20240916

Universal Expansion Bites the Dust—Again

 PSI Blog 20240916 Universal Expansion Bites the Dust—Again

 

Cosmogonists attempt to ditch the silly idea the universe is expanding.

 

"Astronomers use the light from distant stars, such as the Helix Nebula seen here, to measure the apparent expansion of the universe. New research suggests there may be more to the picture that we're not seeing. (Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/SSC)"

 

Two readers just found two different articles each trying to rid the world of the ridiculous universal expansion theory in two different ways. George had this to say:

 

“Glenn,

 

In your blog from October 23,2023 you make a great argument against the theory that the universe is expanding. You have written about how it is not possible to have an expanding universe in one that is already infinite in size.

 

https://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2023/10/why-universe-is-not-expanding.html

 

As you know, I have been making the same assertion as you with evidence from many studies that support this position in my two books since 2017, including in six pages of Notfinity Process: Matter-In-Motion (2021).

 

In a June 2, 2023 paper published in the journal Classical and Quantum Gravity theoretical physics Professor Lucas Lombriser of the University of Geneva proposes that the universe is flat and static as opposed to expanding. Here is the link to an article about his paper:

 

The expansion of the universe could be a mirage, new theoretical study suggests

 

Although I know you will not agree with all his points, I am certain you will approve of his eliminating the idea of dark energy in a non-expanding universe. Your readers may be interested in your view of Professor Lombriser’s paper and any other comments about your view on a non-expanding cosmos.

 

George Coyne”

 

[GB: George: Thanks for the link. You are right. Energy does not exist. It is an equation we use to describe the motion of matter. BTW: I don’t think universal expansion is an “illusion” or “mirage.” It simply is a gross misinterpretation based on Einstein’s Untired Light Theory. That was based on the false assumption light was a massless particle containing perfectly empty space traveling perpetually through perfectly empty space. Particles lose energy over distance by losing velocity (e.g., a baseball or bullet). Light does not lose velocity over distance because it actually is a wave in the aether. Velocity in aether is controlled by that medium. The only way it loses “energy” is via the cosmological redshift, which indeed does increase over distance just like Zwicky’s Tired Light Theory says.]

 

[GB: Thanks Jesse for this one]

 

"A chink in the armour?

 

https://thedebrief.org/time-to-rethink-the-big-bang-new-research-suggests-universal-expansion-may-not-be-what-it-seems/

 

[GB: The author writes:

 

“The results showed that galaxies that rotate in the opposite direction relative to the Milky Way have lower redshift compared to galaxies that rotate in the same direction relative to the Milky Way,” Dr. Shamir said. “That difference reflects the motion of the Earth as it rotates with the Milky Way. But the results also showed that the difference in the redshift increased when the galaxies were more distant from Earth.”

 

“Because the rotational velocity of the Earth relative to the galaxies is constant, the reason for the difference can be the distance of the galaxies from Earth. That shows that the redshift of galaxies changes with the distance, which is what Zwicky predicted in his Tired Light theory.”

 

[GB: That fits our falsifications of the Big Bang Theory, one of which is a photo showing no separation between galaxies with distance.]

 

 

 

PSI Blog 20240916

 

 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.

 

 

 

 

20240909

When will cosmogonists discard the Big Bang Theory?

PSI Blog 20240909 When will cosmogonists discard the Big Bang Theory?

 

This short video is a good explanation of the current Big Bang Theory (the ɅCDM Model, which includes nonexistent dark energy (Ʌ) and dark matter (DM)) and the “elderly galaxies” problem.

 

Photo credit: The Secrets Of The Universe, on Facebook.com.

 

Here are a couple good questions from George Coyne:

 

“Glenn.

 

Before the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) images of early galaxies, the Big Bang Theory (BBT) was asserting that star formation took hundreds of millions of years post BBT to begin forming and galaxies took one billion years to form. But this BBT prediction has been completely invalidated by the JWST images.


Although the creators of this video titled "Webb is Already Breaking Cosmology" support the Big Bang Theory, the narrator states some estimates by astronomers suggest that the JWST could see as far as a redshift of 26, just 120 million years after the Big Bang.

 

My serious question for you is: If the JWST finds galaxies with billions of stars within the first 100,000 years of the Big Bang, which is ten thousand times less than a billion, would that be sufficient evidence to get astronomers to consider the possibility that the BBT could be wrong? Is there any time frame after the BBT in which the existence of mature galaxies discovered by the JWST would lead its proponents to question its validity?”

 

Just months into observations, Webb is already breaking cosmology!

 

[GB: Thanks, George, for another of the many videos timidly challenging the Big Bang Theory. The narrator does a wonderful job of explaining the theory in less than 10 minutes. Unfortunately, despite his hysterical headlines, he has swallowed all the propaganda hook, line, and sinker. He did miss emphasizing the most important proclamation of the theory: that as we look back into the universe, we are supposed to see younger and younger cosmological objects. Instead, all his illustrations are similar to our nearby universe, just as Infinite Universe Theory predicted. Above all, those “Elderly Galaxies” at the limit of observation are not supposed to be there.

 

Also, those so-called “predictions” concerning the evolution and abundance of elements heavier than helium are better explained by Infinite Universe Theory. Those elements are formed in huge elderly stars billions of years old as a result of things coming together, not exploding apart. Even our own 4.603-billion-year-old Sun does not produce them.

 

When will cosmogonists cry “uncle” and give up the greatest travesty known to “modern” physics? Just as soon as they become cosmologists instead of cosmogonists (those who assume the universe had a beginning). My prediction of 2050 still stands. That is because the fundamental assumptions underlying what amounts to the “Last Creation Myth” are essentially religious. And you know how difficult it is for a true believer to give that up. With that affliction affecting over 80% of US scientists as well as the rest of the world, it looks like the current spate of irrationality will last at least for another generation. The switch from finity to infinity will change everything, but that occurs one person, one video, and one Blog post at a time.]  

 

 

PSI Blog 20240909

 

 

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.

 


20240902

Hunt for Dark Matter Particles Bags Nothing—Again

PSI Blog 20240902 Hunt for Dark Matter Particles Bags Nothing—Again

 

Aether denial produces yet another failure.

 

“Light bounces off the LUX-ZEPLIN detector’s inner photomultiplier tubes and woven mesh wire grids. The delicate innards of the LUX-ZEPLIN detector work just as they should, a new result shows.” Photo credit: Matthew Kapust/Sanford Underground Research Facility.

 

Here is another illustration of your tax dollars going to waste. WIMPs (weakly interacting massive particles) are the non-existent hypothetical critters invented by regressive physicists in the effort to explain dark matter. As I have shown in other posts and in my infamously rejected paper,[1] dark matter is composed of aether particles that become decelerated upon producing the acceleration we call gravitation. Although over three centuries too late, we agree with Descartes that aether: 1. Forms ordinary matter, 2. Is the medium for light transmission, and 3. Is responsible for gravitation.

 

Any ordinary particle anyone could detect would be an aether complex. It also might be nonluminous, but it would not be the dark matter that forms an “aetherosphere” around ordinary matter and contributes to the nonluminous mass of rotating galaxies.[2]

 

Here is today’s outrage. Read it and weep:

 

Hunt for dark matter particles bags nothing—again

 

 

A few quotes:

 

“‘If WIMPs were there, we have the sensitivity to have seen them,’ says Chamkaur Ghag, a particle physicist at University College London and spokesperson for the 250-member LZ team.”

 

Science Staff Writer Cho did get this somewhat right:

 

“Myriad astronomical observations suggest invisible dark matter pervades most galaxies and provides the gravity needed to keep their stars from flying into space. However, physicists don’t know what sort of subatomic particles the stuff consists of. Since the 1980s, the leading candidate has been WIMPs, which would have a mass between 10 and 1000 times that of a proton…”

 

But then regurgitates the regressive nonsense in favor of cosmogony:

 

“If the Big Bang spawned WIMPs, theorists calculated, then just enough of them should linger today to account for the universe’s dark matter. That tantalizing concordance, known as the “WIMP miracle,” has been the main argument in favor of the particles, making the idea almost too compelling to be wrong.”

 

Well, that’s where $55 million of your tax money went, along with all that time wasted by the 250 collaborators. In retrospect, that is insignificant compared to the $13 billion and over 7,000 collaborators it took to “discover” the phony Higgs boson.[3] With that kind of money and effort you better discover something—or else!

 

 

PSI Blog 20240902

 

 

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] Borchardt, Glenn, 2018, The Physical Cause of Gravitation: viXra:1806.0165 (“Aether Deceleration Theory”)

[2] Rubin, V.C., 2000, One hundred years of rotating galaxies: Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, v. 112, p. 747–750. [10.1086/316573].

[3] Unzicker, Alexander, 2013, The Higgs Fake: How Particle Physicists Fooled the Nobel Committee, CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 152 p. [https://go.glennborchardt.com/Higgs]. [Note that particle supposedly gives mass to other particles even though it supposedly exists outside, not inside those particles!]