, ad infinitum. There may be a temporary equilibrium for any particular microcosm when it forms from the supermicrocosms in its macrocosm. But, because its resulting submicrocosms are continually in motion, the eventual divergence of its constituents and their motion[5] is inevitable. For every death there must be a birth. For every divergence there must be a convergence. There is no rest for the weary in the Infinite Universe.]

 



[1] As modified in “Infinite Universe Theory.” I define a microcosm as an xyz portion of the universe and a supermicrocosm as a microcosm existing outside that microcosm.

[3] Gardner, Martin, 1962, Relativity for the Million: New York, Macmillan, p. 66.

[4] 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]. [This shows why aether often is necessary for transmitting submicrocosmic motion to the macrocosm.]

[5] Ibid.

 

To read this and its updates on Medium, click here 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 50 times to aid the foundation, follow me, and subscribe to get these weekly essays directly in your inbox. 

 

 

20230508

Borchardt Interview on Infinite Universe Theory

PSI Blog 20230508 Borchardt Interview on Infinite Universe Theory


Wide-ranging discussion with Michael and Anastasia at DemystifySci, a video podcast that is starting to interview progressive physicists.



I am happy to announce I have been chosen #146 in a line of interviews that ordinarily are of regressive physicists, cosmogonists, and other mainstream folks. The interview is pretty long, so you might want to stream it on your TV. Just get some popcorn, pour yourself a drink, and search for “DemystifySci” on the Youtube.com channel.


One thing you will notice from the interview and from Infinite Universe Theory in general is its relative simplicity. Once one jumps the finity-infinity divide much of the fantasy and distorted complications of regressive physics and cosmogony disappear. In particular, we consider there to be only two phenomena presented by all portions of the infinite universe: matter and the motion of matter.

 

 

 

 

 

Among the questions answered in this interview are:

 

 

 

Why is The DemystifySci Podcast able to present alternative views?

 

What assumptions are required for becoming a theoretical physicist?

 

How come I had trouble accepting relativity in Physics 1a?

 

Was I ever a believer in the Big Bang Theory?

 

Why did relativity and Big Bang Theory get so popular?

 

Why did the Sagnac experiment in 1913 prove aether existed?

 

Why was the Michelson and Morley experiment unable to detect aether?

 

What is a photon?

 

Why do people believe such fantastic imaginary stuff?

 

What is the proper application of imagination in physics?

 

What are the properties of aether particles?

 

What do the T-waves of light tell us about the morphology of aether particles?

 

Is gravitation a push or a pull?

 

Does the Pound-Rebka experiment prove time dilation?

 

What does the “gravitational redshift” tell us about variations in the properties of aether?

 

Is the cosmological redshift a distance effect?

 

Is nature a continuum or is it particles in motion?

 

What is the universal mechanism of evolution?

 

What is a microcosm?

 

What is a macrocosm?

 

What is the univironment?

 

What is a particle?

 

What is matter?

 

What is mass?

 

Can there be matterless motion?

 

Is time motion?

 

What is measurement?

 

Is everything in the universe in motion?

 

Does aether pressure affect clock measurements?

 

Is the matterless field concept valid?

 

How do we learn the difference between reality and imagination?

 

Why is theory necessary for experimentation?

 

Why and when did I discover the Big Bang Theory was nonsense?

 

What part did curiosity and multidisciplinary work have to do with the development of Infinite Universe Theory?

 

What did the questioning of authority in the sixties have to do with it?

 

What are the two types of Lutheranism and how did they lead to the development of doubt?

 

How do outrageous claims encourage doubt in religion and politics?

 

What is a cause?

 

How do authoritarianism and institution worship prevent paradigm shift?

 

Does paradigm shift occur slow or fast?

 

Did I witness the slow development of plate tectonic theory without screaming in the streets?

 

What does atomism have to do with the space-matter continuum?

 

What do the perfectly empty space and perfectly solid matter idealizations have to do with Einstein’s relativity?

 

How was an 8-year-old able to best Neil de Grasse Tyson in a debate about Big Bang Theory?

 

Why are fundamental assumptions critical in producing a paradigm shift?

 

What did Collingwood’s “Essay on Metaphysics” have to do with the development of Infinite Universe Theory?

 

How does consupponibility support Infinite Universe Theory?

 

What is a matter-motion term?

 

What is momentum?

 

What is force?

 

What is energy?

 

Why do folks have so much difficulty in switching to infinity?

 

How many stars in the Milky Way?

 

How many galaxies in the universe?

 

What do elderly galaxies mean for Infinite Universe Theory?

 

What were “island universes?”

 

Are cyclical universes possible?

 

Why do reformists have 3,500 theories?

 

Why does the universe have to be infinite for things to form?

 

Where does matter come from?

 

What does vortex formation have to do with the formation of aether complexes?

 

How is pedochronopaleoseismology used for determining prehistoric earthquakes?

 

How is it possible to know which faults are active?

 

What are earthquake planning scenarios?

 

What is the difference between aseismic creep and earthquakes?

 

Did subduction in the SF Bay area move northwest to Humboldt County?

 

What is neutron activation analysis?

 

How did we sort of predict the eruption of Mt Helens in Oregon?

 

Will the expected subduction M9.2 earthquake in Humboldt extend all the way to Canada?

 

Are Portland and Seattle ready for the Big One?

 

Why did the Soviet Union and Russia build so many seismically dangerous highrises?

 

How to find out more about Infinite Universe Theory?

 

Here is the Infinite Universe Theory Interview

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYA-QrBn_9g

 

 

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 50 times to aid the foundation, follow me, and subscribe to get these weekly essays directly in your inbox.



 

 

20230501

James Webb Images Produce Cognitive Dissonance for Astrophysicists Kaku and Tyson

PSI Blog 20230501 James Webb Images Produce Cognitive Dissonance for Astrophysicists Kaku and Tyson

 

Here are some great videos debunking the Big Bang Theory.

 

Thanks to George Coyne, Director of the Vancouver Regional PSI Office, for these links. George, a counselor by trade, is one of the most active members in the Progressive Science Institute. His story of youthful skepticism and subsequent examination of the current cosmology is similar to many followers of Infinite Universe Theory. In fact, he has written his own book on the subject (Coyne, George, 2021, Notfinity Process: Matter in Motion (2nd ed.), JCNPS, 408 p. [https://go.glennborchardt.com/Notfinity21]).

 

The first video is a grandiose illustration of the speculations of the Big Bang Theory with no mention that it is based on the assumption the universe had a beginning. It is only at the very end where it mentions there may be trouble ahead because of the James Webb Space Telescope photos.

 

The second video shows two doyens with very different interpretations of the “elderly galaxy” falsification of the theory. Kaku severely doubts any galaxy could form in a mere 500 million years and be ten times bigger than our 13.6-billion-year-old Milky Way. Tyson uses some shouting and a lot of hubris in defending the “surety” of the redshift-expansion interpretation and the assumed explosion of the entire universe out of nothing.

 

As a scientist, I find it somewhat disconcerting to have to air such disagreement among colleagues, but it is what it is. There will be much more of that to come.

                  

By George Coyne

 

These two videos provide the ultimate debunking of the ridiculous Big Bang model.  

 

Another Blow to Big Bang! James Webb Telescope Detects a Structure that Should Not Exist

 

Credit: LAB 360.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b84yW_t2TAM

 

 

Neil deGrasse Tyson and Michio Kaku Break Silence on James Webb Telescope's Shocking New Image!

 

Credit: T Territory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLry_CT-iwc

 

Tyson and Kaku seem amazed when referring to the 6 massive galaxies that had grown up to 10 times larger than the Milky Way within 500 million years after the hypothesized Big Bang.

 

How soon will it be before all the Big Bang theorists begin distancing themselves from the debunked theory and claim that they always had massive doubts about it?

 

  

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 fifty times to aid the foundation, follow me, and subscribe to get these weekly essays directly in your inbox.