Why the Infinite Universe is not Evolving

 PSI Blog 20231127 Why the Infinite Universe is not Evolving

 

Every portion of the Infinite Universe is evolving, but the universe is not.

  

Thanks to Anon for this question:

 

“You said ‘the Infinite Universe does not evolve over time, with only its individual parts doing so,’ for this to occur as a whole are you suggesting that there is an exogenous or endogenous force that purposely ensures that the Infinite Universe does not evolve?  That Universal "cancer" could not take place, or that natural evolution which is seen in all things on earth remains static for the Infinite Universe?  How does the Infinite Universe not evolve?”

 

[GB: Let me state the answer in a few different ways:

 

1.   According to the universal mechanism of evolution, univironmental determinism, what happens to a portion of the universe depends on the infinite matter within and without. That mechanism does not apply to the Infinite Universe because it has no “without.”

2.   Another way of looking at it is this: Evolution is motion. Motion involves a change in distance with respect to some other thing. There is no thing outside the Infinite Universe that exists as a referent. Only a finite universe could evolve. That is probably why neo-Darwinists favor the Big Bang Theory, although the discovery of “elderly galaxies” at the limit of observation must puzzle them too.

3.   There certainly is no “exogenous or endogenous force that purposely ensures that the Infinite Universe does not evolve.” Remember that forces do not exist. They are simply calculations (F=ma) involving the collisions between objects containing other objects and thus having mass. Again, there is nothing exogenous to the Infinite Universe because, by definition, it contains all that exists.

4.   Also, the Infinite Universe has no “purpose” as much as we would like there to be one. It just is. What exists is what remains after the “destruction of the unfittest.”

5.   I am sorry, but the idea of a “universal cancer” or a “heat death” for the Infinite Universe is a non sequitur. Birth is a coming together of ingredients; while death is a coming apart of those ingredients. Ingredients are necessary for each portion of the universe, but the Infinite Universe does not have that necessity because it already contains everything.

6.   The necessity to have ingredients for the production of anything is why the universe cannot be finite, as I pointed out in more detail here. In essence, each portion of the Infinite Universe forms from ingredients from elsewhere ad infinitum. No inexplicable explosion out of nothing is required.]

 

PSI Blog 20231127

 

Thanks for reading Infinite Universe Theory! Please subscribe for free to receive new posts and be part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution.”

 

 

Science Magazine: “The Universe’s Puzzlingly Fast Expansion May Defy Explanation, Cosmologists Fret”

PSI Blog 20231106 Science Magazine: “The Universe’s Puzzlingly Fast Expansion May Defy Explanation, Cosmologists Fret”

 

“Hubble Tension” increases cognitive dissonance for the faltering Big Bang Theory.

 

Bear with me on this one as it is a bit more complicated than the first 20 falsifications of the Big Bang Theory that I listed here. Recently, what caught my eye was Science’s belated recognition of what is known as the “Hubble Tension.” The Hubble Tension is the discrepancy between measurements of the Hubble coefficient (H_o) performed in two different ways best illustrated here:

 
Figure 1. After 2013 it became clear that the Hubble coefficient was 74 instead of the 67 predicted by Big Bang Theory. The “Distance Ladder” from Cepheid Variables supports Infinite Universe Theory instead of the Big Bang Theory. Image Credit: D’arcy Kenworthy in Lifson (2023).

 

The first (in red) is from the Cosmic Microwave Background, erroneously considered by cosmogonists to be a remnant from the Big Bang. In Infinite Universe Theory we consider this background to be the equilibrium temperature (2.7 degrees Kelvin) for aether and/or baryonic matter. Einstein’s perfectly empty space would have had no temperature at all. That is because temperature is the vibration of matter.

 

The second (in blue) is a measurement of distance to Cepheid Variables in various galaxies. These are stars with masses about 100,000 times as great as the sun. Unlike smaller stars, they can be seen with powerful telescopes and their redshifts can be measured. As with any illuminated object (e.g., a flashlight), the amount of light that reaches us is a direct function of distance. Cosmogonists erroneously attribute the associated cosmological redshifts to galactic recession, which supposedly is evidence for universal expansion. It is no such thing, simply being a result of energy loss over distance.

 

The subheading to the Science article is aptly titled as well:

 

“The controversial “Hubble tension” promises deep insight but, like dark matter and dark energy, could remain just another mystery.”

Figure 2. This figure from the article shows the Hubble Tension in a slightly different way (Cho 2023). Previous ad hocs led to the weird asymptotic curve requiring huge variations in expansion rates. Image credit: C. Bickel/Science.

 

Like so many of the other falsifications of the Big Bang Theory, this one is especially embarrassing. So much so that Science seems to have ignored it until 2019 when they reluctantly presented the first of a half dozen articles on it even though it was completely clear six years earlier (Figure 1). After July 2022, the James Webb Space Telescope photos confirmed the discrepancy already noted in Hubble Space Telescope photos, stimulating most of the unacknowledged mea culpas to be.

 

The complications shown in Figure 2 are simply a result of the erroneous assumption that cosmological redshifts reflect galactic recession. This is why they include velocity in labeling the Hubble coefficient (H_o/(km/s)/Mpc). When that is removed, z values become a simple function of distance, as suggested by Hubble (1953) just before he died:

 

“When no recession factors are included, the law will represent approximately a linear relation between red-shifts and distance.”

 

Recent reformist work is in agreement (Chen 2020). Here is how the simple math works:

 

Hubble’s Law (without the km/s recession factor)

z = H_od

Where:

   z = cosmological redshift, dλ/λ

   λ = wavelength, nm

H₀ = Hubble coefficient (it is not a constant because it is multiplied, and not added like a constant would be)

     = 74/Mpc

      = 74/(3.09 X 10¹⁹ km)

   d = distance, km

Rearranging:

d = z/H_o

That is why the direct measurements called the “Distance Ladder” in Figure 1 are relatively identical at all distances. I predict that will hold for the extreme distances to be measured in the future. It also is support for my claim that the Infinite Universe does not evolve over time, with only its individual parts doing so.

 

To find out why the “recession factor” is still included by cosmogonists despite Hubble’s caveat, read "Religious Roots of Relativity" (Borchardt 2020).

 

PSI Blog 20231106

 

Thanks for reading Infinite Universe Theory! Please subscribe for free to receive new posts and be part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution.”

 

References

 

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

 

Chen, Peter, 2020, A mathematical model for redshift: Applied Mathematics, v. 11, p. 146-156. [https://gborc.com/Chen-2020].

 

Cho, Adrian, 2023, The universe’s puzzlingly fast expansion may defy explanation, cosmologists fret: Science, Accessed 20231103 [https://gborc.com/Hubble-Tension].

 

Hubble, Edwin, 1953, The law of red-shifts: George Darwin Lecture, delivered by Dr Edwin Hubble on 1953 May 8: Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, v. 113, no. 6, p. 658-666. [https://gborc.com/Hubble-1953].

 

Lifson, Shari, 2023, Our mysterious universe still evades cosmological understanding, Accessed 20231104 [https://gborc.com/Hubble-tension-Lifson].