Con men of cosmology 2

It’s becoming a common knowledge that cosmologists are con men. Here’s an article promoting another philosophical sophistry pretending to be physics on the oldest scholastic topics of space and time by a physicist, in this case Raphael Busso at the University of California. Read the comments, commenters shred Busso’s argument into pieces. I am quoting below a comment by mitchellporter where he emphasizes what I’ve been writing in this blog, that cosmologists truncate the totality and market it as the totality:

They are using a theory in which space and time are infinite. But they don’t know how to count observers in that infinite universe. So they draw a circle around a finite part of it, and say that nothing outside that part actually exists.

This is the well-known cosmological con. Why do you go along with it instead of exposing these charlatans?

It’s official: Physics is the new religion

Or: Religion is the new physics.

There is no doubt that now religion makes scientific predictions that can be tested and verified. As you know, Harold Camping predicted the end of the world and now it was verified that he was wrong.

Physicists on the other hand no longer bother with verifiable predictions. Instead physicists make unverifiable declarations about the universe in unverefiable future or unverefiable past or unverifiable universes of their own invention.

More and more people are realizing what academic physics really is: a scientific fraud.

When religion makes verifiable prediction and physicists cannot and will not . . . what does this mean?

Cosmology is the projection of the local to the universal

jarin writes:

Newtonian gravity is obviously a conspiracy by the intellectual elite to maintain control over the masses.

zeynel replies:

Not sure if this is intended to be sarcastic, but your “intellectual elite” better known as professional classes, aka priestly scribes, since the times of Egyptians, defined and built a cosmology for the rulers for whom they worked so that rulers could control their citizens.

So, more than a conspiracy, cosmology is the fundamental method used by rulers to control their subjects.

You can no doubt find examples of how cosmology has always been the projection of the social order into the cosmos and vice versa (e.g. old Egypt: cosmos as river; 20th century: cosmos as nuclear explosion.)

Therefore, Newton’s forceful, atomic materialistic worldview with an all powerful sun “exalted on his throne” at the center controlling its subjects the planets with a god-given force may remind you the structure of the 18th century society ruled by all powerful kings; Newton’s “System of the World” was the world system these ruling classes wanted to impose on their citizens. I am sure you heard about the Sun-king.

Whoever controls cosmology controls your mind; whoever controls cosmology, controls how you perceive nature… This is true today more than ever.

Time Likely To End Within Earth’s Lifespan, Say Astrologers

There is a 50 per cent chance that time will end within the next 3.7 billion years, according to a new astrological model of the zodiac.

Look out into space and the signs are plain to see. According to a certain reading of our tarot cards; Cronos created Heaven and Earth when he sneezed for the first time 13 billion years ago; therefore; Heaven and Earth have been expanding ever since.  And the best evidence of the expansion of the Cronos’ sneeze comes from observation of the Cronos’ germs in distance reaches of the cosmos; therefore; cosmos’ expansion is accelerating.

That has an important but unavoidable consequence: it means that the cosmos will expand forever. And a cosmos that expands forever is infinite and eternal. This is obviously true because the creator of the cosmos the eternal and infinite god Cronos is infinite and eternal.

Today, a group of astrologist rebel against this idea. They say an infinitely expanding cosmos cannot be so because the laws of astrology do not work in an infinite cosmos. For these laws to make any sense, the cosmos must end, say the Raphaello Bousso at the University of California, Berkeley and few pals. And they have divined when that is most likely to happen.

Their divination is deceptively simple and surprisingly powerful. Here’s how it goes. If the cosmos lasts forever, then any event that can happen, will happen, no matter how unlikely. In fact, this event will happen an infinite number of times.

This leads to a problem. When there are an infinite number of instances of every possible divination, it becomes impossible to determine the probabilities of any of these divined events to occur. And when that happens, the laws of astrology simply don’t apply; the absurd laws of physics take over. “This is known as the “measure problem” of eternal inflation,” say Bousso and buddies.

In effect, these guys are saying that the laws of astrology abhor an eternal universe.

The only way out of this conundrum is to divine some kind of divine intervention that brings an end to the cosmos. Then all the probabilities make sense again and the laws of astrology regain their power to divine.

When might this be? Bousso and co have consulted Cronos’ assistant in charge of human affairs, a Mr. Prometheus, and this is the reply they got: “Time is unlikely to end in our lifetime, but there is a 50% chance that time will end within the next 3.7 billion years,” said Mr. Prometheus who started it all when he stole the light from Gods to give it to humans and that was about 3.7 billion years ago. So if no symmetry breaking occurs; Bousso and Co’s 3.7 billion year prediction for the end of time is as good as proved by Einstein’s General Relativity.

But Mr. Prometheus had one cautionary statement: “The time will end for humans; not for gods. I am sorry” said Mr. Prometheus, a good friend of humanity since the beginning.

3.7 billion years is not so long! It means that the end of the time is likely to happen within the lifetime of the Gaea and the Hyperion.

But Buosso and co have some comforting news too. They don’t know what kind of divine intervention will cause the end of time for humanity but they do say that we won’t see it coming. They point out that if we were to observe the end of time in any other part of the cosmos where the authority of Cronos has been usurped; we would have to be causally ahead of it, which is unlikely because the God Mnemosyne hates to remember what she had not forgotten.

In other words we’ll run headlong into this divine intervention before we can observe its effects on anything else.

The imminent end of time is a little unsettling but the argument is by no means astronologically sound. Among other things it depends crucially on an important assumption about the laws of astrology: that we ought to be able to understand why they work, not just observe that they do work. And that’s a physical point of view rather than an astrological argument. And you cannot trust physicists to explain anything; because fundamental equation of physics is the definition of infinity as zero divided by zero squared. Physicists read any experimental divination they invent into their fundamentally fertile equation. Astrologers are at least bound by the zodiac.

So Buosso and buddies raise some interesting questions but nothing to lose any sleep over. At least, not for another 3.7 billion years Cronos will not bother to end time for human beings.

Reference: Eternal Inflation Predicts That Time Will End

Who is qualified to speculate on the origin of the universe? Not physicists.

What qualification does a physicist have that gives him the “authority” to pontificate about the origin of the universe? He has no such qualification. A physicist is a professional who is licensed to practice in a narrow field for which his license is issued. A physicist has no authority outside of the subject for which he earned his license.

I am looking at the qualifications of people writing books speculating about the origin of the universe; these people are Doctors of Philosophy who never studied philosophy; but obtained a license in a very narrow section of an academic field of study which accepts the Newtonian atomic materialist doctrine as its immutable doctrine.

All the dualities, paradoxes, dilemmas and absurdities littering academic physics are by-products of practitioners’ absolute insistence on trying to explain a non-material nature with their materialist doctrines. These professionals are not qualified to speculate on the origin of the universe; in fact; they are not qualified to speculate authoritatively in any topic, except their narrow field of specialty.

Do you want a physicist fix your car? No. You want a mechanic fix your car. Do you want your mechanic tell you about his speculations on the origin of the universe? No. That’s not his specialty. A physicist is no more qualified to speculate about the origin of the universe than your mechanic.

I propose that when physicists speculate on topics which are outside their specialty; they preface their speculations with the disclaimer that what they are about to say are their opinion and nothing but their opinion; and carries no weight. Any physicist pretending to know the age of the universe must first say “I am a Doctor of Philosophy but I know nothing about philosophy; the age of the universe is a philosophical speculation but I am licensed only to speculate on a narrow field of physics; beyond that narrow field whatever I say is my opinion and it is as good or as bad as anyone else’s opinion.”

Such an honest admission of ignorance would be a first step in elevating academic physicists into the rank of scientists. It takes honesty to move from shamanism to science.

Hard physics versus fine physics

Physicist A studies the structure and kinetics of metals on silicon surfaces using ultra-high vacuum techniques.

Physicist B speculates about whether or not there was time before the creation of the cosmos and if God created the cosmos or if cosmos created itself by becoming aware of the laws of physics designed by Physicist B himself.

***

Physicist A and Physicist B are both called “physicist” and are working in the same physics department of the same high learning institution.

No matter how far we try to stretch our imagination; we cannot classify these two individuals as practicing the same profession. Physicist A and Physicist B are not in the same profession; this is for sure; they are both called “physicist” by academic tradition.

***

Do you know any other profession where such confusion is the custom?

***

Something similar happens in painting business. The house painter and the fine art painter are both called “painter”; these two may use paint and brushes to practice their profession but they are in two different professions.

Physicist B may be using mathematical symbols to practice his profession just like Physicist A; but Physicist B is as much a physicist as a house painter is Picasso.

Don’t you think it is time to separate physics into two professions as “Hard physics” and “Fine physics?”

The end of the rule of physics on reality

(Note to the reader: This a questionnaire I am sending to academic physicists to get their expert opinion on Hawking’s end-of-physics prediction. I will post any replies here.)

Dear Doctor of Physics:

I am sure you are aware that the legendary physicist Stephen Hawking recently declared the end of physics as we know it.

Not in so many words as “the end of physics”; but by removing physics from its privileged position as the only true and legal representation of nature.

This is how Hawking explains his new understanding of reality:

There is no theory-independent concept of reality; there is only model-dependent realism: According to model-dependent realism; a theory is a model and a set of rules that connect the elements of the model to observations.

According to model-dependent realism, it is pointless to ask whether a model is real, only whether it agrees with observation. If two models agree with observation, neither model can be considered more real than the other. A person can use whichever model is more convenient in the situation under consideration.

Hawking is saying that reality (or nature) is definitional; this is what his “model-dependent realism” means. Reality is whatever we define it to be.

Let me explain.

Assume that we have a set of observations O(X); and a group of physicists obtained a nice grant from NSF and built 3 competing models to save observation O(X).

These models are: Model 1 = M(1); Model 2 = M(2); Model 3 = M(3).

Physicists then run the models M(1), M(2) and M(3) on observation O(X) and obtain residuals R(1), R(2) and R(3).

Analyzing the residuals, physicists observe that R(1) = R(2) = R(3).

In other words, all three residuals are found to be equal within the range of acceptable error values; so physicists declare that all three models save observation O(X) equally well.

***

When faced with three equally good theories; the tradition dictates that; physicists would choose their favorite theory and brand it as the only true theory explaining the reality.

No more.

Hawking says that; there are no preferred models in nature; nature prefers no one theory over others; only religion sanctifies its theories into doctrines and dogmas.

Hawking says that; we cannot choose one good model over the others; all models with the same residuals represent reality equally well.

And why is this the end of physics?

Laws of physics always have some observation at their foundation; orbits are one of the fundamental phenomena where physicists test their laws; so let’s look at orbits to understand why Hawking’s statement is about the end of physics.

***

Hawking says that if we can explain an orbit with 3 different models; all three models are equally good.

As you know; we can compute an orbit with equal precision by using a table; numerical integration and Newtonian model, or

M(1) = A table of observations
M(2) = Numerical integration
M(3) = Newtonian model

All these methods give equally good residuals to predict orbits.

Hawking says that we cannot choose one model as the true representation of reality; there is no preferred model of reality; only religion sanctifies a model, usually its revealed doctrine, and brands it as the true nature; physics is not a religion so physicists should refrain, from now on, declaring any given “physical” model to be the true representation of reality.

Ergo, nature is not Newtonian; force does not exist; we cannot assume an active and intelligent matter that acts on other matter; we cannot assume an occult force that acts on matter; we cannot assume spacetime or General Relativity; as the only true representation of nature. And more importantly, internal consistency of physics does not endow it with a preferred status as a model of reality.

Because whatever observation we can save with a given physics theory; we can save it as well with a numerical algorithm.

Therefore, the world is not physical; the world is definitional.

Physics is just one of the infinitely possible models that can be used to define reality.

***

As a physicist, you defy Hawking’s attempt to usurp your academic authority and your doctoral right to define nature as physical; and your right to define physics as the only true model that can model the physical nature that you defined.

And who can model the physics of a physical nature?

Of course, you alone; a doctor of physics, can define the only true laws of nature which you defined as physical.

Hawking says NO.

Physics is just one of infinite number of models that can save observations.

***

In order to become a doctor of physics you have given up your right to question nature freely and accepted the materialist Newtonian worldview as the only true worldview; in a way materialism has become your faith.

Now another physicist, a living legend, one of the bretheren; Lucasian Professor Emeritus; the one and only Doctor Stephen Hawking; says Newtonian model is just one of many; there is nothing “true” or “sacred” about the Newtonian paradigm of nature.

***

Please let the world know your expert opinion by answering these questions; let the world know if you are on the side of the scientific revolution initiated just now by Hawking; or do you still choose to uphold the Newtonian atomic materialism as the only true nature to save Newton’s sacred authority?

Do you believe that physics is just one of the infinite number of possible models that define reality based on observation?

Do you believe that Newtonian materialist world on which modern physics is based is just one possible definition of reality and that a world without matter is as real as the Newtonian material world is real.

***

Do you find it ironic that the person who occupied Newton’s old chair in Cambridge for 30 years; now declares that Newtonian materialist physics was a hoax?

What do you make of this?

Has Hawking gone crazy?

***

I wish to collect the replies I receive from physicists and post it here.

If you fear academic and career pressures to speak up against Newton or Hawking or physics; please let me know and I will post your comment anonymously.

I value knowledge; not academic rank and seniority.

***

This is a historic moment.

The most famous living physicist; the immortal heir to Newton and Einstein; has declared the end of the rule of physics to define reality. Take sides.

Thank you for your valuable contribution to this research.

Con men of cosmology

Big bang and beyond:

The Big Bang and Beyond program is designed to explore forefront issues concerning the events surrounding the big bang and how they relate to both cosmological observations and particle accelerator experiments.

Characteristic presentation:

“Eternal Inflation”: Examining the properties, advantages and pitfalls of eternal inflation. Speaker: Alan Guth

cosmology is academic charlatanism

How long can Dr. Guth milk inflation? Eternally. In the unregulated industry of academic physics charlatanism is legal.

why are cosmologists charlatans

It is charlatanism to assume that the observed universe is the totality. The fact that cosmologists do not know the totality comes before all other hidden assumptions that cosmologists make to hide the fact that they are assuming the totality.

know what you do not know

Anyone who claims to know what he does not know and proves what he does not know with authority symbols is a charlatan.

A scientist admits what he does not know instead of proving what he does not know by his authority.

state mythology

Big Bang is the state-sponsored cosmogonic mythology that states use to extract more money from tax paying consumers. Dr. Guths of the world are the charlatans who design and package this mythology for the consumption of the consumers.

old and new cosmologists

Dear reader, if I were to call the European cosmologists of the medieval times charlatans you would have agreed. They were doctors of philosophy laundering church theology into mythology sold as scientific knowledge.

cosmologists still do not know the totality

Medieval cosmologists did not know the totality. They lied and said that they knew the totality and justified their lies by showing their proprietary language as evidence. They were obfuscators and liars in the service of the church.

nothing changed

Nothing changed since then. Professional doctors of today still do not know the totality. Doctors of philosophy are still in the service of giant unhuman organisms.

doctors are still in the laundry business

Today professional doctors of philosophy launder state ideology into cosmogonic mythology sold to you and me as scientific knowledge.

if medieval doctors were charlatans . . .

Why is it that medieval doctors are recognized as charlatans but today’s professional doctors are not?

cosmology the oldest con

Anyone who claims to know what he does not know is a charlatan. A charlatan or a shaman will always offer authoritative evidence that only he can corroborate by his authority as proof that he has privileged knowledge of what he does not know.

scholastic racket works

Scholastic racket is the longest running con perpetuated by doctors of philosophy. We know how the financial professionals run their con to profit themselves. The financial con becomes visible to everyone when their pyramid scheme collapses. Why don’t people see that cosmology is a similar pyramid scheme run by another type of professionals?

academic con men

It’s about time to call the bluff of doctors of philosophy and identify them as con men in the service of unhuman organism.

scientific evaluation of cosmology

So, I am wondering, can the same bankers who sponsored Big Bang and beyond conference, D.E. Shaw & Co., whose founder is an active scientist sponsor research to investigate whether cosmology is science or charlatanism?

Domains

Look at the world with the unit of organism. This view follows from the view of matterless world Organism Organisms & generalize & simplify & eliminate scholastic chaff theorems or statements or propositions & definitions For instance I propose something like 1. Physicists are the direct professional descendents of Peripatetic philosophers What do we have here We have the physicists Who are they? We need to define them? Why are we writing about them? Why are we writing about the professionals instead of the subject matter? Because professionals corrupt the subject matter. This can be another proposition Definition of physicist Then we have professional + The fact that physicists are professionals are important + Scientific revolution was a revolution against the professionals Why professionals are anti-science Then we have Peripatetic philosophers Who are they? They are Doctors of Philosophy Who are Doctors of Philosophy and why are they the anti-science What are givens and what are we trying to prove What happens if assume that these are true and correct Assume that physicists are the direct professional descendents of Peripatetic philosophers Then you would think that they behave exactly like Peripatetic philosophers Can we extract every possible idea and organize the ideas On the one hand we have the physicists They own topics and questions and answers that are supposed to belong to humanity If they tell them this they refuse to accept it Physicists themselves are victims of the system The authority lies with the legal system called physics This legal system has the authority Absolute authority Physicists learn this system They respect this system They enforce this legal system The subjects that entered this system are closed for independent questioning So here is another proposition The questions and answers coded in the legal language of physics is closed for independent investigations Physicists will deny this fact Force is encoded in physics and it is closed for independent investigation Physicists say be our guest go ahead and investigate force independently So I go ahead and investigate force What do I get Is this because I am dumb that I cannot resolve this issue the best I could do is to realize that force is the universal unit of physics that converts disparate physical quantities and make physics consistent Just like money But I ask the question does force exist in nature This simple question has no answer in physics Or so many answers that What is force? is a meaningless question in physics. To this I say that force is protected and it is closed And why can’t I prove with an experiment if force exists or not Because axioms cannot be proven by experiment Force is an axiom Only professional liars called physicists claim to measure their axiom What kind of experiment that would be Physicists say that the Cavendish experiment is such an experiment But it is not Cavendish assumed force. He did not design his experiment to measure force Then I say that force in physics was never measured in a scientific experiment designed to measure force There is a political issue here Force is the fundamental physical quantity and physicists protect force by polemics I doubt that physicists will ever be convinced that what is called the Cavendish experiment conducted by first years physics students does not measure the Newtonian force But the whole thing is legal There is the G Physicists invented a unit and called a constant of nature and called it the Newtonian constant of force Nothing of the sort But its name is Newton’s constant of force so students measure the oscillations of a pendulum set up in the factory to oscillate with a period P that when they plug into the known formulas gives the known value of G and physicists claim that with such a fakery and fraud physics student observed and measured Newton’s force So how do you fight such a religion And this is religion Force is the faith of this religion and the Cavendish experiment is a miracle of this religion No says the physicist. Students really measure the force. They have the authority. They don’t have to say anything more. Physicists assert we say Cavendish experiment measures force therefore the Cavendish experiment measures force. Anyone who questions our Cavendish experiment is a crackpot. What ugly chauvenistic people these physicists are This is the same problem faced by Galileo Galileo chose to eliminate scholastic labels of Doctors of Philosophy by using geometry So this is another major topic Doctors of Philosophy say that just like Galileo they believe that the book of nature is written in the language of mathematics and as true heirs of Galileo’s they still use mathematics to read the book of nature This is a lie. Physicists are the direct descendents of the enemies of Galileo. They are not the heirs to Galileo. Look at what they call mathematics. If Galileo came to world today he would have recognized physicists’ mathematics as the Latin of the Peripatetic philosophers Why? How do we know? Galileo did not use what physicists call mathematics. What is it anyway? Physicists’ mathematics is prose written in symbols that look like mathematical symbols. What physicists call mathematics is Mathematin. Galileo used geometry. Geometry is not prose. You cannot do philosophy with geometry. But you can do all kinds of polemics with Mathematin. And physicists do. Mathematin is legal. Geometry is not legal So when I look at Christian Fundamentalist Creationism and Physical Cosmology I see that both are about claims made by a professional class who claim to know the origin of the universe? What is the difference? As far as I know there is no difference. Why is Christian Creationism is religion but Physical Cosmology is not religion but science? I think that Christian Creationism is at least sincere because all they say is that their book got it right. Fine. If you believe that you’d be happy. But physicists say that Christian Creationism is religion but physical cosmology is science. Why is it science? Is it science because it is called physical cosmology? But we know that names are irrelevant. Physicists are collaborators of states and content producers for the media. Their speculations gain authority as they rotate in an endless loop between academia and the media. It’s like the accelerators. As a theory goes around the academia-media loop it gains more and more authority. Big Bang has been around for over 50 years and it is as solid a theory as there is. It’s all fake. But it has authority. But I believe that there is enough people who see that Big Bang is the official religion of the states. It is as religion as creationism. But worse. Because it claims to be science. http://bigbangneverhappened.org/ All we have to do is to look at the scientific evidence of the Big Bang. Granted Big Bang is now as solid as any religion and a rational criticism of Big Bang will have no effect on it. States sponsor ongoing research on Big Bang. Fundings flood from the states to physics departments to solidify Big Bang as the state religion. What can reason do against this professional collaborators of unhuman organisms against humans. Nothing. But we can still write what we think. If Big Bang is one of the topics it needs to be written about The problem is the same why nothing changes even though there are outsiders who question Big Bang? The answer is Thales and Galileo. The unhuman organisms are stronger than individuals. Unhuman organisms who exploit humans with the help of their collaborators the professional class use science as one of their major tool of exploitation. They have the money. They pay the professionals to design and create a cosmogonic brand and package and market it to the consumers. Simple as that. A scientific questioning of the strong brand of Big Bang is as useless and futile as questioning iPhone. The fight is not in scientific territory. Big Bang is a commodity. A commodity that became such a solid brand as Big Bang cannot be removed by scientific arguments. This is not defeatism. Big Bang must be classified as mythology or secular religion. The fight is between branded global book religions such as Christianity and their creation myths and the global hidden religion of humanity the Newtonism and its creation myth the Big Bang. Science has nothing to do in this debate. Why is Big Bang mythology. It may not be. It is charlatanism. Big Bang is based on a linear extrapolation from 50 to 13 billion years. This is not a scientific extropolation. This is beyond absurd. Absurd has more respactibility than such a charlatanism. The other minor detail physicists ignore is that observing galaxies to expand will never lead to the conclusion that they were once a point that was the origin of the universe. Physicists have no answer to these absurd assumptions. What to make of this statement by a Doctor of Philosophy? The universe is a big place, uniform on large scales Is this like an understatement? Or is there a deep philosophical meaning here that I am missing? This doctor states that the universe is a big place. The more I think about this the more I fail to understand what it means or what it is supposed to mean. Is it a tautology? The universe is a big place. Is it a joke? Maybe this line is uttered with a sarcastic tone, “you know, dear audience, the universe is a big place, he he he.” But whatever it is universe is a big place is circular. I realize that circular reasoning is legal in physics. In fact circular reasoning is one of the arguments used by physicists that can be and should be considered very rigorous. We should be thankful to physicists who use simple circular reasoning to prove their point and save us from some other and uglier forms of polemical reasoning that they are so famously fond of using. The universe is a big place means that this doctor of philosophy knows how big the universe is. Of course he doesn’t know that. He does not know that the universe is uniform at large scales. He has no idea how big the universe is. But he is in possession of the famous Big Bang trope and even more famous universe-cosmos trope. These tropes enjoy power of physical law and can be used to prove any point the physicist wants to make. In this case he uses them to prove that universe is a large place. Try to argue rationally with someone who has doctoral authority and uses his authority to prove that universe is a large place by using legal tropes. People in various altered states of reality. . . nice observation The way I understand it in our society one’s state of reality is defined by one’s attitude toward money. People who fail to make money the fundamental constant of their lives inevitably fall into altered states of reality. There is an escape. Actually two. Or even may be three allowed and legal escapes that society provides to people who want to live by ignoring money. One is religious order, one is academia and the other is the military I guess. By entering these orders you give up a lot. In a way it is like cats. You give up some natural liberties of your species to these unhuman organisms in return for security and the promise of doing research that you want. My feeling is that, like people aspiring to be actors and actresses, the fail rate is very high. I believe only very few get to do research that they paid such a high price to obtain. The time that were supposed to be theirs is always postponed to the next professional rank and sometimes never comes. I am talking about the academia not religion. If one does not want to attach himself to a professional hierarchy but wants to do research and ignore money then one realizes that society does not want such free floating individuals. They are the homeless people and the people in various altered states of reality that you see in university towns.