Big bang assumes a knowledge of totality

As humans we cannot know the totality.

This means that we cannot assume the totality as a closed system obeying known formulas as all cosmologists do.

This can be tested experimentally.

Here is a set of three numbers: 1, 2, 3 . . .

Can you complete the set? No. You cannot. You have no idea how many numbers there are in the set.

Or, let’s assume that we have N voters and we want to poll them to predict the election.

Can you tell me who will win the election?

No. You can’t. You don’t know N, you don’t know the names of candidates, you don’t know when the election will happen or where and for what position.

In the case of the universe the situation is infinitely worse because we know that there is a section of the universe that no information will ever reach us. This makes any assumption of the totality unscientific. More than unscientific. Cosmologists are charlatans and crooks because they assume what they do not know and then offer evidence to justify their assumption supported by their own authority.

Line explains the dots

Gregory Chaitin writes:

In sections V and VI of the Discours de métaphysique, Leibniz discusses the crucial question of how we can distinguish a world which can be explained by science from one that cannot. How do we tell whether something we observe in the world around us is subject to some scientific law or just patternless and random? Imagine, Leibniz says, that someone has splattered a piece of paper with ink spots, determining in this manner a finite set of points on the page. Leibniz observes that, even though the points were splattered randomly, there will always be a mathematical curve that passes through this finite set of points. Indeed, many good ways to do this are now known. For example, what is called “Lagrangian interpolation” will do.

Observation is always a dot. We fit a line to it and we call line a theory that explains the observations.

Smoot knows nothing about totality

In the press release for learned doctor Smoot‘s Nobel Prize we read the following:

Smoot [analyzed] the data from the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite and produced maps of the entire sky which showed “hot” and “cold” regions with temperature differences of a hundred-thousandth of a degree. These temperature fluctuations [were] produced when the universe was smaller than a single proton….

How does Smoot know that at some point “the universe” was smaller than a proton? He does not know. He is lying.

We must clarify that the word “universe” is a standard equivocation in physics and can either mean “the observable universe” or “the universe as a whole”. In this sentence it refers to the universe as a whole or the totality.

Smoot admits that he does not know the totality; we know this because all physicists and cosmologists accept that there is no light coming to them from beyond the observable universe.

Therefore, Smoot does not know the totality; he does not know the history of the totality; he does not know the content of the totality; in short, he knows nothing about the totality. There’s no technology available to him that will let him know the history of the totality. When Smoot claims that “the totality was smaller than a proton” he is lying. Smoot knows nothing about totality.

This is a huge lie because if Smoot admits that he knows nothing about the totality, his analysis of the ambient radiation will be just that, an analysis of a local radiation. The U.S. government pays Smoot to establish by fiat, by equivocation, by doubletalk or by whatever deception that local ambient radiation he measures is a cosmological radiation that reveals the history of the totality. The U.S. government pays Smoot and other cosmologists to establish the creation myth called the Big Bang as a scientific theory proved by observations conducted by the government agencies.

There is a well-known synergy between government agencies, universities and the media. Physicists and cosmologists make this racket work — yes, this is a racket more than a synergy. NASA needs the physicists to define a local radiation as a cosmic radiation so that they can budget it as a science payload. NASA can easily get approval from the Congress if the project is marketed as a fundamental science research to reveal the origin of the universe. Congress will not give NASA millions of dollars to analyze a local radiation. NASA then creates beautiful graphics and feeds it to the media. The media loves such fantastic stories and with each retelling the story acquires an aura of truth and the lead physicist becomes a celebrity usually hyped as the next Einstein or as “one of the greatest minds of our time”. The universities love celebrity physicists in their roster. Nobel too loves celebrity physicists. The general public love stories about the creation of the universe because they believe that unlike the creation myths marketed by traditional book religions these are scientific theories revealing the true history of totality. Everyone is happy. But this is still a scientific fraud and physicists are the perpetrators. In this case, physicists are Smoot and Co. who take the money from the government, fame from the media and their academic authority from the schools where they teach.

Smoot gets away with his lie because no one questions him. His research is paid for by the government, it is supported by the university he works for, he gets the Nobel prize for his lying, the media perpetuates his lie as a scientific truth… yet Smoot does not know anything about the totality.

And you, dear reader, why do you accept Smoot’s lies without question? Probably because Smoot is a professional and we are taught since childhood to never question professionals and yield to their authority. And Smoot is not an ordinary professional, he is backed up by the U.S. government, by a well-known university and by the media. I urge you to think for yourself in this case and question Smoot’s lies. Only we can expose him as a crook.

Dr. Smoot: the smoothest crook

How do physicists know that local ambiant radiation they measure is “cosmic”?

They do not know and they cannot know; physicists define this local radiation as a property of totality by their authority.

“Cosmic” or “cosmological” means that the radiation is a property of the universe as a whole. We call the “universe as a whole” the “totality”. We need to make this distinction explicit because physicists are master sophists who routinely use the rhetorical deception called equivocation to save their sacred physics doctrines against contradicting observational evidence. The word “universe” is a standard equivocation in physics. Physicists loaded the word “universe” by defining it twice to mean the observable universe and also the totality; we can never know which meaning they refer to when they use the word “universe”. Physicists hide their deception by equivocation. When we substitute the word “universe” with either “the observable universe” or “the totality” physicists’ deception becomes clear.

Physicists are academic mercenaries

Physicists need to define this local radiation as “cosmological” because they are paid to do so. Local means that it applies only to the observable universe, not to the universe in its totality. But if physicists accept that this is a local radiation their employer, the U.S. government, will be unhappy, and no physicist will dare contradict his boss. The government pays physicists to come up with a “scientific” history of the totality and physicists do so.

But physicists do not know the totality of the universe and they cannot know it. Why? Because physicists themselves admit that there is no light coming from beyond the visible universe. If there is no light coming, there’s no information coming. This means that the content of the universe beyond the observable universe is forever unknowable. Anyone who claims to know what he does not know is a charlatan and a crook.

The parable of the fish cosmologist

Let’s use the parable of the little red fish in a fish bowl to explain to physicists that claiming to know what is unknowable by definition is deception and fraud.

Imagine a fish bowl in a room and a little red fish in it. This fish is curious about the universe and he defines a cosmological principle which says that the visible universe is exactly the same everywhere; in other words this fish in his little fish bowl decides that the universe in its totality is smooth in all directions. Put another way, this fish decides that the whole universe is exactly like his fish bowl which is same as saying that the entire universe has the same density as his fish bowl. Do I need to tell you that this fish has no idea what is beyond his bowl? Do I need to tell you that the world outside the fish bowl is not all water?

Unless you are a cosmologist, you must be wise enough to recognize what a fool this fish cosmologist is. Because you know that the little red fish does not know the world beyond his fish bowl but he still assumes that the entire world must be exactly like his fish bowl. He is a fool. He is also a self-centered megalomaniac who places himself in the most privileged place in the universe and makes the rest of the universe exactly like his little bowl.

You see through the silly assumption made by the fish cosmologist but you believe without question a cosmologist like Smoot who makes the exact same assumption as the little red fish in a bowl? How come you do not recognize that Smoot is as foolish as that fish in a fish bowl? Smoot too assumes that the universe must be exactly like his fish bowl. What is Smoot’s fish bowl? It is the observable universe. Smoot does not know how the universe looks like beyond the observable universe but he foolishly assumes that the universe he cannot observe and he cannot know is smooth in all directions and looks exactly like his astronomical neighborhood. Without this assumption, the radiation observed by Smoot is local, not cosmological.

But unlike the little red fish who is only a fool and a megalomaniac, Smoot is a crook because Smoot knows that he does not know the totality. Smoot lies to us and uses sophistry and doubletalk to make his sponsors happy.

Big Bang is a fairy tale and a creation myth

Physicists assume that they know the entirety of the universe, just like the little red fish inside a fish bowl, and then extrapolate from their local observations to the entire universe, which they do not know. Without this circular argument, Big Bang is nothing more than a fairy tale.

Physicists assume that they know the whole universe even though they admit that they do not know the whole universe. Big Bang works only if physicists assume that they know the totality. But physicists do not know the totality.

How can physicists assert so easily that they know in great detail something they admit they do not know? The answer to this question is in the profession of physics.

Physicists are corrupt professionals who work in an unregulated industry which is a monopoly protected by the government. There is no authority above physics that can expose physicists’ lies and deceptions. On the contrary, the government and the media want physicists to come up with more and more absurd fair tales and physicists oblige with glee. Therefore, physicists can easily establish Big Bang as a scientific theory not with any evidence but purely by their authority.

After establishing the fairy tale physicists call Big Bang a scientific theory by their authority, they apply the absurd assumptions of the Big Bang to the background radiation they observe locally and call a local radiation a cosmic radiation.

The whole thing is scientific fraud of immense proportions. These crooks who call themselves physicists have been selling a creation myth of their own invention as a scientific history of the totality, as they admit that they don’t know anything about the totality. This is how corrupt physics is.

Why are physicists perpetuating this scientific fraud and corrupting the old science of physics?

The reason is simple. Physics is a big and corrupt business and physicists have always collaborated with governments to build mass destruction weapons for them. Physics demi-god Galileo was a government contractor supporting missile technology, even building and selling a gadget for the military to better aim cannons. Another demi-god of physics who has a law named after him, Charles-Augustine de Columb was an officier in the military. In more recent times, most physicists in the 1940s and 50s were employed by the government to build mass destruction weapons. Richard Feynman who is idealized as a genius by many was happy to build the atomic bomb that killed millions of innocent people.

Today, physicists are paid by government agencies to launder military research. Smoot works for a government laboratory tied to the department of energy. For some reason, the U.S. government’s department of energy decided to sponsor this creation mythology called the Big Bang and pays physicists to turn this myth into science.

U.S. government has the money; physicists have the scientific authority given to them by the universities they work for; the government channels the money to physicists through universities and physicists launder myth into science.

General public believes these crooks and we end up with a creation myth packaged and sold as the scientific history of the totality.

Physicists dubbed this local radiation a “cosmic” radiation as if it were predicted by the fairy tale they call the Big Bang. But Big Bang is a creation myth because it is based on the assumption that the local galaxies that physicists observe are representative of the totality of the universe. But since physicists do not know the totality they don’t know if galaxies they observe are representative of the whole.

Big Bang is a creation mythology and this radiation Smoot and friends observe is not cosmic but local.

Smoot is a crook because he assumes what he does not know and sells what he does not know to us as a scientific truth. These crooks who corrupt the old science of physics must be exposed.

Here’s Smoot’s Nobel lecture where he says that he assumes that the universe is same in all directions. This is charlatanism. Smoot does not know and can never know if the totality is smooth in its totality because he admits that no light and no information comes from beyond his observable universe. Smoot is an academic mercenary paid to develop a creation myth in the guise of a scientific theory…

Dear reader, if you consider the immensity of the Big Bang conspiracy you’ll agree that we are justified calling Smoot the smothest scientific criminal of all times.

 

Simplify

One of the main topics of physics seems to be modeling observations made by “particle” accelerators. These “particle” accelerators never observe any “fundamental” particles but ignore this for now. What do they observe? What kind of modeling tools do we need to model observations? We can use computer graphics. The interpretation of the observations is nothing other than computer graphics. What we don’t need is the century old accumulation of physics philosophical polemics associated with particles. Do we really need anything more than pure Euclidean geometry to explain observations? No. Ptolemaic geometric model still explains planetary motions well. Standard Model is analytical epicycles expressed as Fourier Series.

More falsehoods from Matt Strassler

Sometimes I am amazed how many falsehoods Matt Strassler can fit in a sentence. Below he is attempting to give us lessons on the history and philosophy of science but all we get is some physics propaganda.

First let’s read what he writes and then expose his falsehoods:

Epicycles or a revolution?

There were various attempts to make sense of Michelson and Morley’s experiment. Some interpretations involved tweaks of the notion of the ether.

Tweaks of this type, in which some original idea (here, the ether) is retained, but adjusted somehow to explain the data, are often referred to as “epicycles” by scientists. (This is analogous to the way an epicycle was used by Ptolemy to explain the complex motions of the planets in the sky, in order to retain an earth-centered universe; the sun-centered solar system requires no such epicycles.)

Dear Doctor Strassler,

Congratulations on yet another masterful use of sophistry and casuistry to support your physics doctrines.

This proves once again that you are a master of sophistry and you can assert any falsehood as absolute truth in such a way that none of your readers will suspect that you are spreading falsehoods.

Let’s start by noting some things in your profession that you do not understand or pretend not to understand:

1. You don’t realize that the Standard Model is an epicyclic model no different than Ptolemy’s model.

2. You don’t realize that what is “tweaked” in the Ptolemaic model is not the “original idea” but the mathematical model. In other words, you do not understand the difference between adding an epicycle to the mathematical model to explain a new observation and tweaking the axiom of the model.

3. You don’t realize that only fools prove what they assumed.

We’ll talk about your misunderstandings in more detail later but now let’s look at falsehoods and historical misrepresentations you present with such authority.

You claim that physicists have a shorthand way of dismissing ad hoc modifications of the initial assumptions of a theory by calling such ad hoc suggestions “epicycles”. You say that “this is analogous to the way an epicycle was used by Ptolemy to explain the complex motions of the planets in the sky, in order to retain an earth-centered universe; the sun-centered solar system requires no such epicycles.”

This is a big misrepresentation of historical facts. The sun-centered solar system developed by Copernicus had more epicycles than Ptolemy’s model. All you have to do is to count epicycles in both models. You cannot change this historical fact.

Physics is a legal discipline

There is nothing wrong in not knowing a historical fact. But what is wrong is to try to overrule historical facts by arrogance and authority. You are a proud professor of physics and you will never ever admit that you made a mistake and that Copernicus’ model had more epicycles than Ptolemy’s model; at best you will dismiss this as a “historical detail” that does not change your “physical” argument. And what is your physical argument? There’s none.

I would never blame you for not knowing the history of your own field; physics is a legal field, you don’t need to know the history, but only what is legal. That’s why you are supposed to know the literature — what is legal — but not the history. Physicists are proudly ignorant of the history of physics, their knowledge of history of physics is limited with the historical platitudes repeated in physics textbooks. Physicists repeat physics mythology and lore as historical truth. Your writing is full of such falsehoods.

Furthermore, your understanding of the role of epicycles in the Ptolemaic theory is wrong. You are just repeating official physics propaganda as if it were a historical truth. You may have heard a colleague mention it and you are repeating it without checking its truth.

The Standard Model is an epicyclic model

The Standard Model marketed by physicists as the most wonderful theory ever invented by mankind is nothing more than a collection of epicycles… but instead of using geometric epicycles of Ptolemy you use analytical epicycles called Fourier transforms. Do you deny this fact too? Both geometric and analytical epicycles fit data to sine waves. Spend some time to understand this reality. Your Standard Model is a glorified fit using epicycles to save the observations… just like the Ptolemaic model. And there is nothing wrong with adding epicycles to fit new observations into a model… this is how data is fit into a model even today.

Here’s one of your serious errors. You do not realize that the Standard Model is not a theory but a fit. Both Standard Model and Ptolemaic model fit data to a mathematical model using epicycles.

But there is a lesson to be learned from the Ptolemaic model. First of all, the original Ptolemaic model is a beautiful mathematical model. The theory has been corrupted long after Ptolemy by Doctors of Philosophy — your professional ancestors — working in the Middle Ages in the European universities.

How did these Learned Doctors corrupt the model? Not by adding new epicycles. When there’s a new observations you add new epicycles new epicycles to explain it. But these academic doctors who owned the Ptolemaic model used the mathematical algorithm of the model to prove its fundamental axiom, namely, the geocentric model. You are guilty of the same scientific crime, you routinely prove what you assumed.

Let me explain. As an academic doctor of philosophy you uphold the authority of the algorithm over the axioms of the theory. The algorithm is simply the mathematical methods used to fit the data; physicists call this data reduction algorithm “equations”. For you as a physicist, the algorithm (remember, you call the algorithm “equations”) comes before your axioms and you believe that the algorithm can prove your fundamental assumptions. In other words, you are proud to prove what you already assumed by using mathematical fitting methods. But only fools prove what they assumed. This would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic.

You don’t realize that it is foolish to prove what you assumed.

You can see with hindsight that Doctors of Philosophy of the Medieval Europe — your professional ancestors, do you deny your ancestors too? — who used Ptolemaic model tried to prove their assumption of a geocentric planetary system because they said the algorithm worked and gave correct results. These doctors said “we assume that the earth is at the center of the universe and we predict correctly the positions of the planets, therefore, the earth must be at the center of the universe”. Then comes Copernicus and uses the same algorithm by assuming the sun at the center, and he makes good predictions too.

Therefore, the lesson to be learned from the Ptolemaic theory is this:

You shall not prove your axiom with your algorithm.

Why? Because algorithm is independent of the axiom.

I don’t think you will ever agree with this law because you are doing the same thing with your Standard Model and market it as the greatest scientific achievement of humankind. You don’t realize that the Standard Model is simply a fit, nothing more. You then market this fit full of epicycles as the greatest scientific achievement of humankind. This is a grotesque double standard: you dismiss Ptolemy’s beautiful mathematical model as a bunch of epicycles and you glorify your own epicyclic model as the greatest theory ever graced this earth.

Why don’t you call yourself a “field physicist?”

The Ptolemaic theory placed the earth at the center of the universe and took this as its fundamental axiom. Your fundamental axiom is the doctrine of the atomic materialism. You are a “particle” physicist and you see the world as made up of particles and your job is to fit nature which is not matterful and not made of particles into your materialist dogma. Do you agree? Of course, you don’t. You will now tell me how you think the world is made of fields, not particle… but you cannot fool us with your sophistry… because we know that you call fields particles when you feel like it. This proves that your fundamental method of investigation is casuistry. You load words with several meanings and use them case by case to save your doctrine.

Why don’t you call yourself a “field physicist” since you claim that there are no particles but fields?

You always fit nature into your doctrine by using casuistry and sophistry and wordplay calling anything and everything particles when it suits you and not-particles when it suits you, case by case, as needed. I have analyzed several of your articles and gave examples of your casuistry.

Nothing changed in the world of academic scholasticism since the Medieval times. European academics who added epicycles to the Ptolemaic model to save data were Doctors of Philosophy and you are also a Doctor of Philosophy working in the same academic hierarchy; you are all in the same profession — this profession is the academic scholasticism — you just call yourself physicist… and you call your epicyclic model “Standard Model” and instead of planetary system you model the “atomic” world.

Learned Doctors corrupt languages

All doctors of philosophy are philosophers who work with languages; either they invent new languages or corrupt the existing ones. Doctors of Philosophy such as yourself are philosophical sophists who vehemently deny that they are philosophers. Take another look at your article about “vacua”, it is a standard linguistic analysis of the word vacuum. Doctors of Philosophy create new words by splitting meanings of existing words and by writing commentary on their new words. For example, they take a word without a plural and invent a plural of it (universe becomes universes, vacuum becomes vacua) and they associate some “equations” to these newly split words and claim to do physics. You recognize this method of splitting meanings as the oldest method of argument in the book of scholasticism. It used to be called hair-splitting, and you are a masterful splitter of hair.

If know that you will never admit that you corrupted a historical fact about epicycles to fit your physics doctrine into nature. You will never admit that you were wrong. You will just dismiss the historical record as a detail which is overruled by your physics. What is your physics in this case? There is none.

Here are a few more issues that you don’t understand.

You write that “tweaks of this type, in which some original idea (here the ether) is retained, but adjusted somehow to explain the data, are often referred to as ‘epicycles’…”

In the Ptolemaic model the original idea or the axiom is not adjusted. Only the algorithm is adjusted. This is a very important distinction.

As new observations become available, the model is adjusted by adding new elements into the mathematical model. Some of these elements can be epicycles. This is how data fitting works. Even today the same method is used. NASA uses numerical integration to fit data and they continuously adjust their algorithm to make their ephemerides more and more accurate.

But what do physicists do? Physicists are Doctors of Philosophy they do not adjust the algorithm, they “tweak” the axiom by defining new amendments. This is the legal method, it is the opposite of the mathematical method.

In the legal method, or legal logic, the practitioner adds an amendment to modify the original law or the axiom. That’s why we say that physics is legal. Physics uses the legal method to modify or “tweak” as you say, the original axiom.

Do you understand the difference? I am not sure that you do. When you add a new epicycles to the model, you are applying a scientific method by fitting the new observation to the model. The model gets more accurate. When you tweak the axiom with a new amendment you are using legal sophistry to save your doctrine and make it fit to the new observation. The original axiom is now loaded with several meanings and becomes sophistry.

You are a legal sophist because you continuously add new amendments to your doctrine of atomic materialism. Your observations routinely contradict your sacred doctrine of atomic materialism by telling you that there is no absolute indivisible, so you tweak your doctrine with a new amendment and you call field “particles”. This way you save your doctrine and you save the observations contradicting your sacred doctrine. This is legal sophistry. This is academic scholasticism. When your field amendments break down, you call probabilities “particles”. When that breaks down you tweak even further and invent new particles and new forces… You use sophistry and casuistry to fit contradicting observations to save your doctrine. You didn’t believe me when I told you that you were a Doctor of Philosophy continuing the scholastic tradition of your medieval ancestors.

Let me know when you understand the difference between adding a new epicycle to the model (a perfectly scientific method) and inventing a new amendment to save the doctrine (a legal sophistry and the fundamental method of academic scholasticism and physicists).

You exposed yourself without realizing as an academic doctor of philosophy using legal logic while pretending to use mathematical logic.