Open letter to Matt Strassler – physics professor and blogger

I have a few things to say about your writings. You are criticizing a journalist for misrepresenting official physics party line but you are spreading misinformation of much more serious nature because you are misusing your professional authority by lying to your readers.

As an example consider what you wrote about Higgs in this lecture of yours. In the slide called Quanta you draw wave packets and call these “ripples in a quantum field”.

strassler wave packets

Matt Strassler sells probability waves as “ripples in a field”

It turns out that this is a lie.

You fooled me into believing that these were indeed waves in a field or ripples of the field. Now I understand what you have been hiding, but I still do not understand your real agenda for lying about this issue.

What is the deception here? No where in the slide you mention that those waves are not ripples in the field but they are probability waves. This is misinformation intended to deceive readers.

I know your usual excuse, that you simplified because your readers are too unfamiliar with the fads of mathematicism used by physicists to understand the physics interpretation that only physicists can understand and that you simplified a complex problem for pedagogical reasons.

This cannot be a pedagogical simplification

If you are hiding the fact that your waves are probability waves and if you are presenting probability waves as physical ripples in the field, this is serious deception.

Your professional ancestors did the same with crystalline spheres. They endowed a mathematical abstraction with physical properties. You are ascribing physical properties to a mathematical abstraction. This is also called cargo cult physics.

Do you have a good explanation for selling probability waves as physical waves (other than your usual refrain, which goes something like “take it or leave it, I am a professor of physics and I am always right…”)?

Who judges physics?

Physicists say that nature is the ultimate judge of their speculations. Is this true? Or is it yet another professional propaganda perpetuated by physicists? Are physicists using the authority of the experiment to make their experimental fraud look like science?

Experiment is the interface between physics and nature

Physicists interact with nature through experiments.

And physicist interpret their own experiments.

This means that physicists are the ultimate judge of their own speculations.

Physicist are the judge and the jury of their own speculations. Not nature.

We know that unregulated professionals who are allowed to be the judge and the jury of themselves will lie and cheat and try to fool their colleagues and the world outside.

Error analysis is not the experiment

Even before interpreting the experiment physicists must design the experiment so that the experiment asks a question to nature.

Then physicists must interpret the answer. That’s data reduction and physicists excel in data reduction and error analysis. Unfortunately, data reduction and error analysis do not make an experiment.

Suppose that a physicist gets funding and builds an oscillator and measures its period and reduces the data and plots the data and publishes his results. Do you think this is an experiment?

Two types of experiments

There are two kinds of experiments. There is the crucial experiment and there is the experiment built to give only one result.

The first is an experiment because it tests two contradictory suppositions. The second is not an experiment because it is circular reasoning and a definition with a gadget.

All academic physics experiments are circular reasoning with a gadget. Academic physicists managed to corrupt experiment too.

G is not a measurable quantity

A good example of an experiment which is not an experiment is the modern measurements of Newton’s constant G.

The tradition of this experiment goes back to Coulomb. Coulomb built a pendulum and measured its oscillations three times and in all three he was a part of the experiment because he failed to ground himself. Nevertheless, physicists thought then, and they still think today, that this was good enough and they based a physics law on those three measurements.

Around about the same time Cavendish used a torsion pendulum to compute the mean density of the earth. Physicists defined Cavendish experiment posthumously to be the first measurement of G.

Cavendish experiment fraud

By analyzing the Cavendish experiment we can see how physicists have been misleading the world of science with their faked experiments.

If physics were to be a regulated industry the measurers of G would have been stripped of their licenses and banned from corrupting science any more with their occult ideology. Today they are rewarded with achievement awards.

In a Cavendish type experiment the physicist must choose the constants of the pendulum, such as the wire gauge and the beam length, so that the pendulum oscillates with the desired value. From the geometry of the pendulum we see that if the wire is too stiff or too soft there will not be an experiment.

The physicist must choose just the right wire. And choosing the right wire means that the experiment can only give one result — the result the experimenter wants.

This is a clever fraud physicists invented to measure non-existent occult quantities that they love so much.

Cavendish type of experiments are circular reasoning.

Physicists build a pendulum that they know will oscillate with a known period and they measure that period and plug it into formulas they used to compute the constants of the pendulum. This type of experiment cannot give any other value than the known value of G.

What physicists measure is not G

At no time the arm of the pendulum is set to motion by the occult Newtonian force. Physicists themselves have proved that Newton’s force is unphysical and does not exist. Newtonian occult force does not exist as a measurable quantity. So how come physicists keep measuring it in experiments?

Academic physics is the anti-science

The answer depends on your description of physics. Physics is a bureaucracy, a cargo cult, a religion and a hermetic brotherhood. An organism which is a combination of these that projects itself as the true science . . . and succeeds! What sophisticated marketing and propaganda physics is.

Cavendish experiment is a bureaucratic habit

National Science Foundation will fund any physicist who proposes to measure a better value of G with a gadget proposing to test some new technology. Since physics is also a brotherhood no other physicist will criticize any other experiment. And what do cargo cultists do? They build non-functioning gadgets and pray to their gods that they will work as if they were real and planes will land and occult qualities will be measured.

Pork belly experiments

In politics they call this type of cheating pork. Physicists are more sophisticated cheaters than politicians and they don’t have a constituency. Physicists are their own constituency. And academic physicists do not have to conform to any type of standard of evidence enforced by an independent outside authority. So physicists can cheat as freely as they can without fear of getting caught.

Any measurement of G is pork

Physicists measure the unit of an unphysical non-existing quantity with an experiment which is not an experiment but as circular as pork belly. The experiment is good for nothing except to fatten the career of the physicist.

Academic physics experiments are proxy for technology

On the other hand, I may be too naive. Probably I am. NSF may have its own reasons to pay for such pork belly experiments. Modern measurements of G can be seen as test beds for valuable technology such as precision measurement, laser and high vacuum. For instance, we see the technology to build a perfect sphere in this experiment about G also appearing in the Gravity probe B experiment.

Yet another case showing that physics and physicists are manipulated by governments and funders who only care for new technology and not about science.

Physics has many faces

One is the academic physics with its irrelevant rituals called derivations and the other is applied physics indistinguishable from engineering.

So the way every physical quantity is a pun the profession known as physics is also a pun. You cannot know where academic irrelevancy starts or ends or where engineering starts or ends. Only physicists know.

Physics is the Newtonist religion

Cavendish experiment fraud also shows how much Newtonism is a religion. Physics students believe that they measured Newton’s occult force in a lab. And they believe for the rest of their careers that Cavendish experiment is a real experiment.

And if they are told that they have been fooled by a religious miracle and they’ve been believing in a religious miracle they get defensive and declare the questioner of their faith an ignoramus.

My advice to them: take a critical look at the Cavendish experiment and see if you have been believing in a miracle.

Would you like your physical eschatology hot or cold?

1. Eschatology belongs to theology

dop is the new dot

2. Pushing the old scholastic racket in the 21st century

3. Physical eschatology

science excludes eschatology
regulate physics
there are no maps of totality

4. Mark’s reasoning is full of hidden assumptions

proof by hidden assumption is no proof

mark does not know the totality

5. Poetical eschatology

6. Mark tries to establish a fake theoretical basis for Big Bang

mathematics does not know properties of the totality

7. Eschatology is shamanism

8. No known physics can reveal the properties of totality

9. Science does not apply to eschatology

10. No passage from local to total except through charlatanism

cargo cult physics

11. Eschatologists call their prophesy predictions

12. An eschatological speculation cannot be tested

13. How do eschatologists get away with scientific fraud?

new and improved big bang

military-state-media complex

 

1. Eschatology belongs to theology ^

Doctors of Theology owned eschatology for millennia. They cleverly justified their sacred text by prophesizing the end of the world and by defining the beginning of the world.

Eventually, though, their professional racket has become transparent to their constituency who realized that Doctors of Theology were making up stories about the unknowable future and unknowable past and then proving their sacred text with their stories presented as true prophesies and then proving their prophesies with their sacred text.

These professional scoundrels have developed a proprietary complex language to hide their circular and vaporous reasoning. They kept their constituency ignorant and postured as absolute authority on the unknowable and made a nice living full of leisure at the expense of their constituency.

As civilians, we’ve known this professional racket at least since the time of Galileo.

Then how come, Mark of Cosmic Variance is shamelessly pushing the same professional racket as if it were science?

dop is the new dot

All the elements of the theological racket is with us again but this time around practiced by Doctors of Philosophy.

There are only two differences:

Instead of being a Doctor of Theology Mark is a Doctor of Philosophy. But that makes no difference. All professional doctors are in the same crooked business.

The other difference is that Mark does not use a sacred book with a supposed supernatural author as his authority. The reason is that in our era cosmology and eschatology are controlled by global states and the military. The Church has been out of the academic mythmaking business for a long time now. Newton made sure of that.

2. Pushing the old scholastic racket^

How can a professional doctor find enough authority in himself to push the old scholastic racket as science in the 21st century? Have citizens of the world fallen into the same kind of ignorant apathy as the previous victims of professional doctors, namely, peasants of the European Middle Ages and believe doctors’ every word without question?

No, but Doctors make sure that they get intelligent quadratically while civilians get intelligent linearly. They pocket the difference as authority. Not surprising, because they are the ones who control how much we can know. They control the distribution channels and make sure that knowledge flows only one way. This allows them to monetize the knowledge they’ve been hiding from humanity.

3. Physical eschatology^

Since the Middle Ages important changes have occurred in eschatology. Today academic tradition requires that a theory must be associated with an observational database. Doctor Mark of Cosmic Variance has a powerful ally in NASA who supplies the observational database for his eschatological speculations. Today we have physical eschatology.

We know that physicists have discovered the long sought after physical philosopher’s stone of the semantic kind and use it to transmutate any word into a physical quantity. Therefore, the old theological eschatology becomes a science just by calling it physical eschatology. At least, this is what Doctor Mark wants us to believe.

science excludes eschatology

In truth, there can be no scientific eschatology or cosmology. This is what makes cosmologists and eschatologists like Mark charlatans, scientific frauds and liars.

regulate physics

If physics were a regulated industry with strict rules of practice Mark’s license would have been revoked. After all a medical doctor who practices today medicine as it was known in the European Middle Ages would be disgraced and pushed out of the profession. Mark is practicing the old eschatology and calling it science. You decide if this is a breach of contract as a scientist.

there are no maps of totality

The only evidence Mark has for calling his eschatology science is his claim that his eschatological theory is associated with a database of white noise he calls Cosmic Background Radiation.

Mark fits his eschatological speculations into this white noise by using standard data reduction techniques. And since he called this white noise “cosmic” he pretends that this database is a map of totality.

There is nothing more than a linguistic association here. A local radiation does not become a map of totality by calling it “cosmic.”

Physics is done with hidden puns. Here Mark uses local-cosmic pun to justify his eschatology.

4. Mark’s reasoning is full of hidden assumptions^

Mark’s reasoning is full of hidden assumptions that he is not telling us. For instance Mark assumes that because the distance between a few observed galaxies have been diminishing therefore the entire universe must have been a point at some time.

This is fraud. This is fraudulent reasoning. Not faulty but fraudulent reasoning.

So why is it that this professional eschatologist is not exposed as a scientific fraud?

Who can expose shamans who practice observational eschatology as frauds? At present no one. Eschatologists who are physicists are the judge and the jury when it comes to eschatological speculations.

proof by hidden assumption is no proof

So Mark’s conclusion that the universe was denser because the distance between galaxies are diminishing does not hold. The hidden assumption he is making is that observed galaxies constitute the entirety of the universe. This is a lie.

This is the same lie Mark’s professional ancestors the previous Doctors of Eschatology told their constituency. Basically, they said “trust us, we are telling you the truth” while brandishing their sacred book.

Mark is perpetuating the same lie but he is brandishing NASA’s white noise as his false witness.

mark does not know totality

The following quote is a big lie because Mark does not know the totality.

Mark has no license to model totality in its totality.

But the fact that Mark does not know the totality is not a problem for Mark — lack of knowledge has never been a problem for professional eschatologists — and he goes on assuming that he knows the totality.

Mark is not telling us that he is assuming the totality. He is telling us that he knows totality by inductive scientific reasoning. Can there be a greater scientific fraud?

To claim that you know something you don’t know is a lie. When a professional in a position of authority lies about his professional activities his license to practice must be revoked. And if physics were to be a regulated industry Mark’s — and all eschatologists’ – license would have been revoked.

5. Poetical eschatology^

After citing Robert Frost’s poem Fire and Ice Mark explains us the reference:

This is typically a reference to the question of whether the [totality] will recollapse, forcing all its contents into smaller and smaller volumes, increasing the pressure and the temperature. . .

In this quote Mark claims to know the volume, pressure and temperature of the totality and claims that he has modeled totality successfully.

How does Mark know the volume and pressure of the totality? What evidence does he have?

None. None whatsoever.

As Mark and all physicists admit they do not know the totality. All physicists, cosmologists and eschatologists of all types, no matter what species of eschatology they promote, agree that they do not know the totality.

There is no ifs or buts about their ignorance of totality. There is no ambiguity that Mark and his eschatologist friends do not know the totality.

Eschatologists have never known the totality and they still do not know the totality.

But in the above quote Mark asserts that he knows physical properties of the totality such as its volume, pressure and temperature.

6. Mark tries to establish a fake theoretical basis for Big Bang^

This is another blatant lie:

Physicists arrive at this [eschatological speculation called the Big Bang] by first making observations [in the observable universe] today and understanding how these are described by well-established theories of gravity and particle physics.

Now Mark is making the false claim that his theories, ie, Einstein’s equations, “know” the properties of totality.

Mark claimed first that as a professional eschatologist he knew the properties of the totality and now he is trying to legitimate his speculations by invoking the authority of mathematics.

mathematics does not know properties of the totality

No known theory or equation ever written by a physicist, cosmologist or an eschatologist know about the totality.

So we see that this is the same doctoral racket that Mark’s professional ancestors used. They legitimized their eschatology by using their sacred book as false witness. Mark too is using his sacred book — Einstein’s equations — as false witness to legitimate his eschatology.

Both the sacred book of Mark’s ancestors and Einstein’s equations are definitions that know nothing about the totality. Einstein in a show of deep mysticism claimed to have known the radius of totality by an application of his equations and his disciples continue the tradition.

7. Eschatology is shamanism^

Anybody who claims to know as a revelation from a higher authority — whether that authority is god or equations — is a shaman, a charlatan and a scientific fraud.

Anybody who claims to compute, derive, observe or know through whatever means whatsoever the properties of the totality is a shaman, a charlatan and a scientific fraud.

There is no escaping this fact.

Totality is unknowable and therefore eschatologists cannot have access to a higher authority who knows the properties of totality. It doesn’t matter if they claim god as their higher authority or a language they have invented such as mathematics.

I hope that readers recognize this age old doctoral racket nowadays perpetuated by Doctors of Philosophy the physicists and call their bluff.

8. No known physics can reveal the properties of totality^

What about particle physics that Mark mentions to support his eschatology? He claims to use well-established particle physics boilerplate to reveal the properties of totality. This is a lie too.

Mark is lying again because the first assumptions he made about knowing the volume and density of totality is false.

Immutable fact: Mark knows nothing about totality.

Any and all attempts to associate particle physics with the totality starts and stops at NASA’s white noise map. NASA’s white noise map is not a map of totality.

This is another professional lie.

9. Science does not apply to eschatology^

Here Mark explains to us the scientific method observational eschatologists use to prove their speculations, namely, the Big Bang.

We then extrapolate back in time to infer what the early [totality] must have been like. . . .

Is this a scientific extrapolation or is it a cargo cult extrapolation? How can we tell?

Anyone who deduces from an observation of local galaxies that totality is expanding is a fool and a liar. No matter how much he extrapolates, Mark will never arrive at the early totality.

Again Mark is assuming that he knows the totality.

Mark is assuming that the galaxies that he observed constitutes the totality. This is not true.

10. No passage from local to total except through charlatanism^

So Mark observed a few galaxies for a few years then he concluded that the totality must be expanding.

As a professional eschatologist Mark enjoys 5000 years of accumulated authority of the oldest professional class called the scribes. He gets to fool humanity with this silly putty extrapolation by asserting his eschatological authority that comes with his association with the Scholastic Corporation.

cargo cult physics

Mark’s description of scientific method is really the scientific method of cargo cultists who have taken over the academic physics.

Because he is using the words “extrapolate,” “infer,” “test,” “theory,” “predictions” “observations” Mark pretends that what he is doing is science. This is exactly what cargo cult means.

Using scientific sounding buzzwords to conduct cargo cult activities such as extrapolating from local to total and justifying them by own doctoral authority is practicing cargo cult physics.

11. Eschatologists call their prophesy prediction^

So far Mark claimed that he developed an eschatological speculation called the Big Bang and he offered mathematics as false witness, and now he is saying that he makes predictions about the properties of totality and then verifies that his proposed theory predicts them.

You recognize the same circular reasoning Mark’s ancestors used to prove their definitions with their sacred book.

First of all note that physics is an unregulated professional industry full of crooked professionals. What do crooked professionals do?

They introduce whatever fake ad hoc parameters needed to save their theory. If the Big Bang fails to explain observation X, no problem, here comes the shaman Guth with his inflation and the Big Bang is saved.

This is charlatanism.

But more fundamentally, as we have seen, every assumption made by Mark about totality is faked.

Irreversible fact: Mark does not know the totality but assumes it.

So when Mark says that he is testing his eschatological theory about the totality by observations he is lying. He is just adding new lies to save his old lies.

12. An eschatological speculation cannot be tested^

This methodology . . .

We have shown that his methodology is the cargo cult. Eschatology has never been science and still is not. Science has nothing to say about the origin or end of the totality.

. . . works remarkably well and has provided us with an extremely well tested, self-consistent and coherent understanding of the [totality.]

This is a lie. Mark does not know the totality. He does not have an “extremely well tested, self-consistent and coherent” model of totality.

13. How do eschatologists get away with scientific fraud?^

How can Mark get away by claiming that he modeled the totality while he admits that he does not know the totality? I believe this happens for two reasons.

First, general public wants to believe.

The old brand religions lost their authority on cosmogonic model building. Doctors of Philosophy have taken over this department of the Scholastic Corporation. In the consumer society cosmological theories are commodities packaged as any other consumer item.

new and improved big bang

Every cosmological season a new and improved version of famous brands such as the Big Bang are repackaged with new labels: “NEW! 10% MORE ABSURD!” “COOL OR HOT! NEW BIG BANG! BELIEVE NOW!” “EXPERIMENTALLY PROVEN: 9 OUT OF 10 PHYSICISTS RECOMMEND BIG BANG TO SAVE YOUR SOUL!”

military-state-media complex

And second, as I mentioned above, Mark is in the payroll of the Scholastic Corporation who does its business with the military-state-media complex. This association gives Mark an unrivaled authority to cosmologize.

No other professional class, not even lawyers, can challenge Mark’s professional lies. The fact that all professional eschatologists repeat the same lies does not make their lies truth.

Physicists who practice eschatology are the judge and the jury. In other words, physics is pre-scientific cargo cult.

Is physics physics and not physics at the same time?

After I wrote this post I read in Wikipedia that there is a type of logic that allows A to be both A and not A.

As a fellow Ionian, Heraclitus was certainly familiar with the preceding substance solution of the Milesian school to the problem of change. The problem only exists under the law of identity, one formulation of which is the law of excluded middle. The classical formulation of that law had to wait for Aristotle but it was nevertheless known and operant in pre-socratic philosophy.

In the fragment above Heraclitus is proposing that another law also is in effect. The law of identity states that an identity, say A, is identical to itself, is not non-A, and is not both A and non-A. Heraclitus affirms the middle in the passage above, that the A is both A and not-A. As far as the assertion is true, the change problem disappears and does not need a solution.

If physics allows the Heraclitean logic this should be stated explicitly. Once physicists admit the fact that physics is not bound by Aristotelian logic but allows all possible types of logic including the absurd their job would be easier.

They would know that, by definition, any physical quantity P is both P and not-P. Today, physicists work hard to arrive at this conclusion.

Once they recognize that physics has its own legal logic physicists wouldn’t need to think hard, or prove experimentally, that charge is not charge and field is not field and force is not force and mass is not mass and so on.

If physics denies

1) the law of the excluded middle
2) the law of noncontradiction
3) the law of identity

and currently this is the case, physicists must also admit that physics is not mathematical or logical but it is legal. Only in legal systems of thought these three laws of logic are overruled by what is legal and by precedent. In physics the law of precedence is sacred and it overrules the three laws of logic, mathematics, grammar and also experiments.

In other words, physics is phenomenology. Or mechanics. And there is nothing wrong with that. Physics works because physicists fit observations into a symbolic framework while respecting absolutely existing physics and precedent.

This process is independent of logic systems. It is only bound by the consistent unit system of physics and the sanctity of precedence. Observations are fit into existing physics and once the system is working it becomes a mechanics. Standard model is such a mechanics.

What turns academic physics into cargo cult is physicists’ insistence that nature is physical and that they are discovering underlying physical laws of nature by using rigorous mathematical techniques. Nature is physical by semantics only.

Lubos Motl defines the word universe

In this post Lubos Motl is reviewing a TV show called Parallel Universes. Before looking at his post let me say that

  • Cosmology is one of the major scientific frauds perpetrated by physicists.
  • Cosmology is based on the universe-cosmos-totality pun.

Lubos Motl too uses this pun effectively in his review. Motl explains that

the idea of the program is that the newest results in science indicate that our Universe is probably much larger than we thought.

This is a good example of paronomastic reasoning, the official logic of physics. Let’s write Motl’s statement by making his hidden assumptions explicit:

the idea of the program is that the newest definitions in cargo cult physics indicate that our totality is probably much larger than we the physicists have previously told you. . .

Let’s try to decipher item by item.

. . . newest results in science . . .

Whenever a physicist wants to give some legitimacy to absurd physics speculations he will resort to science-physics pun and will write science when he means physics.

Science does not indicate parallel universes. Parallel universes is an indication of cargo cult physics. As defined by Motl below parallel universes is nothing more than a pun invented by careerist bureaucrats ignorant of grammar.

Universe in the sense of totality is uncountable and does not have a plural. Making an uncountable word countable is doublespeak. To claim that a doublespeak is science is charlatanism and fraud.

. . . our Universe. . .

What does Motl mean by capitalizing the word universe as Universe? He wants to imply that he means the totality. And not totality. He is exploiting standard cosmological doublespeak by loading the word universe.

And what does our universe mean? Is there our universe and their universe? No. There is observable universe and there is totality. And there is the modeled universe, called cosmos. And there is the implicit fusedword

universecosmostotality

invented by physicists which means universe, cosmos and totality as the case may be as needed.

When a physicist writes “universe” he means universecosmostotality.

. . . is probably much larger than we thought . . .

We here means we the physicists. So Motl is saying in effect

we the physicists are provincial academic bureaucrats and we used to think naively that the observable universe was the totality and then we thought maybe not because there are parts of totality that we will never know.

Indeed even physicists finally admit that there are regions of totality that they do not know and they will never know.

  • Lubos Motl knows that he does not know the totality.

If there are regions of the universe that physicists do not know and will never know then physicists cannot model totality in its totality. This is true by definition.

Scientific cosmological principle

By their admission physicists do not know the totality. Therefore, by definition, physicists cannot model totality in its totality.

Whenever physicists assume totality they reduce themselves to con men.

But if physicists heeded and respected the scientific cosmological principle they would not be able to produce cosmogonic mythology. This would be the end of cosmology. That’s why scientists are not cosmologists and cosmologists are not scientists.

Scientists are honest amateurs. Cosmologists are cargo cultist professional shamans in the payroll of unhuman organisms who claim to know what they do not know.

And how do they claim to know what they do not know? By using universe-cosmos-totality pun.

. . . The universe can contain many regions that are not smoothly connected to ours.

Of course. Depending on the definition of universe and smoothly connected that Motl wishes to choose at this moment this will be the case. Or not. This statement is as trivial as a Babylonian astronomer might have uttered as he looked at the sky: “There might be many regions of the Universe that look like Babylon.” Cosmology as shamanism did not progress much since then.

As usual physicists are exploiting a pun of their own invention and claiming that their pun is really not a pun but a technical term.

This is what Lubos Motl claims when he defines parallel universes for us.

He asks:

What do these parallel universes mean?

And explains:

Parallel universes is a term that seems to be exciting for a certain large group of the laymen (and filmmakers) although it creates almost no excitement among most professional physicists. The phrase has been given at least three vastly different meanings. . .

Are you surprised that physicists corrupted the meaning of parallel universes by defining it at least three times with “vastly” different meanings? Therefore, in physics parallel universes is a pun.

Parallel universes means whatever a physicist wants it to mean that day of the week. Therefore, it is yet another physical paronomasia proudly exploited by physicists as if it were a technical term.

Therefore, physicists themselves, not the filmmakers and laymen are guilty of semantic terrorism.

  • Physicists are the semantic terrorists not us.

These are the three definitions of parallel universes according to Motl, and of course, his definitions are made possible by universe-cosmos-totality pun:

1. different histories that could occur in quantum mechanics interpreted with the many-world interpretation.

Quantum mechanics itself is the theory of the infinite interpretations. To define parallel universes in terms of many-worlds interpretation of QM is stupid and meaningless.

2. different stringy vacua that may or may not be connected with ours by bubble nucleation within eternal inflation.

This is a fraudulent statement. Motl is assuming the totality again. Remember physicists do not know the totality. Anything physicists say about the totality is a lie. Calling universe vacuum does not change this fact. It means that Motl is using universe-cosmos-totality-vacuum pun and pretending that he is saying something technical that we do not understand. There is nothing technical in a boilerplate pun invented by physicists. A pun is a pun.

3. different branes that may be parallel to ours, Standard Model brane in our world if it is a braneworld.

Again if this does not refer to totality, it is trivial. If it refers to totality then it is fraud.

Then Motl declares that

professionals would never confuse these three definitions but the laymen and filmmakers often do.

But professionals will, without exception, conflate those three definitions to confuse themselves and the laymen and the filmmakers.

This is not about science

This is about physicists’ attempt to protect their monopoly on human reason. Physicists will challenge anyone who meddles in their proprietary definitions in order to assert their doctoral authority. 

Physicists enjoy a traditional right to define new languages and corrupt existing languages to perpetuate their ideology. They are the corrupt professionals to whom theoretical knowledge of humanity has been entrusted.

Physicists corrupted the word universe beyond recognition into meaninglessness by making it a hidden pun and they exploit this hidden pun for professional gain.

What professionals will never understand — and don’t want us to understand — is that they are corrupt professionals, like any other professional class — more corrupt than lawyers and bankers — and they will never understand that what they are doing is using universe-cosmos-totality pun to create cosmogonic mythology.

Any slogan and boilerplate repeated by physicists must be assumed to be a lie until proven otherwise.

Physicists and cosmologists are either stupid or frauds. They are not stupid therefore they are frauds.

Cargo cult physics 1

In 1974, eminent Caltech physicist Richard Feynman determined that physics was infected with an acute case of cargo cult.

My analysis of physics shows that cargo cultists have taken over academic physics and legalized their cargo cult rituals as true physics.

I will be writing a series of articles on the relationship of physics with the cargo cult. I’ll consider these five questions:

  1. What are the physics rituals identified as cargo cult by Feynman in his original speech?
  2. What are cargo cult indications in physics today?
  3. What is the scientific definition of cargo cult physics?
  4. Historical origins of cargo cult in physics
  5. Is cargo cult good for physics?

Precession inducing forces

In the 21st century post-Newtonian force-free era this physicist, Lorenzo Iorio, is still talking about “forces inducing” precession:

Concerning the forces able to induce a negative perihelion precession, the Newtonian N-body interactions with the major planets yield the largest retrograde effect; since it is mainly due to the Jupiter, the uncertainty in its mass might, in principle, induce a mismodelled precession able to accommodate eq. 1.

And he doesn’t mean a metaphorical inducement.

No, Iorio believes that the Newtonian force is inducing physical precession, not metaphorical precession. According to Iorio, Newton’s occult force acts instantaneously and sets Saturn’s perihelion physically in motion from a distance.

Newton’s force has been deprecated nominally but by tradition it is still legal physics ideology so Iorio can use it with confidence.

  • The observational database does not know the Newtonian force because data is reduced without any force term.

Data is reduced using force-agnostic numerical integration. Newtonian force is not used in the reduction of data but it magically appears in the explanation proving that in physics ideology overrules experiment.

We observe here how cargo cult physics is done.

Newton’s sacred authority is assumed without question and it is associated with the observations through polemics applied with the authority of the physicist.

Observations say that orbits are independent of force because no force is used in reducing the data.

Physicist says that observations are wrong. Orbits must be forceful because Newton said so.

Dear reader, what do you think?

Do you think physics will collapse if physicists see the light and start calling Kepler’s rule Kepler’s rule?