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.

20240930

The Big Bang Scam

PSI Blog 20240930 The Big Bang Scam

Thanks to Bill, whose latest response was so great that we decided to present it as a Guest Post in honor of his father:

James Paul Wesley (1921-2007), Renown Theoretical Physicist Opposed to Cosmogony and Nuclear Proliferation.

The Big Bang Scam

By Bill Wesley, Arrayist

Notice that when they provide titles such as, "The James Webb Observation Breaks Cosmology!" or " The Big Bang Challenged by New Observations!" and so on the article itself will spend all its text on wearily reiterating the standard cosmological model for the 10,000th time and then will suggest that no one understands what’s wrong, but that we should not give up on the standard cosmological model, that it’s merely a problem of reexamining the dynamics of galaxy formation or some other small tweak that someone will think of soon.

We are asked not to panic or jump to conclusions, the titanic cosmological model has encountered a minor obstetrical, will soon be fixed and that's all, we are reminded that cosmology is unsinkable!

So it’s a scam, they are using the title to reiterate what is not working yet again under the premise that nothing else but reiteration can fix it.

In any other field this is called neurosis, the record keeps skipping back but the listener thinks it’s going forwards.

I told my physicist friends well before the launch that I thought the James Webb would not find small primordial galaxies in the "early" (distant) universe but galaxies much like the milky way and other local galaxies it counted for ZERO credibility on my part when it turned out exactly as I said it would.

I explained that this was going to happen because the big bang consensus emerged due to of issues of conformity and social bonding having zero to do with science, but this fell on deaf ears.

The big bang is a CULT belief, you are joining a GROUP and not adhering to rational science. People who defer from the consensus are PUNISHED; people who accept the consensus are REWARDED which is called CONDITIONING. Heretical beliefs are censored, canonical beliefs are published, its propaganda used to support a publishing empire that uses COERCION to keep everyone on the same page.

Now they are trying to say that "early" galaxies are not really large, that it’s larger black holes at their centers that give us this illusion which they can get away with because the images are fuzzy, the fuzzier the image the more they take advantage.

Earlier on the Hubble telescope produced very fuzzy images of distant galaxies so they claimed they could already see that more distant galaxies were less developed, it was a universal mantra.

I told my educated friends that I thought this was due to them reading into fuzzy images what they wanted to see, just like the claims of UFOs in fuzzy photos, or of Big Foot, or of channels or even canals on Mars. You can read whatever you like into vague images. I was assured that these were advanced scientific concepts that went way beyond fuzzy photos and that I was too ignorant. to appreciate the care that went into the claims

Yes, they were highly advanced WRONG scientific concepts that got refuted the minute the James Webb made the images clearer.

An advanced scientist looking into the mist sees advanced illusions while an uneducated person looking into the mist sees uneducated illusions, but everyone looking into the mist sees whatever illusion they expect to see, that's why they call it MYSTERY. (mist-ery)

People of all stripes seem to think that INTELLIGENCE can solve any problem, but many very highly intelligent people have a personality that makes them conformist followers to the core such that they are incapable of taking a stand against the majority of their peers.

Many intelligent people never create or discover anything and a highly intelligent person has recourse to advanced forms of rationalization that the unintelligent could never manage. Intelligence helps with every manner of gaslighting.

Innovators are the people who do not fear standing apart, who do not value consensus for consensus sake as DOES the vast majority of persons. Curiosity matters far more than intelligence, love of adventure is what innovators display, the instinct to fit in stands explicitly in the way of progress, to advance an art or a science requires one to be oblivious to whether they fit in or not, it’s content that matters to an innovator, not social status.

If one is intelligent that does not mean one is independent minded, but if one is independent minded and intelligent, that is a powerful indicator that one can create and discover new content that is difficult to arrive at. Intelligence is far more common than an independent spirit so it’s a huge mistake to conflate intelligence with independence, some of the least innovative people on earth are very intelligent.

PSI Blog 20240930

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.

20240923

Vortex Motion Plaguing the Big Bang Theory

PSI Blog 20240923 Vortex Motion Plaguing the Big Bang Theory

A real explosion would have produced only straight-line motion.

“Figure 47 Microcosms in motion. Note that large microcosm A in the center shelters microcosm B from impacts from the left. Consequently, B will be pushed toward A, with the likelihood it might even end up rotating around A.” (Borchardt, 2017, p. 243)

Anon asks:

“Why are all the galaxies and star systems going in circles?”

[GB: Thanks so much for the great question! It got me thinking about what the universe would be like if it really was expanding as the result of an explosion. In “Infinite Universe Theory” I pointed out that many galaxies are colliding, which is something an explosion cannot do. Your question about circular motion brings up what amounts to a similar falsification of the Big Bang Theory.

As we showed in “Universal Cycle Theory,” vortex formation occurs throughout the Infinite Universe at all scales, from aether particles to galactic superclusters. In fact, the initial formation of ordinary matter from aether particles involves vortex formation. See Chapter 16.4 in “Infinite Universe Theory.” It follows from the universal mechanism of evolution, univironmental determinism (what happens to a portion of the universe depends on the infinite matter in motion within and without). The solution involves the application of univironmental analysis and 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). In other words, no two aether particles, like no two snowflakes, are identical. Be reminded that the opposing Ninth Assumption of Religion is absolutism (Identities exist, that is, any two things may have identical characteristics).

This infinite variation is necessary for the universe to exist. It is why there are an infinite number of causes for each effect and why all our measurements have a plus or minus and why the Infinite Universe often appears “messy.” It is why the Finite Particle Theory of the atomists is fallacious and merely serves as the logical counterpart to the finite universe of Big Bang Theory. It is why aether particles must be made up of aether subparticles, ad infinitum.[1]

Theoretically, ubiquitous aether particles exhibit Brownian motion just like the dust particles you sometimes see in a sunbeam entering your window in the morning. In other words, they move randomly in all directions just like nitrogen molecules do in the atmosphere. They crash into each other, with the collidee becoming accelerated and the collider becoming decelerated in the process. Per relativism, small aether particles are shielded on one side by large aether particles, causing them to be pushed together. Some of those collisions push the smaller aether particle either to the left or right, causing it to rotate clockwise or counter clockwise around the larger particle (see figure above).

The same thing happens throughout the universe, with both the microcosm and the macrocosm being critical in the formation and maintenance of vortices from atoms to solar systems, galaxies, super galaxies, and super clusters.

Incidentally, this tendency for curved motion to occur throughout the Infinite Universe has a lesson for us with regard to Newton’s First Law of Motion, “which is simply the most important observation ever made:

Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon.[2]

With this law, Newton essentially is observing that portions of the universe display two primary phenomena, matter and its motion. The matter part, the body, moves with respect to what he thought of as absolute space.”[3]

After assuming infinity, I modified Newton’s First Law to read: “Every microcosm continues in uniform motion until the direction and velocity of its motion is changed by collisions with supermicrocosms.”[4] The perfectly empty space he (and Einstein) assumed does not exist. We have plenty of evidence for aether,[5] which is responsible for the aetherosphere that surrounds ordinary matter. Aether particles colliding with neutrons and protons become decelerated, causing gravitation in the process and forming an aetherosphere around ordinary matter.[6] Being the reverse of atmospheric pressure, aetherial pressure increases distally instead of proximally. It is responsible for most of the curvatures we see throughout the universe and provides the macrocosmic reason for vortex formation. The curvature is dependent on the mass of ordinary matter, mostly consisting of neutrons and protons. This is what Einstein erroneously thought of as “curved space-time” and is an important contradiction of Newton’s First Law of Motion as implied above.

I imagine cosmogonists would assume that gravitational “attraction” magically “pulls” the various parts of cosmological objects together to form vortices. If you can believe that nonsense, you still have a problem with the fact all vortices are rotating. A vortex does not just simply decide to rotate on its own. Instead, all rotations are a result of univironmental interactions, with half the galaxies appearing from Earth to rotate clockwise and half counter clockwise. The rotations begin when two objects brush past each other.

You can do a demonstration Newton would have loved: Just put two apples touching side-by-side. Now push each forward and note the one on the left rotates counter clockwise and the one on the right rotates clockwise. With galaxies, that touch is performed by the aetherosphere (dark matter) that surrounds all ordinary matter per ADT.[7] In other words, if galaxies were surrounded by Einstein’s perfectly empty space, they would never rotate.]

PSI Blog 20240923

[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].

[2] Newton, Isaac, 1687 [1846], Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. Translated by Andrew Motte: New York, NY, Daniel Adee, 581 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/Newton1687Principia].

[3] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, p. 98 [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].

[4] 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.

[5] Infinite Universe Theory, Fig. 42, p. 232.

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

[7] Ibid.

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

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

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

[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!]