The Scientific Worldview

This is a blog that takes the name of my magnum opus on scientific philosophy called "The Scientific Worldview." Reviewers have called it “revolutionary,” “exhilarating,” “magnificent,” “fascinating,” and even “a breathtaking synthesis of all understanding.” There is very little math in it, no religion, no politics, no psycho-babble, and no BS. It provides the first outline of the philosophical perspective that will develop during the last half of the Industrial-Social Revolution.

20240129

NPR: “James Webb Telescope detects earliest known black hole — it's really big for its age”

PSI Blog 20240129 NPR: “James Webb Telescope detects earliest known black hole — it's really big for its age”

Yet another elderly object is found in the cosmogonical crib.

“This image shows a 'close-up' of the galaxy GN-z11 as imaged by the Hubble Space Telescope, superimposed on top of another image marking the galaxy's location in the sky.” NASA

Here we go again: As we look increasingly distant into what cosmologists assume to be the Big Bang universe, we are supposed to see increasingly young cosmological structures. Not so. Black holes are the nuclei of galaxies. They becoming increasingly large when their associated stars are pushed therein. This takes an extremely long time.

Our own Milky Way has an extremely tiny black hole, containing an equivalent of “only” 4.3 million solar masses. With an estimated 400 billion stars, that is about 0.001% of the mass of the entire galaxy. The Milky Way is 13.61 Ga (i.e., 13.61 billion years old). At that rate, it looks like it would take trillions of years for all those stars to be pushed into the nucleus.

“James Webb Telescope detects earliest known black hole — it's really big for its age”

https://www.npr.org/2024/01/17/1225153504/james-webb-telescope-detects-earliest-known-black-hole-its-really-big-for-its-ag

You might like this link for it has a podcast to go along with the transcript. Here are a few telling quotes from Ari Daniel, the interviewer:

“When the Hubble Space Telescope first spotted the galaxy GN-z11 in 2016, it was the most distant galaxy scientists had ever identified. It was ancient, formed 13.4 billion years ago — a mere 400 million years after the Big Bang.”

Daniel quotes the author: "It is essentially not possible to grow such a massive black hole so fast so early in the universe," Maiolino says. "Essentially, there is not enough time according to classical theories. So one has to invoke alternative scenarios."

Ad Hoc Time

Then come the ad hocs we have been waiting for. Daniel says:

“Here's scenario one — rather than starting out small, perhaps supermassive black holes in the early universe were simply born big due to the collapse of vast clouds of primordial gas.”

“Scenario two is that maybe early stars collapsed to form a sea of smaller black holes, which could have then merged or swallowed matter way faster than we thought, causing the resulting black hole to grow quickly.”

“Or perhaps it's some combination of both.”

These perhaps are no more absurd than the numerous ad hocs already used to save the Big Bang Theory. Like the others, if repeated enough they might become the illusory truth.

PSI Blog 20240129

Thanks for reading Infinite Universe Theory! On Medium.com you can subscribe for free to receive new posts and be part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution.” There you can support PSI financially by clapping 50 times and responding with your questions.

20240122

BBC: “Huge Ring of Galaxies Challenges Thinking on Cosmos”

PSI Blog 20240122 BBC: “Huge Ring of Galaxies Challenges Thinking on Cosmos”

Infinite Universe Theory predicts there is no end to the size of astronomical structures.

Photo credit Pallab Ghosh: “An artist's impression highlighting the positions of the Big Ring (in blue) and Giant Arc (shown in red) in the sky.”

Huge ring of galaxies challenges thinking on cosmos

Astute readers know Infinite Universe Theory is founded on the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). This means, of course, that there is no largest object, just as there is no smallest object.[1]

With regard to the Big Ring, the latest discovery, Pallab Ghosh writes: “It is 1.3bn light-years in diameter and appears to be roughly 15 times the size of the Moon in the night sky as seen from Earth.”

And: “The Big Ring was identified by Alexia Lopez, a PhD student at the University of Central Lancashire (UCLan), who also discovered the Giant Arc - a structure spanning 3.3bn light-years of space.”

Even that is not the largest structure so far discovered. According to Ghosh: “the biggest single entity scientists have identified is a supercluster of galaxies called the Hercules-Corona Borealis Great Wall, which is about 10 billion light-years wide.”

So, what makes a cosmological structure such as a supercluster? Like everything in the Infinite Universe, each is a microcosm containing submicrocosms in association. Also, like all microcosms, they form via convergence, having been pushed together via gravitation.

As Ghosh implied in the BBC article, these hugh structures are a grand falsification of the “Cosmological Principle.” They are not supposed to exist because the universe is supposed to be homogeneous like a normal explosion would be. Of course, the Cosmological Principle was destroyed long ago when the first structures were observed. The cosmological cognitive dissonance grows with each new discovery. If anything, convergence is at least as great as the divergence produced by the assumed universal expansion for which there is no evidence.

Cosmogonists still believe gravitation is caused by “attraction.” It was a way out of the contradiction whenever things came together in a universe otherwise assumed to be coming apart. The 13.8-Ga age of the supposed Big Bang universe lacks enough time for the galaxies in such large structures to gravitate toward each other. The Great Wall itself is ten billion light years away from us. The light from that structure thus took 10 billion light years to reach us. Obviously, the structure we see now had to come together prior to that time. The same goes for the newly discovered Big Ring, which is over 9 billion light years away. The Big Bang Theory claims astronomical structures should look younger and younger with distance. Looks like Alexia’s discoveries confirm yet another falsification of the theory.

The upshot of all this just forms a progression leading to the eventual demise of cosmogony and the “Last Creation Myth.”

PSI Blog 20240122

[1] Puetz, S.J., and Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe: Denver, Outskirts Press, 626 p. [https://go.glennborchardt.com/UCT].

20240115

Is Time Velocity?

PSI Blog 20240115 Is Time Velocity?

How Einstein’s Relativity obscured a simple concept.

Photo by Robin Pierre on Unsplash

Good question from responder David Thomson:

“Is t=v?” In other words, is time equal to velocity?

The simple answer is NO.

However, the question gives me a chance to explain what relativity really is and the difference between time/motion and the measurement of such. With all things in the Infinite Universe being in motion with respect to all other things we must realize all motions are relative (Lucretius and Galileo).

You could be driving your auto at a velocity of 68 mph (0.03 km/s) when you calculate that measurement with reference to some point on Earth. You also would have a velocity of 30 km/s in your motion around the Sun and 240 km/s around the center of the Milky Way. So the measure of velocity always is relative—to something else. That something else is what we call a “referent” or “reference frame.”

BTW: This is one of the ways in which Einstein fell on his own petard. By theoretically eliminating the medium for light (aether), he had to make wild claims for light’s velocity. He said that c would be constant for all observers (referents). Whenever measurements turned out differently, he then had to claim time was like an object that could be dilated or compressed. This was silly, since time is motion and motion cannot be dilated or compressed.

Actually, light, like sound, has a constant velocity because, like sound, it is a wave in a medium (aether) with its velocity being controlled by that medium. If an observer gets a different measurement for the velocity either for light or sound it is because the medium has changed or the motion of the observer has changed. We don’t speak of “time dilation” in the case of sound and we should not do it in the case of light.

The measurement of time itself is relative. We use the rotation of Earth to calculate what we regard as seconds, hours, years, etc. Thus, when we calculate velocity, we must divide the distance something moves (d) by, in effect, another distance something moves (t). Both distances are relative and, in each case, we must remember there always must be a referent.

Of necessity all this must be circular similar to the way in which we must answer other questions concerning the Infinite Universe. Infinity always “passes the buck.” For instance, when we ask where did the ingredients that produced a particular thing come from, the answer is always the same: From somewhere else.

One way to remember the difference between time and the measurement of time is this: The dinosaurs experienced time (the motion of matter), but they did not measure it.

Another good question, this time from Anon:

“With infinity and motion of microcosmic and macrocosmic particles, there is a natural unit at every level… Wouldn't there be a natural unit for motion [that parallels the one for] matter?”

Strictly speaking, we only can measure things and their effects. Things have XYZ dimensions and exist. Motion does not, so it is impossible to measure without using things in the measurement. As far as I am aware, the best attempt at achieving what you suggest was Planck’s constant involving what he considered “the smallest unit of motion.” In my own calculations, I speculated that would be the motion occurring when an aether particle collided with other matter. That is how I used Planck’s constant to estimate a highly speculative maximum mass of 10^-47 g for aether particles.[1] Of course, infinity implies there are even smaller particles, but I doubt we would ever be able to measure an even smaller “unit of motion.”

PSI Blog 20240115

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

20240112

Unmoderated Posts Released at Last!

Hi all:

On Jan 8 I found out that I was not notified by Blogger to moderate 278 comments from as long ago as 2014. So, I just released them without moderation. If you have questions I never answered please resend them and I will try to answer if you send me a copy via email so I will know where to find your comment. Also, feel free to comment on any other comments that may show up.

So sorry. It won't happen again.

Glenn

20240108

Why it is so Difficult to Understand Time is Motion

PSI Blog 20240108 Why it is so Difficult to Understand Time is Motion

How Einstein’s Relativity obscured a simple concept.

Photo by Robin Pierre on Unsplash

Despite one of my most popular posts, “Time is Motion,” folks still seem to have a great deal of trouble understanding what is really a simple concept. Many seem to think time is an illusion or a measurement or a dimension or a substance or an object or a mystery.

A lot of the modern-day confusion stems from Einstein’s Special Relativity Theory in which he erroneously and surreptitiously substituted length, l, for time, t. This initiated a tendency that became overt when he declared time to be a 4^th dimension in General Relativity Theory. The resulting curved 4-D spacetime is supposed to cause gravitation. Those of us with any lick of sense have trouble with that, being told repeatedly in school to abandon our common sense.

But it goes deeper than Einstein’s confused math. It involves fundamental assumptions, which can never be completely proven and always have opposites. I think I should have done a better job of explaining this with respect to time in "Religious Roots of Relativity." If you have read that book, you will be reminded that the First Assumption of Religion is immaterialism (Material things have no objective existence, strictly being products of consciousness). Thus, if one denies the existence of matter, then one also is denying the occurrence of the motion of matter. For those who cannot stomach a wholesale belief in immaterialism, there is a way out. It is the subdued, contradictory variation I call the Fourth Assumption of Religion, separability (Motion can occur without matter and matter can exist without motion). Many folks do not think deeply enough to recognize these fundamental assumptions. Nonetheless, they still may be influenced by them or their derivatives.

Even our “smartest genius” was oblivious to them.[1] As you may know, Einstein’s “immaterial fields” were an example of assumed “matterless motion.” With the E=mc² equation stolen from Maxwell he claimed matter could be converted into energy, which could fly from the atom as a sort of ghostly matterless motion. As part of “feral mathematics[2],” he could get away with that without complaints from folks well-trained in accepting religious assumptions. Since most of us were brought up religious, it is not surprising we have difficulty understanding both matter and the motion of matter. Both of those are outside our Dreams and Imaginings,™ which we subconsciously try to keep separate from the reality staring us in the face. Sophisticated theologians and our own “reformists” in the dissident movement try to handle the contradiction with embellishments that are anything but simple.

The Infinite Universe involves the motion of each thing with respect to other things. We measure specific time with various clocks, while “universal time” or “absolute time” never can be measured due to infinity. Above all, time is not the measurement, but the motion of matter that allows the measurement and the math that goes with it. If you still have trouble realizing time is motion, just consider it so and you will never be wrong. You might want to read some of the comments of others struggling with this simple concept:

https://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2011/11/time-is-motion.html 102 comments

PSI Blog 20240108

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

[2] What I consider as mathematics gone wild. Math is an imaginary model of reality, but it is not reality. It is indispensable in science and engineering for understanding what amounts to the collisions of one thing with another. When math hypothesizes events that make no sense, common or otherwise, it becomes necessary to recheck the assumptions underlying the math. Math that assumes the entire universe exploded out of nothing is wild. A reality check is necessary.