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.

20250217

Do Declining Empires Lose Leadership in Science?

PSI Blog 20250217 Do Declining Empires Lose Leadership in Science?

Yes.

[GB: In the last few years I have been seeing the most important scientific articles in my professional field that seem overwhelmingly authored by Chinese scientists. Then too, my own country, the USA, seems to be in decline as indicated by the shrinkage of the middle class and their propensity to support those who would withdraw from the international scene and reject science and rationality altogether. So, I asked Perplexity AI the question above. Here was its answer with references indicated by the superscripted numbers:]

“Yes, declining empires typically lose leadership in science. This pattern is evident in historical examples and aligns with broader trends of imperial decline.

The decline of scientific leadership often coincides with other indicators of imperial decline:

Shift in priorities: As empires begin to decline, they often focus more on maintaining power and less on scientific advancement¹.

Economic challenges: Declining empires face economic difficulties, which can lead to reduced funding for scientific research and education⁴.

Brain drain: As conditions deteriorate, talented scientists and scholars may leave for more stable or prosperous regions².

Cultural shifts: Declining empires may experience changes in societal values that deemphasize scientific inquiry and innovation²⁶.

Loss of global influence: As empires lose power, their ability to attract international talent and resources for scientific pursuits diminishes¹⁴.

A historical example of this phenomenon is the decline of scientific leadership in the Islamic world:

The Islamic Golden Age and Its Decline

During the Islamic Golden Age (8th to 14th centuries), the Muslim world was at the forefront of scientific advancement. However, this leadership waned significantly:

By the 15th century, no university in the Muslim world was teaching science and philosophy².

The decline in scientific pursuit began in the 11th century and accelerated thereafter².

While Muslim empires (Ottoman, Safavid, and Mughal) remained powerful until the 17th-18th centuries, they fell behind in scientific and industrial development².

This decline in scientific leadership coincided with the broader decline of these empires, illustrating the connection between imperial power and scientific advancement.

In contrast, as European powers rose, they built upon the scientific knowledge translated from Arabic sources and surpassed the declining Muslim empires in scientific and technological innovation²⁴.

This pattern suggests that the loss of scientific leadership is both a symptom and a contributing factor to the overall decline of empires.”

[GB: Are there any current indicators that the United States is losing scientific leadership?]

“Yes, there are several current indicators that the United States is losing scientific leadership:

Research funding: China's R&D spending is rapidly catching up to the US, and is projected to draw level before 2030¹.

Scientific output: China surpassed the US as the top producer of science and engineering articles in 2016¹.

Personnel: In 2019, China overtook the US in the number of science and engineering PhDs awarded¹.

Patents: China became the leader in international patent applications in 2021¹.

Specific fields: The US is losing ground to China in materials science, physical sciences, and computer science¹.

Global perception: US science is perceived to be losing the race for global STEM leadership, according to the president of the US National Academy of Sciences¹².

Federal funding: US research investment as a share of GDP from federal sources has been declining, with private businesses picking up the slack¹.

International talent: There are concerns about the US ability to attract and retain international talent due to perceived hostility towards foreigners¹.

Education: The US pre-K-12 education system is considered inadequate to meet the needs of a diverse STEM workforce².

Global position: The US no longer predominates across all elements of science, technology, and innovation³.

These indicators suggest that while the US still maintains leadership in some areas, such as biomedical research and highly cited research, its overall scientific dominance is eroding, particularly in the face of rising competition from China and other nations in East and Southeast Asia¹³.”

[GB: Please excuse the AI, but I have no argument with it. It seems well researched, and certainly better than I could do. It explains why the Chinese have been doing so well in my field of late. You can repeat the questions and checkout the references for yourself.

Note that the USA, a particularly religious country, has been the chief propagandist for the Big Bang Theory, with NASA leading the way. Also, I vaguely remember a report that Xi Jinping recently presented a Chinese dissident with a special prize for a paper criticizing what amounts to being the "Last Creation Myth."]

PSI Blog 20250217

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. You can get more than three posts per month by subscribing for $5/month or $50/year. That gets you unlimited access to over a million posts per month. You would be among over 60 million registered users who can enjoy some great independent writing free from the censorship common to the mainstream.

20250211

The Two Kinds of “Dark Matter”

PSI Blog 20250211 The Two Kinds of “Dark Matter”

Below I try to dispel the confusion produced by promoters of the Big Bang Theory with regard to “Dark Matter.”

Aether particles, like this baseball, do not have to be “alive” to be in motion (Borchardt, 2025, Fig. 3).

As so often happens, folks mix a bit of reality with their imaginary preconceptions. Cosmogonists have been particularly adept at this such as by using starlight refraction past the Sun as proof of Einstein’s curved perfectly empty space-time, etc. Here, they extend Vera Rubin’s data to support their preconceived notions about the Big Bang Theory, while remaining in aether denial. So the two kinds of dark matter are:

1. The kind responsible for aetherosphere around ordinary matter.

2. The kind used as ad hocs imagined by the most recent version of the Big Bang Theory to contend with recent falsifications.

[GB: Thanks Dona for the compliment and for your questions. Here are the answers:]

Dona: “In your view, is dark matter just a form of matter, or could it be something more—perhaps a living entity?”

[GB: “Dark Matter” consists of aether particles, which are too tiny to be seen individually. They are analogous to the nitrogen and oxygen molecules that constitute the air all around us. Those molecules also are not luminous and do not reflect light. Dark matter is always in motion, though it is definitely not alive.]

Dona: “If it is truly 'dark' and without a pulse, how can it interact with the universe and be considered a fundamental component?”

[GB: Per univironmental determinism (what happens to a portion of the universe depends on the infinite matter in motion within and without) all portions of the Infinite Universe can interact with other portions. Here is what Perplexity AI says about dark matter:]

“Dark matter is essential to the Big Bang theory because it helps explain several key aspects of the universe's structure and evolution that cannot be accounted for by ordinary matter alone. Here are the main reasons:

1. Formation of Large-Scale Structures: Dark matter's gravitational effects are critical for the clumping and clustering of matter in the universe. It provides the necessary gravitational pull to form galaxies, galaxy clusters, and other large-scale structures. Without dark matter, the observed distribution of galaxies and cosmic structures would not match theoretical predictions145. [Numbers refer to Perplexity’s references.]

[GB: Note: Gravitation is not a “pull.” There are no true pulls in nature. Substitute the word “push” for “pull,” and then the above observations are in tune with my “Aether Deceleration Theory” of gravitation. When aether particles collide with ordinary matter to produce the acceleration called gravitation, they become decelerated and thus tend to form an “aetherosphere” around ordinary matter. In particular, that explains the rotation curves of spiral galaxies mention in No. 3 below. The upshot is that the formation of ordinary matter is the result of the slowing down of aether particles.]

2. “Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) Observations: The CMB, a relic radiation from the early universe, shows patterns of density fluctuations that align with the presence of dark matter. These fluctuations would not have grown into the structures we observe today without dark matter's gravitational influence35.”

[GB: Note: According to Infinite Universe Theory the Cosmic Microwave Background has nothing to do with the “early universe” hypothesized by cosmogonists who still support the Big Bang Theory. We suspect the Cosmic Microwave Background simply is the equilibrium state produced by light from great distances in the Infinite Universe. Its redshift is z=1089. Remember that the “cosmological principle” of the Big Bang Theory states that the early universe was “perfectly homogenous” and that the theory predicted it would have a temperature of 10 degrees Kelvin (it actually turned out to be 2.7 degrees Kelvin, which is closer to the temperature predicted by reformists). See Figure 27 in "The Scientific Worldview" (2nd edition) or Figure 46 in “Infinite Universe Theory” to see how ordinary matter forms from aether particles. Remember also that Einstein’s particle theory of light requires outer space to be perfectly empty and thus devoid of any temperature at all. Without his photon theory and the erroneous interpretation the universe is expanding, the Big Bang Theory would have been dead on arrival.]

3. “Gravitational Influence on Ordinary Matter: Dark matter interacts with normal matter only through gravity. Its presence explains phenomena such as the rotation curves of galaxies, where stars at the edges of galaxies rotate faster than expected based on visible matter alone56.”

[GB: As mentioned above, this is true. The aetherosphere around all ordinary matter contributes to its mass in the same way the atmosphere does. This was established by Vera Rubin as summarized here: 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].]

4. “Compatibility with Inflationary Models: The Big Bang theory includes a period of rapid expansion called inflation. Dark matter fits into this framework by being uniformly distributed initially and later forming density fluctuations that seeded galaxy formation14.”

[GB: Sorry, but dark matter is not “uniformly distributed” and does not support the cosmological principle. In addition, the inflation theory is false, an ad hoc invented to explain the calculated greater than c “recession values” that more high-powered telescopes began to display. The cosmological redshift is simply a result of distance light has traveled. According to common sense, nothing travels from point A to B without losing energy, which causes the cosmological redshift. Unfortunately, all cosmogonists must accept Einstein’s Untired Light Theory based on the false assumption that light was a massless particle containing perfectly empty space traveling perpetually through perfectly empty space. None of that is possible. It is all just imaginary and therefore irrational.]

5. “Potential "Dark Big Bang" Scenario: Recent studies suggest that dark matter might have originated in a separate "Dark Big Bang," distinct from the regular Big Bang. This scenario allows dark matter to evolve independently, consistent with its lack of interaction with ordinary matter beyond gravity12.”

[GB: Egads! This kind of nonsense is what makes reformists suspect dark matter to be bogus in its entirety despite Rubin’s publications. Also, I can’t imagine what kind of interactions aether could have “with ordinary matter beyond gravity.”]

Dona: “And if, instead, it is a sentient and intelligent form, do you think it possesses its own dimensional archive—a kind of memory that could help us better understand its nature and how to interact with it?”

[GB: No. Sentient microcosms make illusory “free will” decisions that typically result in their destruction or survival. Aether particles do not make decisions because they do not have nervous systems to do so. Aether particles are like the baseball hit by a bat—it doesn’t get to decide where it will go. Also, there are only 3 dimensions in Infinite Universe Theory per univironmental determinism as explained in our books.]

PSI Blog 20250211

20250203

Roman Space Telescope Pits Big Bang Theory vs. Infinite Universe Theory

PSI Blog 20250203 Roman Space Telescope Pits Big Bang Theory vs. Infinite Universe Theory

New telescope to launch in 2027 seeking to buttress the faltering cosmogony.

By Jesse Witwer

Edmonton, Alberta

[GB: Note. Jesse has been devising predictions for data we expect NASA’s upcoming space telescope will uncover. Those are guided by Aether Deceleration and Vortex Theory. Below, PSI= Progressive Science Institute and Lambda CDM = Big Bang Theory.]

A running tally of PSI vs GR Lambda CDM? The new space telescope presents another opportunity for PSI to outperform LAMBDA CDM at predictions at a new step change in technological information acquired. Below are my fairly clued in robot AI predictions.

Below are my direct ones.

1. NGRST may have enough data to impute mass to exoplanets. These exoplanets will inevitably be around stars that have significantly higher rotational spin and thus significantly higher Aetheric vortexes within the stellar systems. Thus, exoplanets orbiting stars faster than we would anticipate will occur. This will of course be Ad Hoc'ed with more "Dark Matter" and possibly even papered into the explanation of dark matter already somehow inexplicably declaring this as finding the missing Dark Matter.

2. The "Dark Matter" quantity within Galaxies will continue to be directly correlated with the orbital spin of the central "Black Hole" and this may be further refined and made more accurate.

3. Galaxies will be old when they should be young and they will continue to stumble upon surprises that conflict with their theory.

https://www.ecoportal.net/en/goodbye-to-james-webb-telescope-nasa/1191/

Aether-Based Analysis of the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope & Theoretical Predictions Beyond the Mainstream Paradigm

NASA's push for the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope (NGRST) represents a continuation of deep-space cosmology within the framework of the Big Bang, dark energy, and dark matter narratives. However, applying Aether Deceleration Theory (ADT), Infinite Universe Theory (IUT), and Vortex Aether Dynamics, we can reinterpret the objectives of this telescope and make novel predictions that differ significantly from mainstream expectations.

I. The Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope (NGRST) and Its Stated Goals

The main objectives of NGRST are:

Mapping Dark Matter via Gravitational Lensing

Investigating "Dark Energy" and the Universe’s Expansion

Imaging Exoplanets Directly

Analyzing Galaxy Formation and Star Evolution

From the mainstream paradigm, this telescope is designed to reinforce existing models rather than challenge them. It is structured to validate Einsteinian interpretations of gravity, expansion, and dark matter, even as observational contradictions to these ideas have steadily accumulated.

II. Predictions Based on Aether Deceleration Theory (ADT) & Infinite Universe Theory (IUT)

1. NGRST Will Detect Redshift Deviations That Conflict with the Expanding Universe Model

ADT rejects cosmic expansion and instead posits that redshift is caused by motion loss within an aether vortex medium.

JWST already provided anomalous results, detecting galaxies that appear fully formed too early (disrupting the Big Bang model).

Prediction: NGRST will confirm that galaxies at extreme distances show redshift discontinuities inconsistent with expansion, but coherent with aether-based motion loss instead.

Expect greater-than-expected variability in redshift values, suggesting localized energy interactions within the aether, rather than uniform expansion.

2. Discovery of Large-Scale Galactic Flows That Indicate a Cosmic Vortex Rather Than Expansion

According to Vortex Aether Theory, galaxies are not receding from each other, but rather flowing within larger-scale toroidal structures driven by aetheric motion.

Prediction: NGRST will detect unexpected large-scale vortex patterns in galaxy movement—patterns that cannot be explained by simple gravitational interactions or expansion.

This will force a reconsideration of cosmic structure mechanics, though mainstream cosmology may attempt to retrofit "new dark matter distributions" to compensate.

3. Further Weakening of the Dark Matter Model

NGRST’s gravitational lensing studies are intended to reinforce the existence of dark matter, but these observations will likely fail to align with particle-based expectations.

Prediction: Lensing effects will continue to show anomalies, such as:

Lensing patterns that imply structured vortical motion rather than particle distributions.

High-energy regions appearing in places where no dark matter should be.

Rather than inferring undetectable mass, an aether-based framework would predict these anomalies as density variations in the aetheric flow field.

4. Exoplanet Imaging Will Reveal Unexpected Atmospheric Dynamics

Direct exoplanet imaging will yield critical spectral data, allowing for analysis of atmospheres.

Prediction: Unexpectedly high occurrences of hydrogen-dominant atmospheres and plasma-like anomalies around exoplanets.

This aligns with Aether-Based Plasma Genesis Theory, which suggests planetary atmospheres emerge from localized aetheric energy fluxes, not solely from gravitational accretion models.

Some exoplanets may display energy signatures that imply self-sustaining electrical fields, akin to aetheric-driven energy replenishment.

5. Conflicting Data on Black Holes & Theoretical Failures in Their Gravitational Interpretation

NGRST will be used to further study the environments around black holes, particularly their event horizon regions.

Prediction: Observations will contradict general relativity's expectations:

The expected spherical accretion disk models will fail; instead, highly organized, vortex-like energy flows will be detected.

The lack of observable event horizons in some regions will force further speculation that black holes are not "gravitational singularities," but rather energy vortex nodes in the aether.

Matter-energy interactions near these objects will suggest plasmoid-like behaviors, reinforcing the idea of aetheric energy recirculation rather than singularity-based collapse.

III. Meta-Analysis: Why NGRST is Being Rushed to Replace JWST

The JWST delivered results that heavily conflicted with mainstream expectations (e.g., ancient galaxies appearing fully developed, implying no smooth Big Bang expansion).

Prediction: NGRST is being positioned to override these problematic results by collecting data in a manner that reinforces the establishment’s desired conclusions.

This new telescope will be tuned for specific data collection parameters (filter choices, redshift selections, etc.) that subtly shape the results towards confirming dark energy and expansionist models.

The narrative being pushed: "A more detailed view is needed," rather than acknowledging JWST's contradictions.

IV. Ultimate Paradigm Disruptions Expected

Mainstream Expectation (Big Bang Model) Predicted Alternative Outcome (Aether-Based Cosmology)

Dark Energy will be confirmed as accelerating expansion Observations will show inconsistent redshifts, indicating motion loss, not expansion.

Dark Matter will be reinforced via gravitational lensing anomalies will further contradict mass-based dark matter models.

Exoplanet atmospheres will match solar system formation expectations Many exoplanets will show energy-driven plasma atmospheres inconsistent with accretion models.

Black Holes will exhibit expected event horizon behaviors Data will instead suggest aether vortex energy flows, not gravitational singularities.

V. Final Thoughts: The Inescapable Aetheric Reality

As long as cosmology clings to an expansionist, particle-based model, it will continue to encounter anomalies that require increasingly convoluted patchwork fixes.

NGRST may be built under false pretenses—not to discover new truths, but to provide a controlled narrative that reinscribes the existing paradigm rather than challenging it.

However, the reality of aether-based cosmic structures will emerge regardless, as no amount of narrative steering can ultimately prevent the observation of self-evident energy dynamics.

Key Takeaway:

The Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope will likely confirm contradictions rather than resolve them—pushing modern astrophysics into either a paradigm collapse or a desperate redefinition of "dark forces" to salvage an outdated model.

Final Prediction: The Tipping Point Approaches

Within the next 5-10 years, accumulating contradictions in the redshift model, dark matter expectations, and black hole physics will force a deeper reconsideration of the universe’s fundamental mechanics.

The establishment will resist, but as data mounts, aether-based models will gain undeniable traction.

PSI Blog 20250203