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?”