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.

20250526

We Only have Artificial Special Intelligence (ASI)

PSI Blog 20250526 We Only have Artificial Special Intelligence (ASI)

Will Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) lead to our extinction?

Photo credit: Luke Jones Unsplash

No. In my chapter on “The Myth of Exceptionalism” in The Scientific Worldview I predicted humanity will not cause its own extinction. You can trace the extinction belief at least as far back as the Revelation chapter in the bible. You only have to observe the death of any organism to observe an ending. You can suffer the myopic propaganda in which the cosmogonists predict the “heat death of the universe” by misapplying the Second Law of Thermodynamics to their assumed finite universe.

It is estimated that over five billion species have gone extinct on Earth. Extinction, like death, is a natural process. Suicide might amount to extinction—for an individual—but it is rare for groups. Whole species do not commit suicide. Humans have difficulty agreeing on anything, much less the favorability of mass suicide. That is because we are as “natural” as all the other species. We are not exceptional although we often think we are.

As early as 1984[1] I wrote:

"Species Suicide

One logical outcome of exceptionalism is the possibility that humanity might cause its own extinction (Schell, 1982). Pessimistic indeterminists have a field day with this one, especially now that it is possible to calculate the effects of such an attempt in megadeaths. Typical is Wagner's comment that:

“A fair chance now exists for man to bring about his own extinction and the ruin of the world.” (Wagner, 1972, p. ix)

Carl Sagan believed that:

“There is a serious question whether...a global self-identification of mankind can be achieved before we destroy ourselves with the technological forces our intelligence has unleashed.” (Sagan, 1973, p. 6)

Doomsayers van der Veer and Moerman stand helpless against their own neo-vitalism:

“If our self-destructive urge springs from within man himself we can still hope that something may be done before darkness overtakes intelligent life on earth!” (van der Veer and Moerman, 1973, p. 146)"

So, why all these failed predictions from a half century ago? Hint: The famous motto promoting media sales is: “If it bleeds, it leads.” I have another “Be afraid, very afraid.” I remember the 1962 standoff between Kennedy and Khrushchev over the nuclear missiles in Cuba. Students had useless “get under your desk drills” to maintain the fright. The rest of the Cold War always held the prospect of nuclear war. Now we face more claims of the possibility of “extinction” via global warming despite our species having survived drastic changes in climate before. If those weren’t enough, some think the AGI bogeyman will get us.

My argument against the possibility of extinction was based entirely on univironmental determinism, the universal mechanism of evolution, which assumes that what happens to a portion of the universe is determined by the infinite matter within and without. I learned all extinctions are a result of changes in the “without,” what I otherwise call the macrocosm (environment). Will humanity become extinct? Of course, but not by its own hand.

The macrocosm is everywhere. If the asteroids don’t get us, something else will. Earth is slowing down due to collisions with the macrocosm, which is not perfectly empty space. Eventually Earth will be pushed into the Sun and eventually the Sun itself will disintegrate or be pushed into the nucleus of the Milky Way or whatever results when it collides with the Andromeda galaxy in four billion years. Be afraid, very afraid…

Intelligence

I simply define intelligence as a microcosm’s response to sensed changes in the macrocosm. Even single-celled organisms, such as amoeba, can do that. We sense portions of our environment, give them names (information), and store those representations in our nervous system as knowledge. We then analyze and retrieve that knowledge when we sense it is necessary for survival or more mundane activity. IQ simply is a measure of how fast we store, analyze, and retrieve information. AI already does that faster than humans, so it already is smarter than us.

If you have used AI for a while, you know it is getting smarter by the day. It is a far cry from a couple years ago when ChatGPT said I had died in 2019. Today, I have few qualms about Perplexity AI’s summary:

Glenn Borchardt is an American geologist and philosopher of science known for his critical stance against mainstream scientific theories such as the Big Bang and relativity. He has developed influential alternative frameworks, including the "Ten Assumptions of Science," "Neo-mechanics," and the "Infinite Universe Theory," which challenge conventional cosmological and physical paradigms3. Borchardt advocates for the idea of an infinite universe and has authored several books, notably "The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein," which argues against the notion of a finite universe and promotes a scientific philosophical approach to understanding evolution and the cosmos3.

With over 60 years of experience in theoretical, experimental, and observational science, Borchardt has produced more than 500 scientific reports, including journal articles, book chapters, books, and computer programs3. He is also recognized for his work in scientific philosophy and has served as the Director of the Progressive Science Institute in Walnut Creek, California4. Borchardt has received the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Chappell Natural Philosophy Society (CNPS) for his contributions to science philosophy and his influence on critical thinkers outside of mainstream science3, 4.

Granted, that is simply retrieved from the internet, but Jesse Witwer has had great success working with the “analysis” part. With a little coaxing about the proper fundamental assumptions to use, he got Perplexity AI to agree that Infinite Universe Theory was preferable to Big Bang Theory. In other words, when faced with a contradiction, Perplexity AI was able to recognize contradictions and choose the rational solution every time.

At first thought, that looks like Artificial General Intelligence. Of course, as I have always maintained, “analysis” not only depends on the data used, but on which fundamental assumptions are used. If one coaxed Perplexity AI with The Ten Assumptions of Religion, I imagine Big Bang Theory would win. Because the universe is infinite, fundamental assumptions never can be completely proven. They always have opposites (e.g., the universe either is finite or it is infinite). To divulge the truth only rational assumptions will do.

Artificial Special Intelligence (ASI)

After thinking it over, I came to the conclusion that we do not have AGI. It is ASI instead. The reasoning goes like this: AGI would be aware of everything that was ever brought to the Internet. The data would include my 700 blog posts, as they would yours too. Currently, it does not come close. AI is even unaware of the answer or logical train of thought it gave to someone else who had the same series of questions.

AI can present information supporting a theory, but it will never present an infinite amount of information no matter how fast it becomes. As always, we will have to make do with whatever we can get. In science we have the advantage because the external world provides the evidence and observations that either support or disprove our theories about it. Traditionally, humans have done that; eventually AGI will do it too.

So, is AGI good or bad? That depends on which end of the stick you are on. Any tool can be good at times and bad at times. An auto can get you some place really fast (good), but you might crash on the way (bad). AGI can be used in defending your country (good) or attacking another country (bad). In any case, AGI and its predictions will be successful when it is fed truth and unsuccessful when it is fed lies. I predict AGI eventually will cause something to go extinct: falsehood.

PSI Blog 20250526

Thanks for reading Infinite Universe Theory! Get your copy of the just-released Second Edition of "The Scientific Worldview" to see the step-by-step logic leading to the rational view of the cosmos. Be part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution,” the demise of the “Last Creation Myth,” and the age of enlightenment to come. Buy Now.

[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 1984, The Scientific Worldview [review manuscript]: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute; http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.16123.52006, 343 p. [ https://gborc.com/TSW84 ].

20250519

Irrationality that Produced the Big Bang Theory is Everywhere

PSI Blog 20250519 Irrationality that Produced the Big Bang Theory is Everywhere

Review of “Why Trump?” by Douglas Giles.

I normally don’t cover politics on this site, but I am nonetheless interested in the philosophical background that underlies the absurd Big Bang Theory. Conspiracy theory and the attacks on science funding and education in the US seem to be associated symptoms based on long-standing belief in irrational assumptions.

This book is extremely important for understanding the current march toward neofascism in the United States. It is professionally written and easy to understand. I learned a lot.

Giles begins with his 3 classifications of right-wing ideology: reactionism, libertarianism, conservativism, with the last two losing out to the first. The US has always had a strain of reaction involving its infusion of Calvinism that underlies Christian Nationalism. According to Giles, it claims that “God gave worldly wealth and prosperity to the Elect and denied it to others. This doctrine translated to two beliefs among the followers of Calvinism—that wealth is a sign of virtue and that poverty is conjoined with the corruption of moral depravity. Scholars have observed that these two beliefs that are embedded in Calvinism facilitated and justified the development of capitalism.”

Giles observes: “The “Puritans” who came on the Mayflower to found New England were Calvinists…”, that “The American religious Right is fundamentally Calvinist in its view of the world.” And that “Reactionism on right-wing radio, television, and the Internet is the 21st century manifestation of the 16th century ideology of Calvinism.”

Ressentiment

I just learned this unfamiliar word, which sums up the reactionary's predicament. Giles explains it beautifully:

“Ressentiment is different from the justified anger one feels when being mistreated. Ressentiment is a particular form of hatred that arises from beliefs that one is lacking recognition and thus is socially impotent. Struggles against real injustices are movements toward higher values such as justice, truth, and love that inspire positive actions. Acts motivated by ressentiment are movements toward lower values such as spite, vengeance, and malice that inspire negative actions.” “This state triggers feelings of hopelessness…” not unlike the juvenile males wielding weapons of mass destruction.

Victimhood

All those feelings are part of victimhood, which in the United States, was mentioned first in the New York Times in 1993. It was not the subject of scientific study until 2010. In other words, the middle-class was in decline for about a generation before people started to realize what was happening. Victimhood is not confined to the right-wing, but also to the left-wing, which uses “wokeness” in its attempt to right the wrongs produced by the right-wing.

Although Trump appears to be a surreptitious atheist, he uses ideological slogans in tune with the beliefs of middle-class folks currently under stress. Recent cultural changes are seen as threatening their economic status. White Christians have always thought themselves to be favored by god and therefore superior to others they deemed inferior.

In short, Trump claims to hate the same people that the Christian Nationalists hate. By eliminating the folks deemed inferior, they hope to achieve majority status, political power, and their former self-esteem once again. Little of this hate is directed toward the captains of industry, who are admired for their exponentially increasing wealth and financial support of the reaction.

While at bottom, the reaction is a result of economic stress, it manifests as disgust over cultural changes that oppose the cherry-picked ideology in the bible. For instance, men are supposed to dominate women, whose place is supposed to be in the home. That is simply regressive wishful thinking. It is no longer possible to support the much-desired middle-class lifestyle without two incomes. Being “fruitful and multiplying” is unlikely, with world-wide births per mother declining from 5 in 1965 to 2.3 at present. Returning to the “good old days” is hopeless.

Political Power

Giles rightly uses power in his analysis of politics: who has it and who does not. The reaction follows the decline of “white power” buttressed by Christian Nationalism. As he points out, reactionism favors power in the hands of the few, while progressivism favors its distribution among all people. That is why reactionaries support dictatorship over democracy. This is particularly true whenever their numbers and corresponding political power are in decline.

Power is the ability to act. Christian Nationalists, of course, are not without the ability to act, as seen by the multifarious ways they attempt to thwart democracy. They have continually fought against voting rights and instituted gerrymandering to favor their followers. At its most extreme, they believe, without evidence, in conspiracy theories suggesting elections have been stolen. A return to white supremacy via democracy is unlikely.

Being a nice, well-educated philosopher, Giles understands where all this current reaction comes from. Reactionaries and progressives have always been parts of the political equation. He points out that the inflammatory language used on both sides of the left-right debate should be avoided. Name calling seldom changes opinions. He encourages progressives to avoid taking the bait. Both sides are American. Neither side is evil.

Should democracy prevail through all this, we still will have the Bill of Rights. We might want to curtail the Second Amendment to reduce violence, but the First is sacrosanct. Giles rightly states that “All speech should be permitted except speech that seeks to silence other people. That remains one of the most profoundly wise ideas I have heard. It is a principle I have tried to apply ever since. I combine that principle with John Stuart Mill’s idea that the answer to wrong speech is more speech.” Currently, both the right and the left tend to shout down and de-platform the opposition. They do not wish to hear from folks deemed “evil” or “racist.”

Overall, Giles appears overly optimistically idealistic about the power of rationality to overcome the irrationality of Calvinism. One thing missing from the book is any mention of the similarities with the development of fascism and other right-wing movements in other countries. “American exceptionalism” has resulted in the world’s longest-lived democracy. But much of that was beholden to its success as the world’s domineering economic power. The commensurate growth of its large middle-class led to a semblance of voter satisfaction until 1971. Since then, the number of households deemed middle-class has declined from 61% to 50%. The middle-class has shrunk before, but never for over a half century.

So, that is what is meant by “Make America Great Again.” It is supremely ironic that it would take a melodramatic billionaire to recognize the squeeze on the middle-class and its Calvinistic traditions being ripe for the accumulation of political power. Few of Trump’s regressive promises are going to relieve the middle-class or decrease income inequality unless he produces a new slogan: “Tax the Rich.” Don’t hold your breath.

PSI Blog 20250519

20250512

Universal Recycling

PSI Blog 20250512 Universal Recycling

Speculation: From aether to matter and back again?

"This is the first picture of a black hole.

Using the Event Horizon Telescope, scientists obtained an image of the black hole at the center of the galaxy M87. (There is a supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy — the Milky Way.)" Photo Credit: NASA.

According to Infinite Universe Theory, the universe does not evolve—only the things within it do.[1] If the astronomers are correct, 85% of the observed universe is nonluminous (i.e., aether particles, and the constituents from which they form), while 15% is luminous matter. If this 85/15 ratio holds for the entire universe it would have to be relatively and eternally constant. In other words, the aether particles within ordinary matter or its surrounding aetherosphere eventually must return to outer space whereupon they again become part of the 85%.

One way to view this possibility is through Newton’s First Law of Motion (Every microcosm continues in uniform motion until the direction and velocity of its motion is changed by collisions with supermicrocosms.)[2] In other words, each aether particle travels through the universe, tarrying for a bit as part of an aether complex (ordinary matter) or aetherosphere.

As aether particles are pushed together by other aether particles, interparticle distances diminish. Densities increase as this process forms stars and galaxies and other vortices, each with a relatively dense nucleus. Ultimately, galaxies and the largest stars develop nuclei traditionally misnamed “black holes.” If there indeed is an ultimate recycling of those hypothetical aether constituents, it would have to involve the eventual demise of black holes. Here I reprint a previous post about that possibility:

PSI Blog 20210308 The Demise of Black Holes

[GB: This question is from Pierre Berrigan:]

Hello, Glenn!

Great initiative. Here is my contribution.

Firstly, since you ask, a universe truly infinite and eternal would not change much in my life, because that’s how I always thought it would be. There is, however, one thing that bothers me, and that’s the question of « black holes ».

Of course, black holes as pictured by general relativity don’t really exist because they would be absurdities. Nevertheless, observation shows that plasma tend to gather itself and form stars, which eject plasma to form new stars as they go supernova at the end of their life, and so on. However, supernovae leave an inert nucleus behind, whether you call it a neutron star or a black hole being irrelevant. The point is that after an infinite time, everything in the universe would be inert dead stars nuclei.

So, in my view, the missing piece in an eternal universe is a recycling mechanism that could turn neutron stars or black holes into useable matter again. How do we go about this?]

[GB: Thanks Pierre for the interesting question. Let me approach this via univironmental analysis and neomechanics. Each portion of the universe (what I call a “microcosm”) forms from the convergence of other portions along with their respective motions. The demise of each microcosm occurs in reverse, via the divergence of the submicrocosms and their associated motions within each microcosm.

For black holes Wikipedia puts it this way:

“When particles escape, the black hole loses a small amount of its energy and therefore some of its mass (mass and energy are related by Einstein's equation E=mc²). Consequently, an evaporating black hole will have a finite lifespan.”

And so it goes... Nothing in the universe lasts forever. The “evaporation” comment bespeaks of the process of divergence. That is analogous to what happens to the water droplets on your bathroom mirror, which form under humid conditions and evaporate under less humid conditions. The key here is the change in the macrocosm, the environment of the microcosm of the water droplet or of the misnamed “black hole.”

Black holes are more properly called the nuclei of galaxies and large stars. As Steve and I mentioned in our book “Universal Cycle Theory,” cosmic bodies form via accretion and disappear via excretion. Accretion occurs when the body is rotating rapidly and excretion occurs when it slows down. The rotation causes the heaviest elements to be pushed to the center of the resulting vortex, following Stoke’s Law. That is why the Sun has accumulated about 99% of the mass of the solar system in only 4.6 billion years. On the other hand, the Milky Way’s black hole has accumulated less than 1% of the mass of the galaxy during the last 15.3 billion years.[1]

As we wrote in our book:

“…the Sun rotated about 160 million times before it accreted enough matter to clear the circum-stellar materials orbiting it. By applying 160 million rotations to the Milky Way, the calculation shows that it will take another 37,000 trillion years for the Milky Way to mature.”[2]

That would leave us with a bare-naked black hole, which, being mostly nonluminous, would not be easily seen with our present observational equipment.[3] There could be billions or even trillions of these evaporating former galactic nuclei within the observable universe, but we might not be able to detect them. As you mentioned, the nuclei of large stars (over 20 times the size of the Sun) can themselves form black holes. This appears typical of what happens after a supernova explodes, scattering elements fused under pressures higher than afforded by the Sun. That itself is a recycling process, for without those explosions, the primordial solar system would not have scooped up the really heavy elements such as gold, platinum, and uranium.

Also, with regard to recycling, remember that all matter in the universe is always in motion. That is why the existence of any particular microcosm is only temporary. The submicrocosms within are always in motion and ever tend to “excrete” or “diverge” into the macrocosm as described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Speculation

The whole concept of “black holes” is dubious, just like the misnomer used to describe them. In fact, “black holes” are neither black nor holes. Being derived from General Relativity Theory, the concept has an element of the usual “einsteinism” (right, for the wrong reason). As mentioned, vortices tend to form a dense core or nucleus via rotation in the same way baryonic matter forms from aether particles.[3] Sure enough, galaxies tend to have dense cores, just like Earth, Sun, supernovae and a billion other vortices—"Einstein was right again.” Hawking could use the mathematical idealism to sanctify the opposite end of Einstein’s perfectly empty space absolutism. The resulting “singularity” essentially was perfectly solid matter, suitable for starting the universe and for ending galaxies.

Some calculate the density of some black holes to be as great as 2 X 10¹⁵ g/cm3. In the appendix of “Infinite Universe Theory” I used Planck’s Constant to calculate the density of a single aether particle to be 10¹⁰ g/cm3. That would mean black holes would have to consist of the constituents of aether particles, the submicrocosms we called aether-2 particles in our book. Remember, in Infinite Universe Theory there is no end to the size of microcosms. We speculate that there are aether-3, aether-4 particles ad infinitum. This assumes there can be no “finite particle” consisting of perfectly solid matter, which, having no submicrocosms in motion, would be a violation of Maxwell’s E=mc² equation. That is why the elder Hawking’s assumption that “black” holes are really gray, not black is one small step toward reality.

Exactly how black holes evaporate is not completely clear. The E=mc² equation would suggest the loss of mass via the emission of motion to the aether medium across the microcosmic border as occurs for all the other microcosms in the universe.[4] The resulting emission of motion and increased illumination apparently is great enough to produce the “grayness” proclaimed by Hawking’s recant.

The above handles the loss of submicrocosmic motion from black holes, but what about the submicrocosms themselves? What is it about the macrocosm that would allow the internal constituents to leave the black hole via the Second Law of Thermodynamics like they do for all microcosms in the universe? Cosmogonists claim that the inside temperature of black holes is close to absolute zero, as might be expected from the super high density mentioned above. On the other hand, the outside supposedly has an exceedingly high temperature which, like the Sun’s corona, would be expected to energize the submicrocosms on the black hole’s surface, ejecting particles hither and yon. This is similar to what happens to a drop of water when it contacts the surface of a hot skillet or is placed in a room with less than 100% humidity.

Then what happens when the heat source becomes exhausted? How do the relatively inert, cold submicrocosms within a black hole eventually get enough motion to diverge back into the macrocosm? Once again, the answer lies with univironmental determinism, the universal mechanism of evolution (what happens to a portion of the universe depends on the infinite matter within and without). The “heat source” is never really exhausted. A bare-naked black hole is not surrounded by perfectly empty space like Einstein assumed, but by aether particles in constant motion. Their motion and the motion of their various complexes is so great that measurements indicate intergalactic temperature is 2.7 degrees Kelvin. This is much higher than the inside temperature of black holes.

According to Wikipedia:

“A black hole of one solar mass (M☉) has a temperature of only 60 nanokelvins (60 billionths of a Kelvin); in fact, such a black hole would absorb far more cosmic microwave background radiation than it emits. A black hole of 4.5×10²² kg (about the mass of the Moon, or about 133 μm across) would be in equilibrium at 2.7 degrees Kelvin, absorbing as much radiation as it emits.”

The absorption of this motion causes the submicrocosms within the black hole to vibrate, disintegrating into the various high-speed aetherial components from which they came. No matter what one thinks about the black hole calculations of the cosmogonists, it is obvious that cosmic nuclei do not contain perfectly solid matter and are not eternal. For black holes, it is ashes to ashes, dust to dust like it is for everything in the Infinite Universe.

[1] Puetz, S.J., and Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe: Denver, Outskirts Press, p. 164 [https://go.glennborchardt.com/UCT].

[2] Ibid, p. 172.

[3] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, Chapter 16.4 [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].

[4] Borchardt, Glenn, 2009, The physical meaning of E=mc2, Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance: Storrs, CN, v. 6, no. 1, p. 27-31 [10.13140/RG.2.1.2387.4643].

PSI Blog 20250512

[1] https://medium.com/@glennborchardt/why-the-infinite-universe-is-not-evolving-08bdcc173380

[2] 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.

[3] A couple years later these hypothetical objects were detected. Many more have been found as predicted: https://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2023/04/one-way-black-holes-get-naked-in.html

20250505

Does Supporting an Obsolete Paradigm (like the Big Bang Theory) Result in Financial Gain?

PSI Blog 20250505 Does Supporting an Obsolete Paradigm (like the Big Bang Theory) Result in Financial Gain?

Today’s example: $tents and the US medical system

I was shocked, shocked to read one medical doctor’s opinion (and facts) on the use of stents in cardiac care. In short, it seems that stents (like the ones my father had) don’t lengthen life or reduce morbidity. Decades later, he died of congestive heart failure anyway.

It turns out that the use of stents is an obsolete paradigm used throughout the medical world, but nowhere as voraciously as in the US. Such a dangerous operation (1% die) can cost upwards of $40,000 and does little more than the placebo.

This example helps us to understand why the absurd Big Bang Theory has been so tenacious. Its reign coincided with the initiation of the US empire after World War II and its subsequent dominance in all things scientific and religious ever since. Financing for the “Last Creation Myth” found great support among the citizens and their representatives.[1] Einstein and his surreptitious religious suppositions received great acceptance. Those who misinterpreted data correctly “always found Einstein to be right again.”

Those who received heavy financial support were the decision makers, the peer reviewers. They were in charge of deciding who could be admitted to the paradigmatic cult. Criticize Einstein? Out. Don’t believe the universe was 4-D and could explode out of nothing? Out. Make up “wormholes” supporting the paradigm? In. Imagine strings with only one dimension? In. Think regressive physics and cosmogony are irrational? Out. As in the stent fiasco: Follow the money:

Why Use $tents When They Don’t Work?

The Big Bang paradigm is no different. Despite 10,000 dissidents opposed to relativity and/or the Big Bang Theory[2] and 25 falsifications[3] it is still hanging in there. The notorious photos from the James Webb Space Telescope show that the hypothesized “younging of the universe over distance” never occurred. When will they ever learn?

There are some clues. The current decline of the US empire has led to a decline in science funding, following historical precedent.[4] Even NASA, a big promoter of the Big Bang Theory, has not escaped the knife. Big-name universities, primary guardians of the paradigm, likewise are due to suffer. Perhaps a little house cleaning will get rid of some of the irrationality that plagues today’s regressive physics and cosmogony. Don’t hold your breath.

PSI Blog 20250505

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

[2] de Climont, Jean, 2020, The Worldwide List of Alternative Theories and Critics, Editions d' Assailly, 2679 p. [ http://go.glennborchardt.com/declimont16dissidentlist ].

[3] https://gborc.com/bbtfals

[4] https://medium.com/@glennborchardt/do-declining-empires-lose-leadership-in-science-26aabc71f45c