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.

20260330

Space-time is Aether I

PSI Blog 20260330 Space-time is Aether I

Einstein’s imagined perfectly empty space needed an upgrade.

By rejecting aether, Einstein surreptitiously invented perfectly empty space, an imagined “nothing” from which the Last Creation Myth could bloom. Mathematics accommodated with so-called “kinetic theory.” That is what you propose when you know what happened, but not why it happened. In other words, you know the effect, but not the cause; you know the collidee, but not the collider. That is pretty much accepted ever since Newton proposed his highly successful kinetic equation for gravitation.

Despite being the greatest scientist who ever lived, Newton produced a major screwup involving gravitation. You see, he famously invented three laws of motion, with the second being the bane of kinetic theory. It goes like this:

"The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force impressed; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impressed."

In simple terms, that means all events involve collisions in which a collider becomes decelerated while transferring its motion to a collidee, which becomes accelerated. He knew gravitation involved an acceleration and came up with the correct kinetic equation for it, but failed to provide the accelerator for it.[1]

Einstein’s aether denial led to all sorts of problems. For one thing, the transmission of light as a wave was impossible without a medium. The only other possibility was to construe light as a particle. This, however, required light to be a special particle that was out of character for anything previously known to be a particle. To turn light from a wave in the aether to an imaginary particle required eight ad hocs (Borchardt, 2017, Table 1):[2]

Scientists normally frown upon ad hocs, which reluctantly are included to prevent a theory from being disproven. But to have eight of them like this is unheard of. Nonetheless, budding regressive physicists looked the other way. They continued to do so when Sagnac proved light was a wave in the aether and de Sitter showed light motion was not additive as it is for real particles. Both of those came only eight years after what some call appropriately “Einstein’s Miracle Year” in 1905.

That was the advent of the counter revolution against the inroads materialism made against religion in the 19^th century. Darwin’s "Origin of Species" became a bestseller among capitalists in their battle to dominate the ruling class. Marx’s historical materialism emphasized the collision between capital and labor. It was time to reestablish the dominance of religion with a great regression in theoretical physics, which provided the logical foundation for all of science.

The reaction was accomplished by using fundamental assumptions that were religious instead of scientific.[3] And, as I pointed out in a previous post, this shocking development was logically consistent, with all ten religious assumptions being consupponible with the generally surreptitious assumption of finity. That presupposition fit long-standing tradition and the empiricism scientists normally adopt without thinking. The upshot was to regard mathematics and kinetic theories supreme and Newton's Second Law of Motion as moribund.

Wave-particle Duality

There were numerous vexing problems with that. Even Special Relativity Theory could not escape. Light continued its wave nature despite Einstein’s insistence it was a particle. If a particle, some of those “photons” had to be over a kilometer long! The silliness continued when oxymoronic “wave-particle duality” was invented. That assumed particles of light could myopically bring those waves along with them as they travelled from galaxy to eyeball. That is the nonsense aether denialists got by ignoring Sagnac, de Sitter, Miller, and Galaev.

Space-time Salvation

In General Relativity Theory Einstein turned time into an object as well. Now, time is motion and certainly not an object or a dimension as he proposed. Nonetheless, this seems to have made his perfectly empty space a little less vacuous, even if still imaginary. I have never read a decent definition of space-time. This is from Wikipedia:

In physics, spacetime, also called the space-time continuum, is a mathematical model that fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional continuum.

Note that regressive physics claims it to be a math model of a continuum, which is defined by Webster as “a coherent whole characterized as a collection, sequence, or progression of values or elements varying by minute degrees.” Wow! Does that help? How about this: my favorite is the space-matter continuum. That involves two imaginary endpoints: perfectly empty space and perfectly solid matter. Neither of those can possibly exist, but all things lie on the continuum between. Each portion of the Infinite Universe has both characteristics. Thus, our simplest atom—hydrogen—contains a tiny nucleus and an electron with the rest being about 99.9999999999996% “empty space.”

Here is Gemini AI:

"Key points regarding Einstein’s view on gravity:

Warped Spacetime: Massive objects (like stars and planets) distort the "fabric" of spacetime, and this curvature is perceived as gravity.

Geometry = Gravity: Einstein replaced Newton's gravitational force with a geometric theory, where gravity is an aspect of space-time's structure, often summarized as "matter tells space-time how to curve, and curved space-time tells matter how to move".

Not Just Space: Gravity also affects time, causing it to slow down closer to a massive object.

Evidence: The theory was confirmed by the bending of starlight around the sun and has been verified by numerous observations, including gravitational waves."

How Misinterpretation Sometimes Advances Science

The above is a pretty accurate rendition of the misinterpretations regressive physicists use to support the existence of space-time. The one that made Einstein instantly famous was Eddington’s 1919-observation that starlight was bent when it passed around the Sun. In searching for a physical reason instead of a mathematical reason for that effect I was impressed by Dr. Edward Dowdye’s explanation. He was a devout NASA physicist who presented the view implying it only involved the refraction within the plasma closest to the Sun. He repeated his conclusions at four different conferences I attended between 2009 and 2012. I don’t recall anyone challenging him—I had not yet discovered the aetherosphere. This figure sums up his analysis:

Dowdye’s (2012) misinterpretation of light bending around the Sun.[4] Note that he falsely claims there is no light bending at distances two to five times the radius of the Sun.

I used AI to check into it, finding this from Bruns[5], who clearly showed deflection far from the Sun:

That put the kybosh on Dowdye and supports my aetherosphere theory. Dowdye was an aether denier, which requires belief in the Tenth Assumption of Religion, disconnection (There may be perfectly empty space between any two objects).

Einstein Leans Toward Aether

Einstein must have had second thoughts about his rejection of aether. While General Relativity Theory was as mystical as Special Relativity Theory, his invention of space-time was something, not nothing. Unfortunately, it too was a kinetic theory—one that describes effects, but not the physical causes. This fit with Newton’s attraction theory of gravitation. By definition, attraction theories are myopic. That is, they imagine things that have inordinate control over their environments through what appear to be magical means.

Thus, when discussing GRT, regressive physicists often ignore Dowdye’s “empty vacuum space,”[6] but term it instead as the “fabric of spacetime” as seen in the Gemini definition above. Obviously, “fabric” gives space-time a thing-like character—a step toward physicality, if you will. While space-time does not really present a physical cause, it has been tested numerous times, showing physical effects similar to what Bruns did. What is seldom mentioned by regressive physicists and cosmogonists is the fact that Einstein recanted his early aether denial a mere year after Eddington anointed him the world’s greatest genius:

"Careful reflection teaches us that special relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume its existence but not ascribe a definite state of motion to it ...There is a weighty reason in favour of ether. To deny ether is to ultimately assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever.[7]"

Thereafter, he failed to mention his recantation. Regressive physicists and cosmogonists conveniently ignored it as well. Most likely on further “careful reflection” Einstein realized that aether denial was the essence of relativity. After all, perfectly empty space was the surreptitiously assumed beginning of what was to become the extremely popular “Last Creation Myth.”

In the next post I will present a summary of the evidence for aether and the aetherosphere that provides the physical causes for the success of so-called space-time.

PSI Blog 20260330

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] He made an attempt to provide one, but mistakenly assumed distal increases in density for his hypothesized medium (Borchardt, 1917, Fig.43). In effect, that would have produced a relative vacuum around cosmic bodies in tune with his myopic attraction hypothesis. The correct physical mechanism involves high velocity distal aether particles that collide with ordinary matter, becoming decelerated in the process and tending to accumulate as an “aetherosphere” around said matter (Borchardt, Glenn, 2018, The physical cause of gravitation: Preprint http://vixra.org/abs/1806.0165 )

[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 337 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].

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

[4] Infinite Universe Theory, Fig. 35.

[5] Bruns, D.G., 2018, Gravitational starlight deflection measurements during the 21 August 2017 total solar eclipse: Classical and Quantum Gravity, v. 35, no. 7, p. 075009.

[6] Dowdye, E.H., Jr., 2010, Findings convincingly show no direct interaction between gravitation and electromagnetism in empty vacuum space, in Volk, Greg, Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the Natural Philosophy Alliance: Long Beach, California, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, v. 7, p. 131–136 http://go.glennborchardt.com/Dowdye10Findings

[7] Einstein, Albert, 1920, Ether and the theory of relativity, Address given on May 5th: University of Leyden https://gborc.com/AErecant

20260309

Getting Your Philosophical Ducks in a Row

PSI Blog 20260309 Getting Your Philosophical Ducks in a Row

Know your fundamental assumptions before philosophizing.

“Getting all your ducks in a row" means to prepare everything necessary to do something successfully. Photo credit: Dennis Flanagan/Facebook.

About 50 years ago I began to realize that the irrationality that led to the Big Bang Theory involved philosophy rather than science. It had little to do with the data that were being gathered, but with the absurd interpretations thereof. Most of philosophy was of little help—much of it was irrational too. My chance reading of R.G. Collingwood was a turning point. His “Essay on Metaphysics”^{^[1]} had a lot of irrational stuff, but he also had a clear exposition on presuppositions, which we all have unbeknownst to us. Once we recognize them and bring them into the light of day by speaking them or writing them down, they become fundamental assumptions.

Unlike the ordinary assumptions we use all the time in science and in everyday life, fundamental assumptions have special characteristics: 1. They cannot be completely proven or completely falsified. 2. They always have an opposite, which is false if the first is true. 3. If you have two or more fundamental assumptions, they must be consupponible, that is, you must be able to suppose both without contradiction. That allows you to form a “constellation,” analogous to a flock of “birds of a feather” like the ones in a row above. Also like those ducks, every part of a proper constellation heads in the same direction.

Understanding Philosophy

If you really want to become a “deep thinker”—one who understands what the Infinite Universe and one’s own existence is all about, you must understand philosophy. That is difficult for most folks because philosophy is a mess. That is because it involves a perpetual struggle between rationality and irrationality, determinism and indeterminism, reality and ideality, science and religion. What is presented in most philosophy courses is a hodge-podge overlooking the philosophical battlefield with its fallen soldiers amid their tomes and other weapons strewn all around. The carnage never stops; we are born into it, knowing little about the Infinite Universe, how it operates, and our place within. We only learn that by experiencing what the world offers. Opposing fundamental assumptions are subjects of endless debate because neither can be proven or disproven. Only by choosing the correct assumptions can we get a true picture of reality.

To understand philosophy, you must convert those unrecognized presuppositions into fundamental assumptions. You then must choose between those you consider rational and their opposites you consider irrational. You are lucky. I already did that for you:

This table just summarizes “The Ten Assumptions of Science,”^{^[2]} which underlie all the books and all the blog posts published by the . Note: you can download the free pdf or get a paperback or hardcover at Amazon.

If you are science-minded you will want to memorize the fundamental assumptions in the science column; if you are religious-minded you will want to memorize the fundamental assumptions in the religious column. Unfortunately, those attempting to reform relativity and the Big Bang Theory often presuppose from both sides of the philosophical struggle, risking illogic:

“Cherry Picking” from Both Sides

Some might accept materialism, which assumes the existence of matter, but accept disconnection, which assumes the existence of perfectly empty space. This is a common affliction of aether deniers who misinterpret the Michelson-Morley Experiment and ignore the Sagnac, DeSitter, and Galaev experiments.

Some commonly try to assume both causality and acausality at the same time, in the effort to preserve the illusion of free will. This is highly probable for those having been reared in a religious tradition even after they might have given that up.

Some, such as the promoters of Steady State Theory, crossed the rationality-irrationality boundary twice, assuming finity, infinity, and creation at the same time.

Still others assume the two opposites, finity and infinity, at the same time, as in multiverse and parallel universe theories. Still others claim the expanding universe of the Big Bang Theory does not require finity.

The Religious Logic of Regressive Physics and Cosmogony

One dubiously “admirable” property of regressive physics and cosmogony is their consistent logic. Both are founded on fundamental assumptions that are religious and therefore irrational. Here are a few examples:

To begin with, Einstein’s rejection of aether assumes disconnection, absolutism, and finity and therefore assumes space is perfectly empty.

Perfectly empty space (nonexistence) is consupponible with the assumed creation of the universe out of nothing. Our own existence proves nonexistence is impossible.

Consistent with the above is Einstein’s invention of the photon, which is massless, contains perfectly empty space, and travels perpetually through perfectly empty space.

Similarly, perfectly empty space is consupponible with creation, which is the generally undisclosed fundamental assumption upon which cosmogony is founded. It is why progressive physicists call the Big Bang Theory the “Last Creation Myth.”

The Doppler effect, once considered responsible for the cosmological redshift and the interpretation that most galaxies are receding from us, only occurs in a medium. Einstein’s aether denial above assumes a medium does not exist.

Dark energy, which is assumed responsible for the expansion of the universe, is a calculation that assumes matterless motion. Because no matter is associated with it, dark energy is based on separability.

Cosmogony’s imagined “Heat Death of the Universe” is based on the assumption of noncomplementarity. In the real, Infinite Universe, each thing is a result of convergence of constituents from elsewhere. These constituents eventually undergo divergence, forming the constituents of still other things.

The Big Bang Theory is plagued by many ordinary assumptions not mentioned above. I have listed 25 falsifications of the theory here. Basing cosmology on the fundamental religious assumptions above brought great popularity to Einstein and the Big Bang Theory.^{^[3]} Probably a hundred books have been written by religious folks who noted the similarities between those theories and their own beliefs. I suspect the “Last Creation Myth” will be around as long as religion remains popular. Normally, a single falsification can bring down a theory, but that obviously does not hold for one so tenaciously attached to religion. There no doubt have been many falsifications of the 4,000 extant religions, but they also survive.

Once you get “all your ducks in a row” on either side of the philosophical struggle you are ready to understand the universe without being bedeviled by the contradictions of relativity, cosmogony, and most philosophy.

PSI Blog 20260309

[1] Collingwood, R.G. 1940. An Essay on Metaphysics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

[2] 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].

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