Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion
FRINGE SCIENCE
>
The Infinite Universe theory
date
newest »
newest »
Here's an excerpt from the paper titled the 'Infinite Universe Theory' by Californian scientist Glenn Borchardt: http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/D...The inevitable rejection of the Big Bang Theory (BBT) will lead to a more enlightened and more logical theory, but what will it be? The BBT will be replaced by the Infinite Universe Theory (IUT). It will produce the greatest revolution in science since Copernicus. A change of this magnitude will not come easily, probably not for decades, but it will come. The outlines of IUT can be seen by examining the logical defects of the BBT. A side-by-side comparison of the two theories not only shows the logical superiority of IUT, but it points the way to fertile fields of research and experimentation while rejecting still others.
Among the predictions of IUT: time is motion; there is an ether; light is wave motion; the galactic redshift is due primarily to absorption; gravity involves a push, not a pull; there is a complement to the Second Law of Thermodynamics; light bending near massive bodies is refraction due to a dense etherosphere; galactic ages will not correlate with distance from Earth; the universe is Euclidean and not expanding; empty space and solid matter are ideas, not reality; matter has only three dimensions. Among the illegitimate pursuits: cosmogony, non-Euclidean mathematics; unification of physics via a single equation; objectification of time; and energy viewed as matterless motion. Welcome to the infinite universe!
--------------------
From Wikipedia:
Chemical engineer Eit Gaastra has proposed an Infinite Universe Model. His theory claims relativity can be replaced by an aether theory, that gravity acts as a pushing force and that the expansion redshift can be explained by a “tired light” hypothesis. According to his model black holes, neutron stars and degenerate gas concepts are theoretical concepts that do not exist in the universe. His model is fringe physics and has not been reviewed by the scientific community. He last updated his theory in 2010.
-----------------------
Here's an excerpt from the Scientific Worldview site: http://thescientificworldview.blogspo...
Does Infinite Universe Theory Mean That Everything is Possible?
Daniel Ismail writes:
I wanted to take the time to commend you on your work in the paper Infinite Universe Theory.
As has been discussed for centuries, the concept of infinity has been difficult for the analytical mind to grasp, let alone accept. However, I have tried to apply my own theories and analogies to explaining my take on IUT and perhaps even expand on the theory.
I am of the opinion that the BBT has it's place within the IUT as I believe even you suggest "We need to abandon the idea of empty space and the view that systems actually could exist in isolation". The problem with the BBT is that it refers to a specific event in time. However, we know that for something to occur there has to be certain conditions for that event to occur. I believe that those conditions are unique to our "plane of existence" not that these conditions are in place due to the evolution of that universe i.e. age. Obviously, my theory taps into the multiverse theory. The way I try to explain my theory is by using the branch of mathematics not often used, probability. We know that every moment of our existence is possible. For that to be possible, I believe, all other possibilities must also be possible. So if we take our plane of existence as one possibility and we acknowledge that the possibilities are infinite then it stands to reason that every moment is infinitely possible. Now that's not the end though! In order for something to exist i.e. the probability, it must already exist in all it's forms and that number again is infinite. One way I have tried to explain it is by pointing out a stationary object (macroscopically) like a leaf on the ground. Now if you could freeze (take a photo for example) that moment, I theorize that in another plane that leaf is/was/will be slightly shifted in all planes and the number of possibilities is infinite as are the planes.
I won't bore you any more with my baseless theories and will close by saying that we as finite beings will always seek to find a finite solution. Just not me!
Daniel Ismail:
Thanks for the compliment. Your email shows that you have been doing a lot more than construction work. Right on! I bet that you would like "The Ten Assumptions of Science,” which also is Chapter 3 in "The Scientific Worldview." It addresses some of the comments you made. There are an infinite number of possibilities, as well as an infinite number of impossibilities. Among the impossibilities are: the existence of two identical things and the explosion of something from nothing. These are handled by the Ninth Assumption, 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). Relativism, of course, is consupponible with the Eighth Assumption, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions), which you read about in the IUT paper. The idea that something could explode out of nothing follows from the indeterministic assumption of creation. Its opposite is conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed), which likewise is consupponible with infinity, but clearly contradicts the BBT.
Be aware that all multiverse and parallel universe theories are oxymoronic—there can be only one infinite universe, by definition. Are there many parts to it? Of course. See our latest book, "Universal Cycle Theory" (www.universalcycletheory.com) hypothesizing an infinite hierarchy in which we speculate that our observable universe is part of the next vortex, which we call the “Local Mega-Vortex.” Note that no part of the infinite hierarchy abides any kind of banging of something from nothing. Even the aether-1 particles so important in gravitation and light transmission are formed from aether-2 particles, which are formed from aether-3 particles, ad infinitum. That is why there is no perfectly empty space and no solid matter and why non-existence is impossible in the infinite universe.
By the way, you have to be very careful with the use of probability. The Third Assumption, uncertainty (It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is possible to know more about anything), treats probability theory as an attempt to use mathematics to measure what we do not know. Probability, like IUT in general, does not mean “everything is possible.” For instance, both humans and electrons have variations, with no two of them having the same mass. There is a distribution, usually described by a bell-shaped curve. This does not mean, however, that there really could be either a 10,000 lb. human or a 10 lb. electron even though probability theory might claim that to be possible.
Krishna wrote: "I think Universe is finite."Are you sure though, Krishna, that the Big Bang theory (BBT) makes scientific sense? I have no idea of course, but are there any other instances in the laws of science where matter is created out of nothing? Because, obviously in the case of the BBT, all matter and the entire universe were meant to have been created from nothingness.
Krishna wrote: "yes it makes perfect sense to me. the concept of 0 is also like that"So what other instances are there in science of there being a state of absolute nothingness (as per before the Big Bang) where matter and/or life just appeared from out of nowhere?
Krishna wrote: "big bang theory only says that isn't it?and this concept of something in nothing is not new. people thought about it centuries ago also"
So there are no other instances of SOMETHING being created from NOTHING, it sounds to me...
Correct me if I'm wrong.
From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe
One Universe or Infinite Universes?
From the Black Hole to the Infinite Universe
Infinite Universe
Confronting the Multiverse: What 'Infinite Universes' Would Mean https://www.space.com/31465-is-our-un...
I believe cosmologists are increasingly coming round to a multiverse, which would mean by mathematical probability that there exists infinite numbers of universes which would mean an infinite number of you and me's.To think that there is just our single big bang universe expanding ever faster into infinity is like our previous belief that the earth was the centre of everything.
I wonder...as our universe emanated from a singularity big bang, just what happens beyond the singularities of black holes where quantum physics and quantum gravity ends, is there another big bang in a different dimension....like soap bubbles! As it seems that most galaxies possess super massive black holes at their centre...the possibilities are infinite.
Just a thought.
Pete wrote: "To think that there is just our single big bang universe expanding ever faster into infinity is like our previous belief that the earth was the centre of everything...."I reckon you'll be proven right in time on that one, Pete.
But maybe only a Pete in another universe will be around to realise that :)
James wrote: "Pete wrote: "To think that there is just our single big bang universe expanding ever faster into infinity is like our previous belief that the earth was the centre of everything...."I reckon you'..."Shucks! No Nobel prize for physics then.
Infinity is the only thing that has ever made sense to me.Infinite space/time/dimensions.
I follow the latest from the Electric Universe theorists. They believe the big bang rests on an interpretation of observational data that has been shown to be incorrect. That is equating redshift with distance and velocity. Edwin Hubble originally suggested it but expressed doubts. Halton Arp showed hundreds of examples of low redshift galaxies connected to high redshift quasars.
The little I've looked into Electric Universe theories, they are fascinating and seem to be just as relevant as anything else being proposed.I wonder, within the models that say the universe is limited/finite, what is supposed to happen when you reach the very limits of the universe? Is there meant to be some kind of warning sign that says something like "do not go any further, treaspassers will dematerialize forever!" ? Or will you bang your head when you hit the very edge?
Phrases like "the end to the universe" always felt oxymoronic to me.
Just my gut feelings of course, and what do I know...
I have put my thoughts about an infinite universe in the following article.http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/...
There were multiple big bangs and there will be multiple big bangs into the future. The universe is not a multiverse, not curved, and is not defined by a big crunch. The theory explains black holes, dark matter, what triggers a big bang, and the concept of a gravity switch. But you will also need to read:
http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/...
Jim wrote: "I follow the latest from the Electric Universe theorists. They believe the big bang rests on an interpretation of observational data that has been shown to be incorrect. That is equating redshift w..."Electric Gravity in an ELECTRIC UNIVERSE https://www.holoscience.com/wp/electr...
The Electric Universe theory highlights the importance of electricity throughout the Universe. It is based on the recognition of existing natural electrical phenomena (eg. lightning, St Elmo’s Fire), and the known properties of plasmas (ionized “gases”) which make up 99.999% of the visible universe, and react strongly to electro-magnetic fields. Much of the material considered by the Electric Universe is peer-reviewed, but not all (see Speculative Theories, below).
Terrestrial electricity is often seen in Atmospheric electricity such as lightning and the aurora, and also appears in St Elmo;s fire, and upper atmosphere phenomena such as red sprites, blue jets, elves and tigers. It is estimated to be over 8 million lightning strikes ”per day”, each carrying an average of 30kAmps.
Electricity is common throughout the universe, generated by all cosmic plasma as it moves through magnetic fields. Peer reviewed papers describe electricity in the Sun, and associated with the interplanetary medium (solar wind), planets and their satellites, comets, in interstellar space, other stars, and intergalactic space.
Electricity throughout the Universe https://www.electricuniverse.info/ele...
"Electricity in the Universe has been identified from beneath our feet, in animals and plants, our biosphere, and out to the furthest reaches of the Universe. In general, electricity is present wherever we find plasma, and since 99.999% of the visible universe is in the plasma state, magnetic field and electric currents are nearly everywhere."
99.999% of the visible universe is a plasma and all moving plasmas produce their own magnetic field and electric currents. For example, the Sun (and stars) produce current loops in solar flares, and currents flow thought extragalactic jets spanning many parsecs.
The Plasma Universe http://www.plasma-universe.com/Plasma...
Although outer space is a vacuum, it is permeated with the plasma of the Solar “Wind”. This interacts with Sun’s magnetic field, producing the heliospheric current sheet]which carries about 3×109 amperes through our own Solar System. The galactic counterpart is estimated to carry of 1017 – 1019 Amps. The heliospheric current sheet is the largest coherent structure in our Solar System.
Heliospheric current circuit http://www.plasma-universe.com/Helios...
Plasmas are strongly influenced by electro-magnetic forces. A laboratory simulation of two interacting electric “Birkeland” currents, models many characteristics of galaxy formation. The Electric Universe is based on the known properties of plasmas, in preference to unproven theoretical physics, and consequently does not require black holes, dark matter and dark energy, neutron stars and the Big Bang. The Safire Project is testing the Electric Sun theory.
More speculative aspects of the Electric Universe theory argue that some planetary features, such as craters are produced by cosmic mega-lightning electrical scarring rather than impacts with meteorites. It is also suggested that the Sun and stars are powered externally electrically (see the Electric Sun theory), and the behavior of comets is due to their interaction with electrified interplanetary plasma.
The Squatter Man (Squatting Man) Petroglyphs | evidence of the Electric Universe http://www.theplasmaverse.com/verse/s...
https://www.livescience.com/65029-due...Here is an interesting article about the possibility of multiple realities. It deals with super positioning of photons.
No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-qua...
James wrote: "No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-qua..."Looks to me as if they have found a far more complicated version of the Zeno "paradox". Tne expansion has to have a beginning, and before that, either there was nothing, or a uniform something (like the old aether) and the Universe was created, hence had a beginning, or it had collapsed from something else, which they deny. Maybe the article in the link missed something, but there appear to be no other options.
Quick question: Where exactly does space end? or doesn't it end?Oh, and while I'm at it... If it ends, what's beyond it?
And if it doesn't end but is forever expanding, what's it expanding into?
Ian? Iain? Anyone?
Lance wrote: "Quick question: Where exactly does space end? or doesn't it end?Oh, and while I'm at it... If it ends, what's beyond it?
And if it doesn't end but is forever expanding, what's it expanding into?..."
There are two major physical philosophies that I can see:
1. Newtonian. Newton regarded space as the nothing that lay between, or separated, things. Thus beyond the last thing, there is nothing by definition, but it is not space because there is no other thing for it to be between. So, beyond the edge, if there is one, there is, er, nothing.
2. Quantum field theory asserts that space is full of a seething mass of zero point energy. You even had scientists like Richard Feynman announce that if you could get it out, a few cupfulls would be equivalent to the entire energy consumption of the planet. If so, if space expands, why you create heaps more energy. No problem for the mathematician. Unfortunately, there was a pesky Russian who decided to be a spoilsport. Y.B. Zel’dovich (bet you never heard of him!) calculated the expected mass equivalent from relativity theory, and then the gravitational effect, and then compared that with the expansion of the Universe and found it wrong by 120 orders of magnitude (10^120). Oops. So what did the physics community do? Revise QFT? Honour our Russian? Er, yes and no. They introduced an ad hoc "renormalization constant" to quantum field theory to get rid of this problem (which was justified on the grounds they had done similar earlier to get rid of pesky infinities). As for the Russian, well, he was a Russian so of to purgatory for him, with his name not to be mentioned in polite society.
Ian wrote: "Lance wrote: "Quick question: Where exactly does space end? or doesn't it end?Oh, and while I'm at it... If it ends, what's beyond it?
And if it doesn't end but is forever expanding, what's it e..."
"Nothing" is the best description I've heard yet for space and what lies beyond it... so thanks Ian!
Iain wrote: "What's all your thoughts on the alternative Electric Universe theory?https://youtu.be/Uzw6s4nbTZA
Doesn't specifically answer what's beyond the universe per-se(in conventional terms either), but..."
I don't fully understand what is being said, so my opinion is not worth much, but I think Maxwell's electromagnetic theory is almost certainly correct. If so, the fact that most of the mass is in plasma is irrelevant, since divD = ρ means the electric field still cancels itself. One could argue moving all that plasma creates magnetic fields we don't know about, but that could not explain why galaxies rotate with uniform velocity because the rotation would be the cause of the proposed field. That might also seem to require a fixed background, which relativists would hate, but would not worry quantum mechanics advocates. So overall, not enough detail to tell, but I don't see exactly what it implies from that clip.
If there are forces (and there are - gravity is one) the bodies have to be moving, and further, their motion will obey the virial theorem so they can only move in certain ways.As for the purpose of cosmology, like any fundamental science, it is for understanding. For example, it lets us know whether General Relativity is right (so far, it is). Is that of any value? Depends on whether you want GPS; without the maths related to General Relativity, it would not work.
Who knows? The ancient Egyptians were happy if they were not in the lower class. For all I know, Homo habilis was as happy as any of us. But I think right now our civilization is like riding a tiger - we don't dare get off the technological beast without really doing damage to ourselves. Pity we are doing that damage with it.
Ian wrote: "Lance wrote: "Quick question: Where exactly does space end? or doesn't it end?Oh, and while I'm at it... If it ends, what's beyond it?
And if it doesn't end but is forever expanding, what's it e..."
Ian, assuming the Infinite Universe theory has neither been proven nor disproven since we last discussed it, I wanted to ask which of the two major physical philosophies (Newton's or the other one) do you subscribe to?
I'd lean towards Newton's thinking if only because it's easier to understand and explain...although I suspect he's playing with words when he says the nothingness beyond space is simply nothing. If I'm right then space is expanding outwards into more space and so is truly infinite.
P.S. Could one crack up pondering such matters?
If you think about it, there is an interesting problem here. Either there is something or there is nothing. If you define space as nothing, then if there is something, then that something can be explained as it being added to the nothing.My view is that spacetime is not "a thing", but rather a mathematical construct to assist solving the equations of general relativity, and I think the virtual particles of quantum field theory are wrong because if they were real the Universe would collapse in on itself. (If relativity is right, the predicted behaviour of the Universe is wrong by 120 orders of magnitude - a world record for wrong predictions in science!). However, that does not help decide what is going on. There is subtle evidence that there is something there, and we have no idea what it s.
What are virtual particles of quantum field theory, Ian? And why do you sense quantum physicists are wrong about them? Or is it a case there's no consensus in quantum physics on these matters? Is quantum physics still almost entirely theoretical at this early stage in its development?
First, James, why do I think virtual particles are wrong? As written by quantum field theory, you can calculate from relativity the value of the so-called cosmological constant and compare the result with its effect on the observed expansion of the universe. The two disagree by a factor of 10^120, that is, ten multiplied by itself 120 times.The word "virtual" means it is impossible to observe them, so this creates its own problem for me. Science, for me, runs on the principle that when you postulate something you can either observe it, or calculate things based on its properties. The problem they are postulated to solve is this. If you take two electric charges, if they are the same they strongly repel, while if they are opposite they strongly attract. magnets do the same thing. So, how does one know the other is there, and what sort it is. The answer postulated is that virtual particles are sent from one to the other. Obviously something has to be sent from one to the other so it is far from silly, but my problem is the way it is formulated you have that huge error. In other words, I feel we are missing something fundamental.
No, quantum physics is anything but just theoretical. An awful lot of electronics designs are based on quantum physics, and there is a lot of experimental work being done. All of chemistry depends on it one way or another. There is no doubt in my mind that we have a fairly good handle on much of it, but I think it would be very wrong to think we understand ALL of what could be understood. There is more to be done.
Thanks for enlightening on a number of points there, Ian. I never would have guessed, for example, all of chemistry or electronic design depend on quantum physics - assumed it was a much more theoretical or even abstract science.
Guys,you would be interested in this other group I am in that shares a common interest. I invite you to share your thoughts here .https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Science deals mainly in evidence, but some scientists at least also think outside the box. Provide evidence and more will :-)
Plenty of beer in the fridge is also recommended :-)
Underground Knowledge — A discussion group
Books mentioned in this topic
One Universe or Infinite Universes? (other topics)From the Black Hole to the Infinite Universe (other topics)
Infinite Universe (other topics)
From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe (other topics)
Everything and More: A Compact History of Infinity (other topics)
Basically, what I'm wondering is this:
Is the Universe infinite?
Infinite time. Infinite space. Infinite parallel worlds. Infinite EVERYTHING.
Does that question make sense to you guys?
Anyway, my gut feeling or instinct tells me this theory is true.
Everything and More: A Compact History of Infinity written by David Foster Wallace is one book I plan to read as a starting point.
Was all matter created from "nothing" or is the Universe infinite and always was and always will be??
Here's video on the Infinite Universe theory: https://www.goodreads.com/videos/8476...