This paper proposes that gravity is caused by the actions of non-isotropic, heterogeneous distributions of aether particles throughout the universe. The Gravitational Pressure Gradient of a massive body describes these divergent aether distributions. The activity and density of free aether particles are greatest in the so-called vacuum of intergalactic space; they are least where the density of baryonic matter is greatest. This gradient is analogous to the atmospheric pressure gradient that surrounds Earth, but in reverse. Aethereal pressure increases with distance from the center of Earth just as it does for all celestial vortices. Ordinary baryonic matter consists of aether complexes that limit the free motion of aether particles, displacing them and producing what is, in effect, a sort of vacuum for aether. In addition to displacement, neomechanical interactions involving the absorption and emission of motion cause decreases in the activity of proximal aether, resulting in the pressure gradient. The result is that gravitation is a universal, but local, phenomenon. This proposal is consistent with the assumption of infinity, which underlies neomechanics and the belief that there are no true pulls in nature, as recognized in Newton's laws of motion. It avoids the problems of non-local causes of gravitation conjectured by Le Sage. The layering produced by a rapidly rotating celestial vortex during its early evolution pushes baryonic matter toward its axis. Satellites stay in orbit because distal aether pressure is greater than proximal aether pressure. The theory also predicts that the velocity of light is a function of aether density, in tune with gravitational and galactic redshift measurements.
Einstein built relativity theory upon foundational conceptual shapes such as a spherical wave and a hypercone. He created the hypercone by defining l, or light-time, as l = ct. Conceptually and mathematically, Einstein then used l, or light-time, as a replacement for Time, t, in his derivation. Here we find that light-time, l, is actually a measure of Distance, not Time, because the result of a Velocity multiplied by a Time is always a Distance. Because Time and Distance cannot be used interchangeably, its mistreatment as both a Time and a Distance invalidates Einstein's hypercone concept and the resulting mathematical and theoretical conclusions. The critical mistake represents a key characteristic of Einstein's theory because it enables him to objectify Time - or treat Time as if it were a Distance. This objectification of motion, a key unstated characteristic of Relativity theory, has led to incorrect theoretical conclusions for over a century.
A single philosophical error on Einstein's part has retarded physics and cosmology for over a century. The error is simply this: the objectification of motion. Classical mechanics assumed that the universe presents us with two fundamental phenomena: matter and the motion of matter. Matter exists; motion occurs. Matter, that is, anything in existence, has xyz dimensions and location. Motion is not ?part? of the universe; it is what those parts do. In objectifying motion, Einstein assumed instead that motion had material properties. It started out with his assumption that light was a particle instead of wave motion in a sea of particles. This was an objectification similar to the theory that heat was a "caloric fluid", instead of vibratory motion. This one error invalidates the Special and General Theories of Relativity. The attractiveness of those theories is dependent more upon the popularity of indeterministic, unscientific philosophy than upon the validity of the data offered in support. Examined in detail, the oft-cited "proofs" of relativity, such as the Eddington solar eclipse observations and the Hafele-Keating flight of clocks around Earth fail to prove anything. Their interpretation as supportive is an embarrassment to science.
Previous work supplied the data and statistical support for the Unified Cycle Theory, which showed the connection between various recurring earthly as well as cosmic phenomena. A theoretically infinite sequence of cycles (EUWS) occurs throughout the universe, connected by a single factor of three. The period of each larger cycle, whether it be a geological epoch or climatic fluctuation, is three times the next smallest cycle. Statistical analysis showed that the identified cycles are neither subjective nor random. The universal range of these cycles begs a universal cause. With naturally occurring oscillations tied to the EUWS cycles serving as key evidence, we present a new Theory of Infinitely Oscillating Density and Magnetism. We hypothesize that these fluctuations conform to Borchardt's Ten Assumptions of Science. In terms of univironmental determinism, all microcosms within the universe constantly oscillate in both density and magnetism. These microcosms are bathed in a sea of supermicrocosms capable of transmitting different motions dependent on the EUWS fluctuations. The Theory of Infinitely Oscillating Density and Magnetism integrates concepts from both standard and alternative theories. This integrated theory helps to explain numerous mysteries that have long puzzled physicists, astronomers, geologists, climatologists, economists, and sociologists.
Although Einstein's popularization of E=mc2 made it the most famous equation in history, few people understand what it actually means in physical terms. Many popular accounts maintain that it describes the conversion of matter into ?pure energy,? often construed as a kind of matterless motion. Today, ?dark energy? and ?dark matter? are spoken of as if they were two different ?things.? Some even hypothesize that the universe was filled with pure energy before it became filled with matter. This estrangement between matter and motion (separability) is common in popular culture and underlies the regression in modern physics led by Einstein. There will be no fundamental change in modern physics until we adhere to the opposing assumption, INSEPARABILITY (Just as there can be no motion without matter, so there can be no matter without motion). Without it, it is impossible to explain the physical meaning of the equation. Like all equations involving aspects of reality, E=mc2 simply refers to the transformation of one kind of matter in motion into another kind of matter in motion and/or the transformation of one kind of the motion of matter into another kind of the motion of matter. The experimental success of the equivalence principal led to the further objectification of energy and that other infamous matter-motion term, spacetime. It was precisely at this point that Einstein left the realm of reality. Energy actually does not exist and does not move. It is simply a mathematical description of the motion of matter. Matter does not ?contain? energy, for matter only can ?contain? other things in motion. Energy is simply a mathematical term necessary for describing and relating the various forms of the motion of matter. Similarly, Einstein's objectification of spacetime led to the strange belief that the universe actually had four dimensions instead of three. Spacetime may be useful in some descriptions, but it is no more ?real? than energy. It is time to return to the two fundamental phenomena presented by the universe: matter and the motion of matter.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics (SLT) states that the entropy or disorder of an isolated system can only increase. And yet, we see numerous systems all around us that that clearly have decreasing entropy and increasing order: the SLT-Order Paradox. Systems philosophers have proposed numerous solutions to the paradox without success. From Schr?dinger?s ?negentropy? to Prigogine?s ?fluctuations,? ?distance from equilibrium,? ?nonlinearity,? or ?self-organizing,? there always has been residual bias in favor of the system over the environment. At one extreme, the SLT was said to predict the eventual ?heat death? of the finite, expanding universe. As with all paradoxes, however, the solution simply involves a change in beginning assumptions. The paradox dissolves if one considers the universe to be infinite. Then, the SLT is a law of divergence; its complement is a law of convergence. Matter leaving one portion of the infinite, 3-dimensional universe invariably converges upon matter in another portion of that universe. Destruction in one place leads to construction in another place. The resulting complementarity shows the SLT to be a restatement of Newton?s First Law of Motion in which the word ?unless? is replaced by the word ?until,? in tune with Infinite Universe Theory. The imagined ?ideal isolation? required by the SLT has an equally imaginary ?ideal nonisolation? required by its complement. All real systems come into being at the behest of relative nonisolation and dissipate at the behest of relative isolation. Complementarity is essential for univironmental determinism, the universal mechanism of evolution stating that what happens to a portion of the universe is determined by the infinite matter in motion within and without.
The absurd idea that the universe exploded out of nothing is a common-place among today?s mathematicians, cosmologists, astronomers, and physicists. Cosmology has become cosmogony, the dubious study of the ?origin? of the universe. The entire universe is being treated conceptually as a ?system;? a finite, isolated entity. We have reached an intellectual dead end. How do we get out of it? My new book, The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein, shows the direction we must take. Mere calculation and additional rose-colored observation will be to no avail, for the persistence of the Big Bang Theory (BBT) is rooted in the perpetual philosophical struggle that underlies our understanding of the universe and our place in it. In philosophy, as in science, it is necessary to begin with assumptions. One cannot travel to the end of the universe to prove whether it is infinite or finite. To begin with the assumption of finity, as mathematics and the BBT demand, is to end with finity. However, if one chooses the philosophical alternative, infinity, then the irrationality perpetrated by the BBT disappears and cosmology becomes legitimate. We are left with an eternal, infinite universe that, as David Bohm maintained exactly 50 years ago, can never yield complete equations for even one phenomenon. The Scientific Worldview describes how this universe works via the universal mechanism of evolution, ?univi-ronmental 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). In the scheme of things, the BBT is pre-Copernican and symptomatic of the myopic worldview held by society at large. The BBT cannot be rejected without rejecting finity.
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!
The absurdities in current physics and cosmology are founded on indeterministic presuppositions uncovered in this review. Once subconsciously held presuppositions are stated, they become assumptions, objects amenable to study. Each indeterministic assumption has its deterministic opposite. To obtain a logically coherent set of fundamental assumptions, one must include generalized infinity, which is resisted vehemently by the present culture. Nonetheless, the ten deterministic assumptions are:
- MATERIALISM: The external world exists after the observer does not.
- CAUSALITY: All effects have an infinite number of material causes.
- UNCERTAINTY: It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is possible to know more about anything.
- INSEPARABILITY: Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion.
- CONSERVATION: Matter and the motion of matter neither can be created nor destroyed.
- COMPLEMENTARITY: All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things.
- IRREVERSIBILITY: All processes are irreversible.
- INFINITY: The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions.
- 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.
- INTERCONNECTION: All things are interconnected, that is, between any two objects exist other objects that transmit matter and motion. Among the primary conclusions: time is motion, light is motion, the universe is Euclidean, there is a dynamic ether, gravitation is a push, and the "Big Bang Theory" must be replaced by the infinite universe theory.
This was initially published as an abstract in: Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The ten assumptions of science and the demise of cosmogony [abs.], in Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Southwestern and Rocky Mountain Division, Metropolitan State College of Denver and the Colorado-Wyoming Academy of Sciences, 79th Annual Meeting of AAAS-SWARM, pp. 22-23.]