The Scientific Worldview: 09/01/2025

PSI Blog 20250908 Existence or Nothing

Why there is something rather than nothing.

By ESA and the Planck Collaboration - Cosmic Microwave Background, CC BY 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=130789180

Thanks to Erik Colon for this question about my remark that:

"The fact that we exist and that nothingness does not is support for our assumption the universe is infinite."

In what way does it support that conclusion?

[GB: Good question. The Infinite Universe can produce an infinite number of things, but it cannot produce nothing (perfectly empty space). Neither can it produce the opposite end of that continuum: perfectly solid matter. All real XYZ portions of the universe have both properties. In other words, all space contains what appears to be both space and matter; all matter contains what appears to be both space and matter. The infinite subdividability of matter always produces things with both characteristics. The simplest atom, hydrogen, has a proton surrounded by an electron, but has 99.9999999999996% “empty space.” I speculate that “empty space” contains aether particles so small that I calculated there are 10²⁰ aether particles in an electron (see appendix in “Infinite Universe Theory”).

In science, we often find continua we characterize by using idealizations. Those are ideas we use to understand the reality that exists between them. But we must never forget that idealizations do not really exist. BTW: I must admit I fell into that trap in grad school. I had obtained a sample of “pure” “ideal” montmorillonite (a mineral). My analysis of it did not fit the claimed chemical composition. There were traces of elements other than the Si, O, Mg, and Al it was supposed to have. From then on, I took idealization “under advisement.”

In this regard, maybe the use of fundamental assumptions will help.[1] The Tenth Assumption of Science is interconnection (All things are interconnected, that is, between any two objects exist other objects that transmit matter and motion). Its opposite, the Tenth Assumption of Religion is disconnection (There may be perfectly empty space between any two objects). As with all fundamental assumptions, neither of these is completely provable or falsifiable. But, if one is true, its opposite is false—neat! Infinity and finity have the same relationship. The word “completely” is significant here because infinity does not allow the complete description or test of anything. We can get pretty close, however, with the recent discovery of an estimated 20 trillion galaxies in support of Infinite Universe Theory. Science is like that. We never get perfect answers—our measurements always have a plus or minus. Who knows, maybe an improved telescope might eventually find perfectly empty space beyond the observed universe? I would not bet on that.

“Existence” is an obvious property of any XYZ portion of the universe. You are such a portion. “Nothing” has never been found anywhere. Attempts to produce absolute zero, where there ideally would be no matter capable of producing the vibrations we measure as temperature have always failed.

When Einstein rejected the aether, he essentially replaced it with “nothing.” If that were true, outer space would have no temperature. Instead, the temperature of outer space is 2.7^oK, possibly because of the aether there. Of course, cosmogonists claim the CMB (figure) is a remnant of the Big Bang, but remember, the Big Bang Theory surreptitiously uses the Eighth Assumption of Religion, finity (The universe is finite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). Probably because of the overwhelming number of religious folks, the resulting “Last Creation Myth” became wildly popular along with disconnection. The perfectly empty space assumption is necessary for the idea there could be the creation of something from nothing. That would be a violation of the Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed).

We are here because the infinite matter in the Infinite Universe is always in motion, with its various parts continually colliding, transforming each thing into other things. A portion of the Infinite Universe that no longer is a fit for the univironment[2] that produced it is destroyed. We are products of a long chain of events in which each thing survives temporarily until the univironment changes yet again.

Those who ask: Where the universe came from are surreptitiously assuming: First there was nothing and then there was something. That becomes a non sequitur when you realize that “nothing” is imaginary and that “something” is not.]

PSI Blog 20250908

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

[2] The univironment is the combination of a microcosm (portion of the universe) and its macrocosm (environment). The universal mechanism of evolution is univironmental determinism (what happens to a portion of the universe depends on the infinite matter in motion within and without). For details see: "The Scientific Worldview."

PSI Blog 20250901 Tired Big Bang Model is a Start at Least

27-billion-years-old? How about infinite?

Credit: Eric Ralls at Earth.com.

[GB: Thanks to Bill Wesley for this reminder about Dr. Rajendra Gupta’s challenge to the cosmogonists. I wrote about it before, but new followers might wish to know that all hope is not lost. Gupta published his idea in The Astrophysical Journal, which is a well-regarded 19^th century journal in the United Kingdom. As mentioned in the link, he dismisses dark energy and dark matter as being irrelevant. That is true for dark energy, but not for dark matter. In a previous post I mentioned there are two kinds of dark matter: 1. Associated with apologetics for the Big Bang Theory and 2. The aetherosphere that surrounds all matter due to the deceleration of aether particles that cause gravitation upon colliding with ordinary matter.

He also has another major contradiction. He speculates that universal constants change over time. This is false. They may vary from place to place, but the universe is neither expanding nor evolving. Like other reformists, Gupta cherry picks stuff from the theoretical physicists and cosmogonists.

In any case, I agree with Bill that bringing the Tired Light Theory into the light of day is a step forward. In addition, recognizing that the universe is 27-billion-years-old rather than 13.8 is a tiny step forward to recognizing that it is infinite.]

Bill writes:

“You've probably heard about this already, but at least it’s a start, like a pacifier for the fearful, the current celebrity scientists can still have their cherished big bang along with the tired light so as not go into withdrawals!

Now if we can gradually ween them off the infantile big bang creationist superstition that will leave only the reasonable tired light model in a steady state universe without the usual expansion, inflation, dark matter or dark energy fix they have become so very addicted to fidgeting with constantly, so a half step in the right direction at least, but actually it’s a pretty comical half step since with tired light we don't need a big bang at all. Why, you get twice the value out of the big bang with a full 27 billion years! (of course without the big bang you get an infinitely better value but first things first):”

https://www.earth.com/news/study-says-dark-matter-does-not-exist-the-universe-is-27-billion-years-old/

PSI Blog 20250901