Progressive Science Institute


















About Us

Contact Us



About The Scientific Worldview

First Chapter of The Scientific Worldview



Questions and Answers

Letters to the Editor

Press Release for TSW

Press Kit

Reviews of The Scientific Worldview

Reviews of Regressive Science (NEW)


Short Papers (NEW)

The Scientific Worldview and the Demise of Cosmogony

Infinite Universe Theory

Resolution of the SLT-Order Paradox

Ten Assumptions of Science and the Demise of 'Cosmogony'



Amazon Discussion






  Press Kit

More information on Dr. Borchardt can be found at

Press Release

Sample Interview Questions and Answers:


What qualifies you to write this book? You aren't a mathematician or an astronomer, or physicist.


I have done scientific research in various earth science disciplines since 1962 and have authored or co-authored over 275 publications and reports. At various times my job titles were the following: soil scientist, clay mineralogist, soil mineralogist, soil chemist, geologist, nuclear scientist, computer programmer, geochemist, geophysicist, earthquake hazard specialist, paleoseismologist, pedochronopaleoseismologist. As it turns out, the specialties you mentioned are extremely dependent on math, which normally requires a belief in finity. Like most people, I use a little math almost every day, but I don't expect any of my analyses to give complete, finite descriptions of what are infinitely complex entities.


What prompted you to write this book?


Primarily a lack of understanding. After decades of doing "on the ground" laboratory and field work, I just couldn't understand how the universe could have exploded out of nothing. I couldn't understand how there could be more than three dimensions--everything I had experienced had width, length, and height and time was not one of them. I couldn't understand how light could be a particle and a wave at the same time. And if space was empty, I couldn't understand how it could be curved.


Why won't systems theory work in the grand scheme.  It seems to work on defined experiments?


When we draw a sphere around a portion of the universe, we can properly study and experiment with the relations between at least two parts of that sphere. However, by ignoring everything outside that sphere, we remain ignorant of the relationship between the contents of the sphere (the microcosm) and its environment (the macrocosm). The book gives numerous examples of scientists trying to explain such relationships by overemphasizing the microcosm and ignoring the macrocosm. The Big Bang Theory is the archetype of systems theory--a finite universe with nothing outside of it.


If the universe is infinite, what are the implications?


Well, of course, the Big Bang Theory would be dead. We would have to abandon this last vestige of the pre-Copernican world. We would have to admit that light is the motion of a universal, dynamic ether. The galactic redshift would be seen as primarily a result of the absorption that is characteristic of all other kinds of wave motion within a medium. In an infinite universe, the Second Law of Thermodynamics must be viewed as a law of departure and its complement must be viewed as a law of arrival. Matter in motion in one part of an infinite universe joins with matter in another part of the universe to form new entities. Because all matter must be continually in motion, these new entities must eventually dissolve, their various parts diverging to form still newer entities elsewhere. For every coming together, a coming apart; for every birth, a death.


Does that mean that the universe had no beginning?


Indeed. I agree with Einstein and Hawking that it makes no sense to speak of time "before" there was a universe. Time is the motion of matter. Without matter, there could be no time. I differ in assuming that the universe is spatially infinite and always existed. Unlike Einstein, Hawking, and other mathematicians shackled by the assumption of finity, I do not have to invoke non-science to explain what came before.


What about other theories, such as those about gravity?


From the systems point of view, gravity was produced by the object itself. With Newton it was a mystical "pull," by what, he did not know. With Einstein it was "curved space" or "curved spacetime" or an "immaterial" field. I do agree with Einstein, however, that gravitation involves gravitational waves. These act as the "pushers" required in a "univironmental" theory of gravitation similar to that of LeSage, as explained in the book. In short, gravity is a push, not a pull.


In summary, what do you call your philosophy?


Univironmental determinism, which at the same time, is the universal mechanism of evolution. UD simply states that what happens to a portion of the universe is determined by the infinite matter in motion within and the infinite matter in motion without. In science, we must avoid two kinds of mistakes of overemphasis: microcosmic and macrocosmic. In philosophy, we must avoid solipsism (the belief that we control the universe) and fatalism (the belief that the universe controls us). Instead, what happens to us is determined equally by the interactions between the within and the without. Unlike neo-Darwinism, this mechanism is not limited to biology, but can be used to explain all phenomena, as I attempt to do throughout the book.


Progressive Science Institute
P.O. Box 5335, Berkeley, California, 94705-0335, US
phone:  510-654-1619   

Privacy Policy
Copyright 2004-2018 Glenn Borchardt. All rights reserved.
Revised: August 15, 2018.