According to Cosmogonists Space Needs to Be Continuous, Not Discrete

That is according to Alan Siegel, author of a disturbing website aptly entitled “Starts with a Bang.” He subtitles his piece with:

“We might live in a quantum Universe, but we’ll violate the principle of relativity if space is discrete.”

This quote is revealing—sort of like an unconscious admission of guilt. As shown in my recent book “Religious Roots of Relativity,” Einstein’s erroneous assumption that space is perfectly empty is the religious foundation of relativity. All creation theories, including the Big Bang Theory, start with that assumption. Religious folks, including Einstein and his regressive followers, cannot imagine the universe always existed and that there never was, nor ever will be, perfectly empty space. Einstein needed that idealistic ad hoc to assume light particles underwent perpetual motion. Otherwise, they would lose velocity over distance as they collided with other particles in the environment. Without that assumption, the cosmological redshift would have to be considered a simple tired light effect: what happens to everything and every motion traveling from one place to another in the universe. Today’s regressive physicists, of course, must hold fast to Einstein’s ridiculous Untired Light Theory despite their otherwise familiarity with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That law is what leads to the forthright rejection of claims of perpetual motion that might reach the patent office. The younger Einstein would have thrown out his own claim when he worked at the office in Bern.

Siegel says:

“Going to smaller and smaller distance scales reveals more fundamental views of nature, which means if we can understand and describe the smallest scales, we can build our way to an understanding of the largest ones. We do not know whether there is a lower limit to how small ‘chunks of space’ can be.”

Alan Seigel

Per infinity, we assume the universe to be infinitely subdividable—there is no limit to how small those “chunks of space” can be. There is no undividable fundamental particle. There can be no “continuous space,” which, by the way, is required for Einstein’s equally ridiculous immaterial field theory. All this is why quantum mechanics and relativity can never be reconciled. The bits of matter recognized by quantum mechanics destroy the perfectly empty space imagined by cosmogonists and regressives alike.

 29,544 total views,  2 views today

Recommend0 recommendationsPublished in Uncategorized

Related Articles

Ivor Catt And Displacement Current

In an article published in Wireless World, December 1978, Ivor Catt published a criticism of the Maxwell displacement current that provoked considerable controversy. This article had a significant impact on my thinking as I had always had reservations regarding the displacement current concept in electromagnetic theory. In fact, the idea of displacement current that the modern textbooks present is completely different from Maxwell’s conception of it. Maxwell’s displacement current refers to the displacement of the electric particles of Maxwell’s aether.

 4,982 total views

Extending Newton’s Principia Mathematica

Neither Newton himself or any of his successors have been able to extend Newton’s Principia in order to give physicality to universe. Pieces have been discovered, but no one has been able to add a comprehensive extension to Principia Mathematica in order to take classical mechanics forward – until now.

 9,103 total views

Jeff Yee Programming Project

A competition will be held for developers to contribute to the open source project, with prize money awarded to the winning submission in each phase of the project. There are initially five phases to the project, with a total of $15,000 in cash prizes awarded. The dates and requirements for each phase are found in the next section.

 4,778 total views,  1 views today

CNPS 2019 Conference at the University of Washington a Resounding Success

The 25 annual NPA and 5th annual CNPS conference at the University of Washington was a resounding success with conference goers all having a fulfilling time. Some new and old faces appeared and it was great to see that the CNPS is alive and well. With a number of unusually sunny days, the conference was held in Alder Hall on the beautiful campus of the University of Washington with majestic buildings, amazingly large trees, and beautiful vistas of the mountain including a picture-perfect view of Mount Rainer.

 4,401 total views


  1. I fully agree with the nonexistence of “empty space”. Emptiness (nothingness) has no properties or attributes. To have a varying electromagnetic potential in space, there must be a matter to which to ascribe the energy. Especially if the energy is to be quantized. However, I also think that the problem exists that any discrete quanta of such matter could have been arbitrary chosen by god in any other way. This violates something I call the “axiom of natural purpose”, which says that there is no law of nature that is unnecessary to it’s function. An argument could also be made that the discretization of a continuous force field happens only when the field intersects a form (e.g. an atom) where there is a continuous oscillation between states of charge and discharge. The product of two continuous functions being discrete quantas of energy.

    1. Sorry Zack, but there is no “purpose” in the infinite universe. All we have is univironmental determinism and its destruction of the unfittest. I don’t know what a “continuous force field” is. Force does not exist or occur, it is a calculation describing the collision between objects. Those objects must exist before they collide. Thus, there can be no matterless “force field,” which would be a violation of the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion):
      Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The Ten Assumptions of Science: Toward a new scientific worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p. [ ].

    2. Isaac, I will remain open to the possibility of purpose in the Universe. I’m glad to see there are others who have left open the possibility that there is a creative force behind the Universe. Have you given any thought to how you would quantify this creative force such that it could interact with the physics of the Universe?

  2. I used to follow “Starts With a Bang” when it was administered by Ethan Seigel. Now, is it being administered by Alan Seigel or is he just a contributor?
    The most interesting article on this forum was “Science is not a democracy” where Ethan showed that in 1920, a debate took place asking whether the Andromeda Nebula was inside the Milky Way galaxy or outside it; which made it a bold question in 1920, since the Milky Way was accepted as the universe. I agreed with Ethan that Science is not a democracy; it’s a dictatorship. But the simple point that Ethan wanted to tell us is that the team that proved the Andromeda Nebula was within our galaxy, won the debate; which meant that those who proved it was outside the galaxy, lost the debate. However, Edwin Hubble proved empirically that it was outside our galaxy; which meant that no matter how much proof you have for a given scientific conclusion, it can be wrong i.e. it can’t be decided by a democratic debate; there has to be empirical evidence.

  3. Well said, Glenn. I hope others can follow up on this. What are you thoughts as to the values and dimensions of the quantum of space?

Comments are closed.