Densytics and physics

Can densytics explain all phenomena that physics tries to explain?

What are the phenomena that physics tries to explain?

- How many angels were dancing on a God particle three seconds before God created the universe by dividing infinity by zero?

- What is god thinking at a given moment stated mathematically with group theory, category theory and symmetry breaking in infinite dimensional string theory?

Densytics cannot explain these religious ruminations favored by the standing army of doctors of philosophy doing business as physicists but we can explain with densytics

- orbital motion.

Physics cannot explain orbital motion except as forceful and dynamical fantasy invented by Newton.

Einstein: the original con man of cosmology

Antimatter discovered computational errors in a little-known paper by Einstein that “offers a lot of interesting insights into his thoughts on the first tentative evidence for an expanding universe. The error is found in the calculations where Einstein “estimates values for the radius of the universe and the density of matter using Hubble’s results”.

* * *

There is nothing out of the ordinary if someone makes mistakes in his calculations, especially in those days when all computations were done by hand. Only if you deify a person you would be surprised to find out that they too made mistakes in their calculations. This is the case with Einstein. Physicists, in collaboration with the media, turned Einstein into a deity and then they started to believe their own propaganda. Now they think it is a big discovery to find out that the physics deity they created made mistakes too. Einstein’s disciples do not realize that Einstein was able to make his discoveries because he was not afraid of making mistakes. And he made lots of them. There is a book by Hans Ohanian called Einstein’s mistakes: The human failings of genius.

Why physicists care so much about mistakes and consider them “human failings” instead of viewing making mistakes as an important component of research process? That should be a question to investigate in another post.

* * *

In Einstein’s case, the “numerical error in the computation of the radius of the universe” based on Hubble’s observations is trivial compared to the logical error in his basic reasoning.

In my opinion, the importance of Antimatter’s pending paper is to reveal to the world that Einstein is the source of the fundamental equivocation of cosmology, that is, the equivocation of the universe with universe-as-a-whole.

Einstein-the-cosmologist makes the most elementary statistical mistake of extrapolating to the unknown whole from a non-representative sample. Einstein extrapolates from observations of 50 galaxies to unknown number of galaxies in the universe-as-a-whole. His sample is not representative. Einstein’s computations are based on the equivocation of ‘universe’ and ‘universe-as-a-whole’ and therefore they are worthless.

* * *

If a pollster claims to predict election results by polling only 1 (one) person would you consider that a scientific prediction? I am sure that you would at least ask this lazy pollster “What election?”, “How many voters are there?”, “What is the population of voters?”. The sample of an unknown population cannot be a representative sample. This is true for elections as well as for astronomy.

In Einstein’s case, the total number of galaxies are unknown. How can Einstein extrapolate from 50 measurements to the unknown whole? Even a deity cannot do this, only a charlatan can.  It’s hard to believe that a genius like Einstein who could calculate the radius of everything that exists in a short paper, did not notice that it is absurd to extrapolate from a few astronomical observations to the cosmological whole. Einstein must be credited as the father of the modern cosmological con.

A cosmologist plays poker scientifically

I was suprised to read that Sean Carrol, one of the con men of cosmology, has the ability to recognize a faulty extrapolation based on a small and unrepresentative sample. He is writing about a study to decide wether poker is more about skill or chance:

In the case of this new study, the methodology is pretty crappy. Most obviously, the sample size is laughably small. Each player played only sixty hands; that’s about two hours at a cardroom table, or maybe fifteen minutes or less at a fast online site. And any poker player knows that the variance in the game is quite large, even for the best players; true skill doesn’t show up until a much longer run than that.

When he is doing cosmology Sean Carroll suspends all rules of logic and extrapolates linearly from 50 years of observations to 30,000,000 years. The question I want to ask is this: If Sean Carroll has the logical ability to recognize that the sample size in the poker study where each player played only 60 hands constitutes a “laughably small” sample, how come he loses all powers of reasoning when it comes to extrapolating linearly from 50 years to 30,000,000 years to prove the Big Bang?

When it comes to his own work Sean Carroll wants us to suspend all disbelief and believe his reckless and laughable extrapolation without question.

Why is it that Sean Carroll does not see that in his Big Bang extrapolation the sample size is laughably small? Is it because he is a Big Bang Bigot?

Saul Perlmutter: You are a charlatan

Saul Perlmutter

Look at this paper by Saul Perlmutter and Co.: Cosmology from Type Ia Supernova.

The paper looks so scientific; it is full of charts and measurements. I have no doubt that all those astronomical measurements are impeccable measurements.

Where is the charlatanism? Charlatanism is in the projection of local to total.

Based on observations of a set of 40 supernovas, Perlmutter concludes that the universe is expanding forever.

Perlmutter projects his few local observations to the total universe. Perlmutter measures 40 astronomical objects and concludes that the universe as a whole is expanding.

Does Perlmutter know the universe as a whole? No.

The 40 objects are not a representative sample of the objects in the universe. Perlmutter does not know the number of objects in the universe. This is a fact that even Perlmutter himself admits. All astronomers admit that they do not know the totality of the universe because they know that there is a part of the universe from where no light reaches the Earth.

It is a scientific fact that astronomers do not know the totality of the universe. Any astronomer who claims to know the totality while also admitting that he does not know the totality is a charlatan and a fraud.


Suppose you are running in the presidential elections and you want to know what percentage of woman voters will vote for you and you hire Perlmutter as your pollster. Using the same sampling method he uses in his astronomical work, Perlmutter polls the first woman who comes nearest to him and after polling one sample, Perlmutter reports his result to you as a generalization to the entire female voters.

Will you pay this charlatan who bases his report on a poll of one voter?

But taking one sample of a known population is lesser charlatanism than taking 40 samples of an unknown population as representative.

Claiming knowledge of the unknown whole from a non-representative sample is charlatanism. Perlmutter knows that his local sample is not representative of totality. Therefore, Perlmutter not only is a chlarlatan but he is also a scientific fraud. His glossy astronomical charts have no cosmological value.

We must expose Perlmutter and his ilk as charlatans and scientific frauds who try to establish observational basis for their creation myths.

The New Revolution: A Scopes Trial Against Newtonism

I am planning to stage a Scopes-type trial against Newtonism which is taught in public schools in the United States as science under the name of “physics”.

The goal of the trial is to

  1. expose Newtonism as a British cult that impersonates science;
  2. remove Newtonism from the curriculum.

The first order of business is to find a trial lawyer who would take an interest in this case. (Or alternatively, to find supporters who would fund the project, including hiring a lawyer.)

This lawyer will

– translate the claim that Newtonism is a cult into the legal language understood by the US legal system;

– help choose the venue, the plaintiff and the defendant;

– help develop the marketing strategy;

– file the case with the court and see it through.


The following are my own thoughts as a layman about how such a trial may progress and why as an individual we must all take part in questioning Newtonism as a patriotic duty to our nation.


I have no experience with jury trials but I believe that in the US-type jury trials, the judge presiding over the case is responsible to apply the law and the jury is responsible to find the facts and discharge a decision.

I assume that in a case like this where the plaintiff claims that the defendent has been indoctrinating US pupils with unverified and unverifiable occult doctrines of a British cult; the judge will ask the parties to call expert witnesses to present their case to the jury.


The plaintiff claims that the fundamental doctrine of what is taught as physics in public schools is based on the religious doctrines of a British cult whose founder was a British subject called Isaac Newton.

The defendent rejects the plaintiff’s representation of physics as a British cult and conflates technology, engineering and practical astronomy with occult foundations of physics and claims that all of science is nothing but physics and the defendent is justified to teach physics as science in the United States. The defendent insists that the teachers of physics are licensed by the state to teach physics and no laws are broken by teaching physics.


I am not sure where the burden of proof lies in this case; but it appears that the plaintiff has the burden of proof and must prove that Newtonism doing business as physics is a British cult that crossed the Atlantic somehow and infected the scientific institutions of the new nation from the beginning. The Founding Fathers denied the authority of the tax-imposing British King; but they were fooled into accepting The System of the World of the British King of the Occult as the true science of the nation they formed.


In any case, it is obvious that the defendent will call an eminent professor of physics practicing in a brand-name “prestigious” university famous for its football team so that such a high-learning center will be recognizable to the jury as the cradle of science in the United States.

To the jury, the famous professor in the witness stand will appear to be the personification of science in the United States. In reality, such universities are the academic breeding grounds of Newtonism; universities endow the cult of Newtonism with its academic authority. There is perfect synergy between Big Education, Big Physics, Big Media, Big Finance and Big Government; they are the conspiracy against the little man.


Calling a professor of physics to defend physics in a trial against physics is like calling the Pope as an expert witness in the trial of Galileo. In fact, the proposed trial can be marketed as the “Revenge of Galileo”.

Would the judge allow such a biased witness to testify against the claim that physics is a cult?

Questions like this may best be answered by a trial lawyer (or tested by the actual trial).


And what kind of standard of evidence will the court enforce on the parties to prove their case?

Physics has no standard of evidence; in academic physics anything goes. Physics is an unregulated and corrupt-to-the-core professional industry where the practitioners have absolute authority over their professional legal code which they call –surprise! surprise!– “Newton’s Laws”.

Physicists can disprove any attack against their Newtonian doctrine by defining a new term and by inserting it into the existing legal physics equations. The physics equation which is sanctified by physicists as the only true representation of nature is in fact the most crooked timber in the collection of physical crooked timber called physics.


So, let’s get the trial going and let’s say Doctor A is a physicist called in to testify as an expert witness. Doctor A takes the stand and easily proves to the jury by using legal physics equations that Newton’s force is an experimentally proved fact of Nature; this is a well-known textbook fact, Doctor A says, and it is taught even in grade school (physicists are fond of circular reasoning). “Yes, Newtons force exists in nature” Doctor A testifies.

Next in the witness stand is another physicist, Doctor B, who has comparable rank and seniority and therefore the same level of academic authority as Doctor A. But Doctor B is hired by the plaintiff and has no difficulty proving by using equally legal and well-established physics equations that Newton’s force does not exist in nature; Newton’s force has long been superseeded by spacetime, Doctor B proves; or quantum gravity; or graviton or something or other; or all of the above. Doctor B testifies for the record that “No, Newton’s force does not exist in nature.”

To settle the issue the court calls its own witness, Doctor of physics C, who is yet another authority in matters of physics and equally endowed with academic credentials as Doctors A and B. Doctor C proves to the jury with unequivally certain physics equations that “there are no forces in nature because according to the M-Theory [sic] nature is made of strings”. This opens the can of worms called the String Theory on which no two physicists are in agreement; there is even a faction within the string theory community proving mathematically that the string theory is a special case of Newton’s Laws!


The judge is getting impatient now and he calls the great Doctor D who is a professor emeritus of physics at the University of Chicago; if Doctor D is not (yet) a Nobel laureate, it is not for his lack of lobbying the Swedish Academy through his agent who handles the contracts for his popular physics books written for the laymen; Doctor D is a living legend in physics establishment and has academic credentials dwarfing the credentials of Doctors A, B and C combined.

The eminent Doctor D wastes no time to impress the jury by filling the chalkboard installed in the courthouse just for this historic moment with precise physical equations revealing what the Lord God was having for breakfast 3 minutes before the Big Bang (2 eggs, hard boiled, with bacon and toast and orange juice). The great Doctor D then computes the density of an egg before the Big Bang and how long it took to hard boil an egg before the Big Bang, all in the plain language that the jury could understand.

The jury is awed by Doctor D’s magical talent not only to read the mind of god but his revelation of God’s culinary habits as far back as before the Big Bang just by writing a couple of physical equations on a blackboard.

The plaintiff counsel observes the excitement Doctor D’s revelations caused on the jury and considers this to be the breaking point of the case against his client’s claim that physics is a shamanistic personality cult where practitioners achieve impossible feasts by just rearranging some symbols in an equation; so he immediately objects:

Objection your honor! Doctor D has his signs mixed up! According to the Kerr Spacetime metric that he is using to extrapolate to the Big Bang his cosmological constant lambda must have a negative sign in front of it, otherwise it will lead to the Big Crunch not to the Big Bang; I have Doctor D’s monumental textbook Introduction to General Relativity in front of me; and I can prove that he is wrong. I am looking at page 2895 paragraph 705(a)(i)(A)(x) and equation number 2,987,551 where Doctor D writes this exact same equation he just wrote on the blackboard but with a positive sign in front of it! He is confusing Big Bang with the Big Crunch.

The great Doctor of physics D, is used to such amateurish objections to his physical authority and calmly instructs the jury that he is using a “pseudo-Kerr spacetime, not a regular Kerr-spacetime” as the plaintiff counsel claims and that his paper revealing the correspondence of pseudo and regular Kerr spacetimes will appear in the next issue of Physical Review Letters D; so his results are correct.

Plaintiff counsel tries again: “Objection! He just made pseudo-Kerr stuff up!”

“Overruled”, says the judge, who has no intention of going into the subtleties of a theory that requires over 3 million equations to calculate… what? Not sure, but it is not worth meddling with a physics professor who has the authority to define on the spot any pseudo anything to counter your argument. If you argue the letter of the law the eminent prof will argue the spirit; if you argue the spirit he will argue the letter; and given his immense authority supported by his fame gained through his popular books making loads of money for the publisher, he will win any physical argument.

The jury is in a scientific (physical?) trance induced by the academic authority of Doctor D who brings first hand news to the jury from the Bing Bang and their Lord God; the jury starts to applaud Doctor D’s great achievement; the judge is not amused and orders the jury to show no outside sign of emotion favoring one side or the other.


The physical authority of Doctor D and the magic of his physical equations succeeds in swaying the jury to a decision in favor of the defendant.


But the veteran judge who is presidening over our trial is used to the courthouse showmanship performed by trial lawyers more colorful than Doctor D and he is not fooled by Doctor D’s performance to demonstrate the authority of physics over the Lord God. On the contrary, the judge now realizes that the doctors of physics who came to his court as expert witnesses make it clear that physicists are expert in one thing and one thing only:

Physicists are experts in corrupting the ancient science of physics to save the authority of their master Newton.

The judge is fed up with these professional enemies of science and decides to enforce new rules of standard of evidence to be obeyed by everyone who takes the stand in his court.

After all, what kind of standard of evidence exists in physics that allows the revelation of what our Lord God was eating before he created the Big Bang that modern physicists discovered by reading the mind of God? Nil. There exists no such standard of evidence; in physics anything goes.


Would an academic physicist accept the authority of a legal court in matters of legal physics? Would a judge have the courage to impose legal standards of evidence on corrupt physicists who believe that they are the judge and the jury when it comes to matters of physics?

These are the questions that this case is aiming to test.


I realize that teaching Newtonism as true science is a well-established habit of society; social habits are very difficult to change; in this case it may take over a decade to expose Newtonism as a British cult colonizing US minds.

Consider your own immediate reaction when you read the claim that Newtonism is a British cult designed to colonize the minds of US citizens.

You instinctively thought

What nonsense! If Newtonism were wrong satellites would fall to earth; chaos would reign in the solar system; the cosmos as we know it would cease to exist; academic physics would collapse under its own weight as Peripatetic philosphy did; observations prove that Newton is nature and nature is physical therefore how can physics be wrong? This guy is wasting his time taking Newtonism to court; it is impossible to prove Newtonism wrong; Newton’s authority is infinite; Newton is the mortal closest to gods etc., etc.


But when you cool down, and reconsider your reaction as described in the above paragraph you will see that your reaction is not based on any scientific evidence that you systematically evaluated by using your own reasoning powers; no! you are just channelling the authority of Newtonian priests who indoctrinated you with the doctrine that Newton is a British demi-god who discovered the laws of nature in an orchard.

When you first heard the apple myth as applied to Newton, you were in grade school and you assumed that since it was such a well-known myth that explained both the ultimate human sin and the ultimate human discovery it must be correct; at the time you did not have the intellectual capacity to question the Newtonian cult and its myths; but now you can and you must question the doctrines of the Newtonian cult.


You might for instance start by questioning Newton’s Zeroth Law:

God in the beginning formed matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable movable particles.

then you may concede that you did not read and understand Newton’s original writings; you did not study the original writings of Newton’s famous disciples such as Cavendish, Lagrange, Laplace, Gauss, Hamilton and many others who successfully branded Kepler’s Rule as Newtonian mechanics over the course of two centuries after Newton founded his cult.

But worst, you may have taken a few physics course during your university adventure and still failed to figure out that the teachers who teach physics are Newtonian priests; this is how stealth Newtonian cult is at this point.


You can offer no evidence for your defense of Newtonism except the authority of Newtonian priests who wrote all the books that you may have read to form your opinion of the Newtonian cult.

If you take the time to study some fundamental physics experiments you will see that the same most respected Newtonian priests have been faking experiments to prove that Newton’s occult force exists in nature (occult force does not exist in nature); and faking physics equations to prove that orbits obey Newton’s laws (orbits do not obey Newton’s laws).


There is nothing new about the realization that the state teaches you and everyone else sanctified conventions as the only truth. Newtonism is one of many such sanctified conventions taught by the state.

The state knows nothing about Newtonism. The state outsources academic knowledge to the Doctors of Philosophy, also known as physicists, and they teach the cult of Newtonism as true science.


This is the standard method used by the state to teach citizens its own legal values. The state indoctrinates its citizens with its official doctrines presented to the citizens as the only truth. We all know this.

Another example of sanctified convention taught by the state as the only truth is the base-10 number system. The state teaches the base-10 number system as if it were the only true number system. Think about the moment when you realized that other number systems such as binary and hexadecimal systems were equally valid number systems and none of them were privileged or sacred.

Why was it that when the state taught you the base-10 system it was not made clear to you that base-10 system was just one of infinitely many number systems possible? The reason is that the state, more specifically its agents, the teachers, do not want you to know that there alternatives to what they are teaching and then question their authority.

The state, and its agents the physicists, do not want you think for yourself and find out that Newtonism is a cult.

Were you excited to learn that there were non-Euclidean geometries? Why was it that teachers taught Euclidean geometry as the true geometry for thousands of years?


The realization that Newtonism is a sanctified unit system served to you as the only true “system of the world” is the same kind of wonderful realization that will open up new intellecutal horizons for you.


We must expose and get rid of this last remnant of the British colonialism in the United States.


Notes for the curious:

  • Physical semantics: Physicists corrupted the good word “physical” to map any natural word into physics. The result is that whenever we use the word “physical” we are proving Newtonism as the only truth.
  • Five ideological physics experiments physicists corrupted to save their Master Newton’s sacred authority. It is a disgrace to call these polemics with a gadget “experiments.”

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.