"Creation" via Destruction of the Unfit

 PSI Blog 20251020 "Creation" via Destruction of the Unfit

 

Thanks to Maximiliano Echeverri for this prompt:

“In attempting to answer, Leibniz lost control and arrived at his famous thesis usually seen like 'this (created) world is the best of all possible worlds'.

“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.” (Infinite Universe Theory, Figure 47).

Science is perhaps more at home with the question 'How?' than 'Why?'. Motives are neither interesting nor relevant in the field of the physical sciences.”

[GB: Actually, the “How?” and the “Why?” are identical with regard to evolution. Remember, 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). Darwin’s original mechanism was “natural selection,” which eventually was shown to be a macrocosmic mistake. In other words, like environmental determinism, it over emphasized the macrocosm—the outsides of things and neglected the insides of things. (Things are the XYZ portions of the universe I call microcosms). The insides of biological microcosms had to be included as well—genetics, to get Neo-Darwinism. Although genes did not comprise the complete insides of the biological microcosm, Neo-Darwinism was a step in the right direction. The word “univironment” includes all things, and thus is an improvement on Neo-Darwinism in biology as well. Genes were a good start, but the biological microcosm contains other innumerable submicrocosms that often are equally important. For instance, the knowledge encapsulated in our brains, our muscle memories, etc. are parts of our “univironment” that contribute to our journey through life.

 

Destruction of the Unfit

 

Normally, we think of evolution as “survival of the fittest.” I suggest turning that upside down to confront Leibniz’s “perfectly created” (best of all worlds) head-on. First of all, nothing survives for long. Even the dinosaurs only lasted 165 million years. Every microcosm within the Infinite Universe has a beginning and ending described in general by the Sixth Assumption of Science, complementarity (All things are subject to convergence and divergence from other things). We all experience this. We are a product of sexual convergence and eventually suffer the divergence of body parts as we age per the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

 

Second of all, with everything in the Infinite Universe moving with respect to other things, no microcosms (things) and no macrocosms (environments) remain unchanged for long. We are born into a particular environment, but that environment is sure to change. We may “fit” our environment one moment and be “unfit” in the next.

 

As we learned from the formation of ordinary matter from aether particles, the “fit” that occasionally occurs is the result of protection afforded small particles by large ones (Figure). The shelter that results in material complexes would never occur if all aether particles were identical as erroneously suggested for atoms by Democritus. Per 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) imperfection makes the existence of matter possible. In this most fundamental case, being “fit” means receiving fewer impacts from the side facing the large particle. All the other aether particles colliding endlessly with each other must be regarded as “unfit” for the making of ordinary matter. Once formed, the aether complexes become larger and increasingly complicated as “gravitational” impacts from free-ranging aether particles push additional aether particles toward those complexes.

 

What we see here as fundamental in the micro-world applies also to the macro-world. All cosmic bodies are a result of aetherial impacts that push electrons, positrons, neutrons, protons, and myriad particles toward one another. What we see as gravitation is merely a continuation of this process with its effectiveness guided by the number of aether particles previously accumulated as mass in Newton’s equation. Eventually, we have hydrogen atoms being pushed together to form helium in the sun. The pushing together (fusion) causes a further decrease in the motion of the atoms involved. This decrease in motion is released into the aether medium whereupon it produces waves that eventually warm the surroundings, notably including Earth.

 

The upshot is that “creation” amounts to the slowing down of aether particles in the form of material complexes we observe as ordinary matter. Again, much of that “lost” motion is transferred to the macrocosm, generally as the acceleration of portions of the macrocosm (especially of the aether medium as the motion we call “radiation”). We might consider those aether particles insufficiently slowed down as being “unfit,” while those resulting in aether complexes as being “fit.” Another upshot is the inevitable growth of these complexes, with the ever-increasing complexity seen in all the microcosms around us. As they grow, they can shield ever more of those “unfit” aether particles, making them evermore “fit.” Again, this process becomes evermore obvious in the macro world. Humans seek shelter from the onslaughts of the macrocosm, not only from the vagaries of the weather, but also from those produced by interspecies competition.

 

Given this natural transformation of one kind of matter into another kind of matter, the “How?” and “Why?” become one and the same. The great mind suggested by the “Why?” does not, and need not exist. Remember that the complete absence of matter (nonexistence or nothingness) is imaginary, an idealization that cannot possibly occur. That would be a violation of the Tenth Assumption of Science, interconnection (All things are interconnected, that is, between any two objects exist other objects that transmit matter and motion). The opposing religious assumption is the Tenth Assumption of Religion, disconnection          (There may be perfectly empty space between any two objects). That is necessary for the religious idea of the creation of something from nothing. Einstein provided the foundation of the Big Bang Theory when he denied the presence of aether, based on the erroneous interpretation of the Michelson-Morley Experiment. Denying aether, he substituted perfectly empty space instead. His “Untired Light Theory” reigns supreme to this day, as does the Big Bang Theory itself.]

 

 

PSI Blog 20251020

 

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.

The Discovery of Infinity

PSI Blog 20251013 Reprint of PSI Blog 20190501 The Discovery of Infinity

David de Hilster, President of Chappell Natural Philosophy Society, asks: “How did you first get the idea the universe was infinite?”

That is something most scientists seldom think about. I was no different. From 1962 to 1976 I mostly concentrated on laboratory experiments and field observations in soil science, geology, and chemistry. I did have a propensity for emphasizing logic[2] and a distaste for contradiction.[3] Always being curious, I tried to keep up with the latest developments in science. I read American Laboratory and Industrial Research, free magazines in which scientists sometimes were allowed to present articles outside the party line. One particularly influential article even dared to contradict Einstein, suggesting space was not perfectly empty.[4] New Scientist was a big influence, getting me out of the box in which specialists generally find themselves.[5] Some of the articles inadvertently made me aware of the numerous contradictions and paradoxes in physics and cosmogony.

Of course, reading a few “broadening” articles was nice, but not enough. It seems one does not switch beliefs overnight. I have to admit that as late as 1978[6] I still was a Big Banger, although not a very good one. I remember drawing little diagrams in which the stars at the end of the supposedly finite universe gave off light into the “empty space” of the great beyond. I imagined “photons” from two or more of these stars would crash together, somehow forming matter once again. This was a desperate attempt to get away from the contradictions on the other end of the Big Bang stick: the rumors of “heat death” and the ultimate demise of the universe that were being promulgated at the time.

Philosophies Change with Crisis

Little did I know the key was to switch from finity to infinity. I have been trying to pin down exactly when that happened. It turns out that philosophies seldom change unless there is a crisis. In 1976, despite my general affability, things were not going well at work. On July 4th I became so discouraged that I faced off a guy who obviously wanted the campground and its swimming hole to himself. He pointed a 32-special revolver at me saying he was the Zodiac killer and planned to kill me and everyone in the campground. He asked a crucial question: Do you believe me? The correct answer was “I don’t know.” Turns out he was only kidding — so he said.

Traumatic events like that can get your attention. Being well-trained academically, I tried to figure out my discouragement by putting my thoughts together in a book. The first attempt was entitled “Motivation: What it is and how to get it.” A second was “Power Position and Power View.” A third was “The Chemical Meaning of Life.” This last was a vast generalization on what I had learned as a lab rat. The basic mechanism was “environmental determinism.” That was not original, but it did fit my predilection to be on the deterministic side of free will arguments and to acknowledge the importance of the environment. After all, “environmentalism” had become all the rage after “Earth Day” in 1970. People were once again showing signs of leaving their myopism behind.

Still, I had a vague feeling something was missing. Wasn’t the thing itself just as important as its environment? I remember sitting next to a tall pine tree at Showers Lake in the Sierras thinking: How come that tree is not a mile high? Why does it stop growing just in time to survive the 199-mph winds that would take it down? Neo-Darwinism, of course, had an answer: Genes. Neo-Darwinism supposedly was the mechanism of evolution. But I was a geoscientist; I wasn’t really satisfied with that. Everything around me was evolving. With a little rainfall, the minerals in rocks formed under high temperature and pressure were transformed into minerals stable at ambient temperatures. Mountains turned into valleys and valleys turned into mountains. The Sun, Moon, and the planets were evolving. There was more to evolution than just genes and natural selection. Little did I know at the time that my search for a more general mechanism for evolution would lead me down the path to infinity.

Discovery of the Universal Mechanism of Evolution

The search was futile. There was no universal mechanism of evolution. Environmental determinism was not it either. That was akin to the one-sided view proposed by Darwin as “natural selection.” Mendel’s remedy — genetics — might work for the pine tree, but was woefully lacking for the evolution of anything without genes. I needed a word describing the combination that included the thing and its environment. I discussed the problem at the dining room table with Elizabeth Patelke, a long-time friend and a student of language. We came up with the solution: “univironment.”[7] I quickly and bravely anointed the result: “univironmental determinism,” as the universal mechanism of evolution. It was so all-inclusive that it became the basis for the scientific worldview.[8]

Development of Univironmental Determinism

With that focus, one begins to think more about the insides and outsides of things and how those two portions of the universe interact. We make mistakes when we overemphasize one or the other. Systems philosophy, considered the “scientific world view” at the time, tended to overemphasize the insides. That’s what the finite universe idea of the Big Bang Theory was all about.

The univironmental idea does not necessarily get you forthwith to infinity. As in Newtonian mechanics, just because the insides and outsides of things produced results did not mean that the insides and the outsides had to contain anything. After all, Einstein had proclaimed that his light particle was “massless” (i.e., there was nothing inside it) and cosmogonists implied the finite universe was expanding into empty space (i.e., there was nothing outside it).

Nonetheless, I persisted. Everything I had studied always had something inside it. And, now, everything always had something outside it. In chemistry and geology every reaction and every rock starts with something and ends up with something. A chemical equation displays the univironmental interaction between what was and what will be. You cannot change one side of the equation without the other side being changed. Early on, I defined univironmental determinism as “what happens to a portion of the universe is determined by the matter within and without” — no mention of infinity.

While reading up on determinism, I came across a comment that David Bohm had presented a strong case for determinism. I read his “Causality and Chance in Modern Physics,” which presented his “hidden variables theory” in opposition to the solipsistic Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. That was it for me. His logic was impeccable. I had always been puzzled by the fact I always got plus or minus errors no matter how much I tried to control an experiment. Newton’s mechanics taught there were a finite number of causes for any effect. Once you discovered them all, there would be no plus or minus. That never happened. Bohm emphasized this infinite quality in direct opposition to the Copenhageners, who attributed those variations to pure chance. That preserved the finity assumption of Newtonian mechanics along with Einstein’s assumption space was perfectly empty.

Publishing My Books

Following Bohm’s logic, I assumed both micro (Aristotle) and macro (Newton) infinity in what was to be the Eighth Assumption of Science (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). That appeared first in the 1984 review manuscript of “The Scientific Worldview.”[9] It was reiterated when “The Ten Assumptions of Science” was published in 2004. But its full connection to univironmental determinism was not realized until 2007 when I wrote:

The Scientific Worldview describes how this universe works via the universal mechanism of evolution, “univironmental determinism.” Univironmental determinism is the simple proposition that what happens to a portion of the universe is determined by the relationship between the infinite matter in motion within (the microcosm) and the infinite matter in motion without (the macrocosm).[10]

As you can see, there really was no single Eureka moment for me — there were dozens of them. It took me almost three decades to come up with the all-important statement quoted above. Along the way, I had to discover: 1) the universal mechanism of evolution, 2) the scientific worldview, 3) the Ten Assumptions of Science, 4) neomechanics, which modifies classical mechanics by including infinity, and finally 5) Infinite Universe Theory, which ultimately will replace the Big Bang Theory in a process sure to become the Last Cosmological Revolution. Why so sure about this? Once you fully understand Infinite Universe Theory and its ramifications, the switch from the assumption of finity to the assumption of infinity is irreversible.

[1]Also published in the now defunct online science magazine “ScienceWoke.”

[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 1975, Dithionite-citrate-bicarbonate procedure (DCB) for iron removal: Soil Science Society of America Proceedings, v. 39, p. 807.

[3] Borchardt, Glenn, 1978, Catastrophe theory: Application to the Permian mass extinction: Comments and reply: COMMENT: Geology, v. 6, no. 8, p. 453. [DOI: 10.1130/0091–7613(1978)6<453a:ctattp>2.0.CO;2].

[4] Dudley, H.C., 1977, The neutrino sea — hypothesis or reality?: Industrial Research, p. 51–54.

[5] Clube, Victor, 1978, Do we need a revolution in astronomy?: New Scientist, v. 80, p. 284–286; Davies, Paul, 1978, Chance or choice: Is the Universe an accident?: New Scientist, v. 80, p. 506–508; Steen, L.A., 1978, A new perspective on infinity: New Scientist, v. 80, p. 448–451.

[6] On 19771217 my notes had a proposed chapter entitled “Universe, origin of.”

[7] By 19780529, an early draft had the word “univironment.”

[8] Borchardt, Glenn, 2007, The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 411 p. [http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/].

[9] Borchardt, Glenn, 1984, The scientific worldview: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 343 p. [DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16123.52006].

[10] Borchardt, Glenn, 2007, The scientific worldview and the demise of cosmogony, in Whitney, C.K., Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance: University of Connecticut, Storrs, CN, Natural Philosophy Alliance, v. 4, no. 1, p. 16–19 [http://scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/TSWATDOC.pdf].

Existence or Nothing

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."

Tired Big Bang Model is a Start at Least

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

 

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.

PSI Blog 20250805 Is the Infinite Universe a Perpetual Motion Machine?

PSI Blog 20250805 Is the Infinite Universe a Perpetual Motion Machine?

No.

Thanks to Richard for this interesting question:

 

“Congratulations on your excellent work. If the universe is infinite in time and space and our system is running down there must be places where creation occurs. I can’t find anything in your publications that describe the creation process. It must be a creation from Aether.”

[GB: Thanks so much for the compliment. You are correct about the creation of ordinary matter from aether. You can find my speculations about that in “Infinite Universe Theory” on p. 249 (Ch. 16.4) and in the new 2^nd edition of "The Scientific Worldview" p. 264 (Ch. 19). The discussion requires 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). The gist is this: Like snowflakes and everything else in the universe, no two aether particles are identical. The bigger ones provide shelter for smaller ones as they are continually bombarded by other aether particles. That means smaller aether particles are pushed toward larger aether particles, eventually combining with them. That is similar to the way atoms, the solar system, the Milky Way, and other vortices in the universe form. Also, according to the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions) aether particles are themselves formed from even smaller particles ad infinitum.]

 

“If so, Einstein was wrong to deny patents for perpetual motion machines. Is the universe in perpetual motion?”

[GB: Machines are finite XYZ portions of the Infinite Universe. And, as such, they are subject to the Sixth Assumption of Science, complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things). The divergence is otherwise governed by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which applies only to isolated systems as things come apart via inertia of their various submicrocosms (parts). The convergence, of course, is a law describing the coming together of things (i.e., what one might consider “creation” of things from other things as in the creation  described above). The creationist’s creation, as in the Big Bang Theory, is forbidden by the Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed). That is why cosmogony and the Big Bang Theory are considered religious instead of scientific.

Einstein was correct in disallowing patents for supposed “perpetual motion machines.” Again, machines are finite XYZ portions of the Infinite Universe. They all need “refueling” (a convergence) to continue in operation. The Infinite Universe is not finite, of course, and does not have XYZ dimensions because it exists everywhere. The correct definition of relativity is that everything in the universe is in motion with respect to other things. That was proclaimed by Heraclitus saying “No man ever steps in the same river twice.” The motion of matter is perpetual, although it changes with each collision per the Second Assumption of Science, causality (All effects have an infinite number of material causes).]

 

PSI Blog 20250805

 

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. 

Einstein’s Perfectly Empty Space is a Bust

PSI Blog 20250728 Einstein’s Perfectly Empty Space is a Bust

 

Imaginary nonexistence takes another hit.

 

“The turbulent flow of the Phantom Galaxy, as seen by the James Webb Space Telescope (Image credit: ESA/Webb, NASA & CSA, J. Lee and the PHANGS-JWST Team)”

 

Thanks to Bill Howell for this heads up on the goings on in interstellar space:

 

https://www.livescience.com/space/astronomy/trippy-supercomputer-simulation-offers-unprecedented-view-of-the-space-between-stars

 

Einstein’s Imaginary Empty Space

 

Einstein’s rejection of the aether set the stage for what became Bishop Lemaître’s explosion of everything out of nothing. In his invention of the photon Einstein assumed light was a particle instead of a wave in the aether. In support, he assumed light was a massless particle containing perfectly empty space traveling perpetually through perfectly empty space. There was no evidence for any of that. All real particles lose velocity over distance, just like a baseball when you throw it. The velocity of wave motion through a medium is controlled by that medium. That is why light speed is constant.

 

The Space Between Stars

 

In our naivety we have consider outer space to be perfectly empty. Infinite Universe Theory (IUT) rejects that totally. You see, perfectly empty space is an idealization. The opposite is perfectly solid matter. Neither of these exist. All real things—including subatomic particles—consist of mixtures of both. According to Aristotle (and IUT), the universe is infinitely subdividable.

 

Previously, I mentioned that the 2.7^oK temperature indicated by the Cosmic Microwave Background is a result of the motion of matter in outer space. The simulations produced by Beattie et. al. support that claim. As reporter Thompson writes:

 

“The charged particles in the interstellar medium are significantly more diffuse than even ultrahigh vacuum experiments on Earth. Still, their motion is enough to generate a magnetic field. This field is millions of times weaker than a fridge magnet, but in the vacuum of space, it plays a major role in shaping galaxies, and even in forming stars.”

 

Existence and the Infinite Universe

 

The fact that we exist and that nothingness does not is support for our assumption the universe is infinite. It exists everywhere for all time. Nonexistence is imaginary, just like the perfectly empty space Einstein had to imagine for his massless light particle.

 

PSI Blog 20250728

 

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. 

US Support for Big Bang Theory Starts to Crumble

 PSI Blog 20250721 US Support for Big Bang Theory Starts to Crumble

 

“Now-canceled CMB-S4 project would have searched the afterglow of the Big Bang for signs of cosmic exponential growth spurt.”

“Plans to replace the current South Pole Telescope with a more sensitive array have been scrapped. Alamy Stock Photo”

 

This article by Science reporter Adrian Cho is about one of many budget cuts being implemented by the current administration. The cut of $900 million pales in comparison to the failed $10 billion James Webb Space Telescope, which also was supposed to support the Big Bang Theory. It is somewhat ironic, but not surprising, that the decline of the US empire and the decline of the Big Bang Theory are going hand in hand:

 

“U.S. abandons hunt for signal of cosmic inflation”

 

Of course, there was no way that the proposed project was going to support the silly inflation idea anyway. The whole expansion trope was based on Einstein’s ridiculous “Untired Light Theory,” which assumes light is a massless particle filled with perfectly empty space traveling perpetually through perfectly empty space. None of that is possible. Light simply is a wave in the aether, which is denied by regressive physicists and cosmogonists. Aether particles have mass, and any such measurements are the results of collisions of ubiquitous local particles. They do not travel from galaxy to eyeball like Einstein’s imaginary photons.

 

The sought for changes in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) would never be found. That is because the 2.7^oK temperature indicated by the CMB is simply a measure of the motion of the matter existing in outer space. Had Einstein’s initial replacement of aether with perfectly empty space been correct, the CMB temperature would have been 0.0^oK. Of course, without aether denial the whole Big Bang mess would have been forgotten long ago.

 

Whether this reality check had anything to do with US abandonment of the project is not known. And, as the Hubble Space Telescope showed early on, the $10 billion James Webb Space Telescope would find only “Elderly Galaxies” instead of the empty space predicted by Big Bang Theory. On the other hand, few scientific projects are complete failures no matter what hypotheses they are trying to support. Because the universe is infinite, something new is likely to be found, even if it is the fact we do not know enough.

 

 

PSI Blog 20250721

 

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.

Time before Time Began?

PSI Blog 20250714 Time before Time Began?

 

Hodgepodge showing the mess cosmogonists are now facing with even Hawking’s singularity taking a hit.

 

“A diagram (not to scale) depicting the major milestones in the evolution of the Universe since the Big Bang – around 13.8 billion years ago. The Universe was initially in a neutral state until light from the first stars started to ionise the hydrogen.” Photo credit: Phil Halper.

 

Thanks again to Bill Wesley for this heads up:

 

“I thought you might enjoy the absurdity of this mess
Completely bonkers insane is the new sanity, crazy is the new rational, why yes of course time began before time began otherwise how could there be enough time for time to begin? 

 

Do these people even hear/read themselves? they will say ANYTHING to hold onto an audience, the less sense that it makes the more it is considered to exhibit a higher kind of sense.

 

https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/space-science/we-can-know-what-came-before-big-bang”

 

[GB: Here, in one place, are large parts of the discombobulations taking place in today’s faltering cosmology. This BBC article by Phil Halper, a member of the Royal Astronomical Society, catches much of the cognitive dissonance over what is left of the Big Bang Theory. I like Phil’s photo (above) stretching out NASA’s timeline to better show the hypothesized “younging effect” that failed to show up in JWST photos. Watch the video too, as long as you can stand it. Listening to the greatest minds of the 20^th century is not pleasant.

 

I presented a list of the falsifications (disproofs) of the Big Bang Theory here, with an updated list here. See how many you can find in Halper’s report and video. The winner gets a free copy of any of our books.]

 

 

PSI Blog 20250714

 

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.

  

Bust of the Black Hole Universe

 PSI Blog 20250707 Bust of the Black Hole Universe

 Another reformist theory bites the dust.

“A black hole pictured by the Spitzer space telescope Credit: AFP/Getty Images”

 

Question from George Coyne (“author of Notfinity Process: Matter in Motion):

 

“Glenn,

 

An international team of physicists concluded that the Big Bang theory is wrong and the universe is sitting inside a black hole. Their study suggests that the universe was formed following a gravitational collapse that generated a massive black hole. Glenn, what is your view of this study?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/10/big-bang-theory-is-wrong-claim-scientists/?recomm_id=f396b8c0-b9b8-4658-a99a-24aa56171993”

 

[GB: Thanks George. Always glad to see that some brave physicists are calling the Big Bang Theory wrong! However, like many of our unemployed reformists, they come up with some new outrageous ideas as a replacement. Of course, as you know, the real replacement for the finite Big Bang is Infinite Universe Theory. The universe has existed everywhere for all time.

 

Cyclic theories have been popular for over a century. That is because cycles occur everywhere. There is the cycle of birth and death for each microcosm in the universe. We also don’t know what lies outside of our observed universe that causes some of the perturbations we observe within. For instance, galactic clusters appear to be heading toward some large microcosm outside the universe.[1] Then there is the mis-match the authors mention regarding the clockwise/counter clockwise ratio for galaxies at the edge of the observed universe. Both the Big Bang Theory and the Infinite Universe Theory hypothesize the ratio would be 1.0.

 

Some cosmogonists have suggested the (finite) universe itself was spinning. But of course, that would be impossible, as I explained here. There are other explanations. The one in tune with IUT emphasizes observational problems:

 

Here is a quote from reporter Margherita Bassi: “Another possible explanation involves the Milky Way’s rotation. Due to an effect called the Doppler shift, astronomers expect galaxies rotating opposite to the Milky Way’s motion to appear brighter, which could explain their overrepresentation in telescopic surveys.]

 

“If that is indeed the case, we will need to re-calibrate our distance measurements for the deep universe,” Shamir explains in the statement. "The re-calibration of distance measurements can also explain several other unsolved questions in cosmology such as the differences in the expansion rates of the universe and the large galaxies that according to the existing distance measurements are expected to be older than the universe itself.””

 

[GB: Nuff said. According to Infinite Universe Theory, distance measurements that use cosmological redshifts are a result of “tired light.”  That is, due to the imperfection of light wave reproduction, light waves must get longer as a function of distance. The resulting redshift is on top of other red and blueshifts involving the Doppler effect and the “gravitational redshift.”[2] The suggested “recalibrations” will get rid of some cosmogonical problems, but not all, as long as the ridiculous expanding universe interpretation is included.

 

The suggested replacement for the Big Bang is incorrect because it essentially is an “expansion-contraction” theory similar to those proposed by other reformists. They can’t give up the expanding universe nonsense, inventing acausal reasons for each expansion and contraction just like the mainstream cosmogonists for their theory. Sometimes miraculous dark energy is hypothesized as the cause. Readers know energy neither exists nor occurs—it is a calculation. It describes matter in motion just like momentum (P=mv) describes what happens when a microcosm (containing matter) is in motion. If you are hit by something having momentum, you are still hit by that something, no matter what the calculation says.

The “gravitational collapse” needed to produce the contraction is fraught with the same error bedeviling all of physics: attraction. There is no such activity. There is no physical mechanism Newton ever presented for his attraction. He did try to mount a push theory by hypothesizing a dense distal medium, but got it backwards. The gravitational medium is denser proximally than it is distally. That is because aether particles lose velocity after colliding with ordinary matter. Like other reformists under the influence of aether denial, these folks have no causative macrocosmic agent outside their assumed finite universe. The reasons for the contraction and expansion parts of their hypothesis are not physical. They are magical.

 

All in all, I give this reformist theory an F+. The plus is for recognizing the Big Bang Theory is a bust.]

 

 

PSI Blog 20250707

 

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] Kashlinsky, A., Atrio-Barandela, F., Ebeling, H., Edge, A., and Kocevski, D., 2010, A New Measurement of the Bulk Flow of X-Ray Luminous Clusters of Galaxies: The Astrophysical Journal Letters, v. 712, no. 1, p. L81–L85. [10.1088/2041-8205/712/1/L81].

[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 2018, The physical cause of gravitation: viXra:1806.0165.

 

 

 

“James Webb, Hubble space telescopes face reduction in operations over funding shortfalls”

 PSI Blog 20250630 “James Webb, Hubble space telescopes face reduction in operations over funding shortfalls”

 

“Inflation and budget issues are threatening to hobble NASA’s most in-demand telescopes.”

 

 

Here is an apropos article by reporter Mark Zastrow:

 

https://www.astronomy.com/science/james-webb-hubble-space-telescopes-face-reduction-in-operations-over-funding-shortfalls/

 

As I mentioned in a previous post, cutting back on science is one of the measures taken by declining empires. It also is a tactic used by neofascists and religious politicians to grab what little cash is left while holding back progress that is especially disturbing to them.

 

I remember that when I was at the USGS for my postdoc, we awaited each budget with bated breath to see what damage the “young earthers” would try to do in that regard. Now, the whole administration seems to be doing it to science in general.

 

As faithful readers have seen, the space telescopes have not been kind to the Big Bang Theory. Contradictions appear almost daily, surprising cosmogonists with photos of old objects that shouldn’t be at what they calculate to be the youthful end of their imaginary exploded universe. What amounts to looking back in time shows “Elderly Galaxies” instead of emptiness or the gas precursors to stars.

 

Of course, how much damage actually will be done depends on the powers that be. The $10 billion cost of the JWST means there is a powerful interest group supporting it. As with other intellectual endeavors, a fight undoubtedly will eschew. My prediction is that the battle between religion and science and its proxy in the battle between the Big Bang Theory and Infinite Universe Theory will take at least another generation. Don’t hold your breath…

 

 

PSI Blog 20250630

 

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.

 

Elderly Galaxies Die Earlier Than Expected

 PSI Blog 20250623 Elderly Galaxies Die Earlier Than Expected

 

The Big Bang Theory coughs up yet another confirmation of Infinite Universe Theory.

“Illustration of the RUBIES-UDS-QG-z7 galaxy created with the Grok 3 AI. (CREDIT: CC BY-SA 4.0).”

 

“Astronomers discover that galaxies die much earlier than expected

 

JWST confirms a massive galaxy that quenched star formation just 700 million years after the Big Bang, defying cosmic evolution models.”

 

Infinite Universe Theory predicts cosmological objects of all ages will be found far away as well as nearby. Here is another example of the “Elderly Galaxy” problem faced by cosmogonists. As we look farther and farther into the Big Bang universe, we are supposed to see younger and younger objects. That idea was trashed in last week’s post showing a supposed 280-million-year-old galaxy was found at the edge of the observed universe. That is a far cry from our 13.61-billion-year-old Milky Way, which looks similar.

 

Today’s observation illustrates process (motion) as well. Some dying galaxies like the one in this observation exist throughout the observed universe. Studies have shown it takes much longer than the allotted 700 million years for such galaxies to form, complete their star formation, and begin to die.

 

Notice that once again cosmogonists are stuck in their paradigm and don’t have a clue as to what is wrong with their “Last Creation Myth.” When will they give up the silly assumption the entire 20 trillion galaxies exploded out of a Hawking singularity the size of the period at the bottom of this question mark? When will they read:

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

 

 

PSI Blog 20250623

 

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.