Why Everything Must be in Motion if the Universe is Infinite

PSI Blog 20240205 Why Everything Must be in Motion if the Universe is Infinite

 

But not necessarily in motion if it is finite.

 

 Portion of Photo by Gabrielle Meschini on Unsplash

 

Thanks to Rex Kerr for this claim:

 

“It's a thought experiment illustrating how you could have a lack of relativity (e.g. because a fixed ether[1] provides a universal reference frame) regardless of whether the universe was finite. A thought experiment is sufficient to disprove your claim linking infinity and relativity.

I don't actually mean that there's ether, as per the Michelson-Morely experiment.”

 

Inperiments

 

A thought experiment ("inperiment"[2]) is a hypothesis suggesting what results would be obtained if an experiment could be performed. It actually is an oxymoron, with the “thought” being internal and the “ex” being external. Inperiments prove nothing until the experiments have been carried out. They often are used when that is impossible. Inperiments are fine as long as they do no not violate the "The Ten Assumptions of Science."[3]

 

Rex, in hypothesizing that ether might be fixed, you are assuming the Fourth Assumption of Religion, separability (Motion can occur without matter and matter can exist without motion).[4] There is no evidence for either of those although neither inseparability nor separability, being fundamental assumptions, are completely provable in the same way neither infinity nor finity are completely provable.

 

Relativity

 

Relativity is the principle that all things in the universe are in motion. Variations of the idea were mentioned by Aristotle, Lucretius, Newton, Galileo, and others who looked at the night sky systematically. The use of the telescope in support of Copernicus set cosmology on a never-ending confirmation of relativity and inseparability. We may disagree with most of Einstein’s claims, but not his popularization of the principle of relativity, with which his name resides.

 

The relationship between infinity and inseparability

 

Now let me go through the logic of how the principle of relativity can be derived from infinity. First, there are two kinds of infinity: macro and micro. Second, my assumption logically includes both kinds as the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). In other words, scale is irrelevant, as infinity implies there is no beginning or end to the progression in either direction. Each portion of the Infinite Universe contains other portions within and without, ad infinitum. As with all fundamental assumptions this never can be completely proven in the same way we can never completely prove there are causes for all effects.

 

Infinity seems especially difficult for most folks to understand, although both ends of the spectrum continually receive confirmation. The JWST photos of elderly galaxies at the current limit of observation support macro infinity and accelerators support micro infinity with no end in sight.

 

Interconnection

 

The Tenth Assumption of Science, interconnection (All things are interconnected, that is, between any two objects exist other objects that transmit matter and motion) is consupponible[5] with infinity, being easily deduced therefrom. Objects continually subject to such transmission (i.e., collisions) obviously cannot be without motion. Thus, infinity implies inseparability.

 

Similarly, finity implies the Tenth Assumption of Religion, disconnection  (There may be perfectly empty space between any two objects). This, in turn, is consupponible with the Fifth Assumption of Religion, creation (Matter and motion can be created out of nothing). Einstein’s popularity and the popularity of its derivative, the Big Bang Theory, was set in motion with his rejection of aether and his assumption light was a massless particle filled with perfectly empty space traveling perpetually through perfectly empty space. Although there is no evidence in support of this “Untired Light Theory,” its acceptance and promulgation by regressive physicists fits humanity’s evolutionary pattern.

 

Being myopic and self-centered, humanity unconsciously and necessarily began emphasizing matter, but downgrading motion. First there was the supposed creation of all things one could see, with the unmoving Earth created just for us being surrounded by the stars fixed upon a rotating celestial sphere. Remnants of those assumptions remain with us today, with a few folks still believing in geocentrism and flat-earth theories. Others even have hypothesized a fixed ether with each particle considered to be absolutely motionless. Some have realized that particular absurdity, building an imaginary framework to keep the particles from moving around,[6] which is not much better. Others have thought of ether as an imaginary immovable solid or as a liquid. In Infinite Universe Theory we consider aether to be a theoretically necessary quasi-gaseous medium for wave transmission. It must have interparticle motion akin to everything else in the universe described by the relativity principle and the Ten Assumptions of Science.

 

 

PSI Blog 20240205

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

[1] Note there have been two different spellings used for the luminiferous medium. The proper spelling that I now use derives from Descartes and begins with an “a.” I reserve the ether spelling for the fixed version Michelson and Morley essentially proved nonexistent.

[2] My suggested replacement for the phrase.

[3] Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The Ten Assumptions of Science: Toward a New Scientific Worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p. [https://gborc.com/TTAOS; https://gborc.com/TTAOSpdf].

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

[5] A word coined by R.G. Collingwood for fundamental assumptions that don’t contradict one another.

[6] Grantham, RG, 2010, The fabric of space as an electron-positron lattice and its implications for GRT. ver2. Aug2010: [https://vixra.org/abs/2112.0150].