PSI Blog 20250512 Universal Recycling
Speculation: From aether to matter and back again?
"This is the first picture of a
black hole.
Using the Event Horizon
Telescope, scientists obtained an image of the black hole at the center of the
galaxy M87. (There is a supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy —
the Milky Way.)" Photo Credit: NASA.
According to Infinite Universe Theory, the universe
does not evolve—only the things within it do.[1]
If the astronomers are correct, 85% of the observed universe is nonluminous
(i.e., aether particles, and the constituents from which they form), while 15%
is luminous matter. If this 85/15 ratio holds for the entire universe it would have
to be relatively and eternally constant. In other words, the aether particles
within ordinary matter or its surrounding aetherosphere eventually must return
to outer space whereupon they again become part of the 85%.
One way to view this possibility is through Newton’s First Law of
Motion (Every microcosm continues in uniform motion until the direction and
velocity of its motion is changed by collisions with supermicrocosms.)[2]
In other words, each aether particle travels through the universe, tarrying for
a bit as part of an aether complex (ordinary matter) or aetherosphere.
As aether particles are pushed together by other
aether particles, interparticle distances diminish. Densities increase as this
process forms stars and galaxies and other vortices, each with a relatively dense
nucleus. Ultimately, galaxies and the largest stars develop nuclei traditionally
misnamed “black holes.” If there indeed is an ultimate recycling of those hypothetical
aether constituents, it would have to involve the eventual demise of black holes.
Here I reprint a previous post about that possibility:
PSI Blog 20210308 The Demise of Black Holes
[GB: This question is from Pierre Berrigan:]
Hello, Glenn!
Great initiative. Here is my contribution.
Firstly, since you ask, a universe truly infinite and
eternal would not change much in my life, because that’s how I always thought
it would be. There is, however, one thing that bothers me, and that’s the
question of « black holes ».
Of course, black holes as pictured by general
relativity don’t really exist because they would be absurdities. Nevertheless,
observation shows that plasma tend to gather itself and form stars, which eject
plasma to form new stars as they go supernova at the end of their life, and so
on. However, supernovae leave an inert nucleus behind, whether you call it a
neutron star or a black hole being irrelevant. The point is that after an
infinite time, everything in the universe would be inert dead stars nuclei.
So, in my view, the missing piece in an eternal
universe is a recycling mechanism that could turn neutron stars or black holes
into useable matter again. How do we go about this?]
[GB: Thanks Pierre for the interesting question. Let
me approach this via univironmental analysis and neomechanics. Each portion of
the universe (what I call a “microcosm”) forms from the convergence of other
portions along with their respective motions. The demise of each microcosm
occurs in reverse, via the divergence of the submicrocosms and their associated
motions within each microcosm.
For black holes Wikipedia puts it this way:
“When particles escape, the black hole loses a small
amount of its energy and therefore some of its mass (mass and energy are
related by Einstein's equation E=mc2). Consequently, an evaporating
black hole will have a finite lifespan.”
And so it goes... Nothing in the universe lasts
forever. The “evaporation” comment bespeaks of the process of divergence. That
is analogous to what happens to the water droplets on your bathroom mirror,
which form under humid conditions and evaporate under less humid conditions.
The key here is the change in the macrocosm, the environment of the microcosm
of the water droplet or of the misnamed “black hole.”
Black holes are more properly called the nuclei of
galaxies and large stars. As Steve and I mentioned in our book “Universal Cycle
Theory,” cosmic bodies form via accretion and disappear via excretion.
Accretion occurs when the body is rotating rapidly and excretion occurs when it
slows down. The rotation causes the heaviest elements to be pushed to the
center of the resulting vortex, following Stoke’s Law. That is why the Sun has
accumulated about 99% of the mass of the solar system in only 4.6 billion years.
On the other hand, the Milky Way’s black hole has accumulated less than 1% of
the mass of the galaxy during the last 15.3 billion years.[1]
As we wrote in our book:
“…the Sun rotated about 160 million times before it
accreted enough matter to clear the circum-stellar materials orbiting it. By
applying 160 million rotations to the Milky Way, the calculation shows that it
will take another 37,000 trillion years for the Milky Way to mature.”[2]
That would leave us with a bare-naked black hole,
which, being mostly nonluminous, would not be easily seen with our present
observational equipment.[3]
There could be billions or even trillions of these evaporating former galactic
nuclei within the observable universe, but we might not be able to detect them.
As you mentioned, the nuclei of large stars (over 20 times the size of the Sun)
can themselves form black holes. This appears typical of what happens after a
supernova explodes, scattering elements fused under pressures higher than
afforded by the Sun. That itself is a recycling process, for without those
explosions, the primordial solar system would not have scooped up the really
heavy elements such as gold, platinum, and uranium.
Also, with regard to recycling, remember that all
matter in the universe is always in motion. That is why the existence of any
particular microcosm is only temporary. The submicrocosms within are always in
motion and ever tend to “excrete” or “diverge” into the macrocosm as described
by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Speculation
The whole concept of “black holes” is dubious, just
like the misnomer used to describe them. In fact, “black holes” are neither
black nor holes. Being derived from General Relativity Theory, the concept has
an element of the usual “einsteinism” (right, for the wrong reason). As
mentioned, vortices tend to form a dense core or nucleus via rotation in the
same way baryonic matter forms from aether particles.[3] Sure enough, galaxies
tend to have dense cores, just like Earth, Sun, supernovae and a billion other
vortices—"Einstein was right again.” Hawking could use the mathematical
idealism to sanctify the opposite end of Einstein’s perfectly empty space
absolutism. The resulting “singularity” essentially was perfectly solid matter,
suitable for starting the universe and for ending galaxies.
Some calculate the density of some black holes to be
as great as 2 X 1015 g/cm3. In the appendix of “Infinite Universe
Theory” I used Planck’s Constant to calculate the density of a single aether particle
to be 1010 g/cm3. That would mean black holes would have to consist
of the constituents of aether particles, the submicrocosms we called aether-2
particles in our book. Remember, in Infinite Universe Theory there is no end to
the size of microcosms. We speculate that there are aether-3, aether-4
particles ad infinitum. This assumes there can be no “finite particle”
consisting of perfectly solid matter, which, having no submicrocosms in motion,
would be a violation of Maxwell’s E=mc2 equation. That is why the
elder Hawking’s assumption that “black” holes are really gray, not black is one
small step toward reality.
Exactly how black holes evaporate is not completely
clear. The E=mc2 equation would suggest the loss of mass via the
emission of motion to the aether medium across the microcosmic border as occurs
for all the other microcosms in the universe.[4] The resulting emission of
motion and increased illumination apparently is great enough to produce the
“grayness” proclaimed by Hawking’s recant.
The above handles the loss of submicrocosmic motion
from black holes, but what about the submicrocosms themselves? What is it about
the macrocosm that would allow the internal constituents to leave the black
hole via the Second Law of Thermodynamics like they do for all microcosms in
the universe? Cosmogonists claim that the inside temperature of black holes is
close to absolute zero, as might be expected from the super high density
mentioned above. On the other hand, the outside supposedly has an exceedingly
high temperature which, like the Sun’s corona, would be expected to energize
the submicrocosms on the black hole’s surface, ejecting particles hither and
yon. This is similar to what happens to a drop of water when it contacts the
surface of a hot skillet or is placed in a room with less than 100% humidity.
Then what happens when the heat source becomes
exhausted? How do the relatively inert, cold submicrocosms within a black hole
eventually get enough motion to diverge back into the macrocosm? Once again,
the answer lies with univironmental determinism, the universal mechanism of
evolution (what happens to a portion of the universe depends on the infinite
matter within and without). The “heat source” is never really exhausted. A
bare-naked black hole is not surrounded by perfectly empty space like Einstein
assumed, but by aether particles in constant motion. Their motion and the
motion of their various complexes is so great that measurements indicate
intergalactic temperature is 2.7 degrees Kelvin. This is much higher than the
inside temperature of black holes.
According to Wikipedia:
“A black hole of one solar mass (M☉) has a temperature
of only 60 nanokelvins (60 billionths of a Kelvin); in fact, such a black hole
would absorb far more cosmic microwave background radiation than it emits. A
black hole of 4.5×1022 kg (about the mass of the Moon, or about 133
μm across) would be in equilibrium at 2.7 degrees Kelvin, absorbing as much
radiation as it emits.”
The absorption of this motion causes the submicrocosms
within the black hole to vibrate, disintegrating into the various high-speed
aetherial components from which they came. No matter what one thinks about the
black hole calculations of the cosmogonists, it is obvious that cosmic nuclei
do not contain perfectly solid matter and are not eternal. For black holes, it
is ashes to ashes, dust to dust like it is for everything in the Infinite
Universe.
[1] Puetz, S.J., and Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Universal
Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe: Denver,
Outskirts Press, p. 164 [https://go.glennborchardt.com/UCT].
[2] Ibid, p. 172.
[3] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory:
Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, Chapter 16.4
[http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].
[4] Borchardt, Glenn, 2009, The physical meaning of
E=mc2, Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance:
Storrs, CN, v. 6, no. 1, p. 27-31 [10.13140/RG.2.1.2387.4643].
PSI
Blog 20250512
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.
[2] As modified in “Infinite Universe Theory.” I define a
microcosm as an xyz portion of the universe and a supermicrocosm as a microcosm
existing outside that microcosm.
Posts
