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.

Example:

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.

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.

Cosmic variance at Discover

Cosmic Variance blog has become a part of Discover magazine. The user Zeynel was banned in the original Cosmic Variance but my first couple of comments went through on the new blog. Not for long though. After I posted these two comments Zeynel is censured again:

Sean Carroll wrote:
“But when you start digging into the details of the documentary hypothesis, demonstrating that the Bible is just like any other collection of essays, culled from disparate sources with incompatible agendas and stitched together by more or less conscientious editors — human, all too human, in other words — it really hits home.”

Yes. Moreover, Bible, which literally means the Book, as you know, was the first book which became The Book. The book was as great a technological advance from scrolls as the printing press was in later times. And Paul’s was the first successful book tour. I think the bible and people who wrote and packaged it deserve credit for such an incredible marketing campaign. They could have taught Procter&Gamble a few things.

QWerner Says:

“nuclear energie is on of the worst thing the humans did.”

Isn’t this an unjustified generalization? It was not humanity who created nuclear energy and nuclear weapons but professional physicists.

I don’t understand why these comments touch a nerve in Cosmic Variance.

This is the comment that I tried to post today which was censured. The post was yet another one where Sean Carroll asserts that

Evidence for the big bang is overwhelming.

It is a model that keeps making predictions, which keep turning out to be correct, while the steady state made many predictions that turned out to be wrong.

My comment:

There is zero evidence for big bang if big bang is stated as a property of totality. All evidence for big bang is a fit to CMBR. But CMBR is a local radiation. Cosmologists must assume that CMBR is cosmic not because its marketing name includes the word cosmic but it relates to totality. How do they do that? They assume that local is total. Hubble’s observations of local galaxies represent the totality. This is not justified because it includes a knowledge of totality.

All evidence offerred in support of big bang is based on the pun universe-cosmos-totality and on the implicit cosmological principle which says that local is total.

There is no doubt that Big Bang has replaced Chistian cosmogony as the new official cosmogonic mythology of humanity. Physicists are selling a cosmic mythology as experimentally verified scientific model.

NASA makes every year more discoveries than Europeans could not make in 2000 years

In this article Lubos Motl talks about Sean Carroll’s Dark Photon paper that I wrote about yesterday. He too remarks that there is nothing new or ingenious in proposing dark species of existing light physical quantities. But I cannot agree with Motl’s first sentence:

Everyone knows that the media help to ruin the quality control in climate science — a discipline that has become extremely politicized. But we can see that glimpses of such dynamics can also be found in disciplines that have not been politicized — cosmology and theoretical physics.

How can a physicist be blind to the fact that cosmology and theoretical physics are so political that you cannot separate political content from scientific content? Big Bang is nothing more than a state-sponsored cosmogonic mythology. Political rulers have always used cosmogonic mythologies to control the ruled. This is still the case.

Global unhuman organisms who own physics and pay for physics research have been very successful in marketing physics as an independent scientific endeavor striving for the well-being of humanity. This is the reason why Lubos Motl is unable to perceive that physics is in the service of political rulers.

One consequence of this is that a theory such as the General Relativity is not a scientific theory. Not anymore. General Relativity is owned by the global Organism who uses it for its marketing purposes. Any change in General Relativity must be paid for and approved by the Organism. Physicists can do nothing but repeat what is legal. This is not science. And academic physicists are fooling themselves and us if they believe that they are discovering fundamental properties of nature to do humanity a favor.

  • Should physics be freed from the domination of unhuman organisms?
  • Can physics be called an independent science as long as theoretical physicists are paid by unhuman organisms to do either military research or to develop mythological scenarios that unhuman organisms use as scientific cover for military research.

There is a dilemma here.

NASA makes every year more discoveries than Europeans could not make in 2000 years. This is an incredible acceleration in the rate of discovery. The success of NASA is the definitive proof that scholasticism invented by Europeans is the true enemy of knowledge. Physics is still controlled by scholastic Doctors of Philosophy — dogmatic and absolutist academic careerist bureaucrats who call themselves theoretical physicists — not by engineers. Doctors of physics are the reason why physics remains a pre-scientific cargo cult.

If Alexander the Great founded NASA instead of bankrolling major temples in Didyma and Priene, among many others, he would have been truer to the scientific vision of his teacher Aristotle. And Alexander was proud of his scientific curiosity and made sure to send Aristotle interesting artifacts from his travels in exotic places. And there is no reason why Alexander could not have founded an organization with the same mission as NASA, that is,

to advance and communicate scientific knowledge and understanding of the earth, the solar system, and the universe.

Maybe first he had to found the US and then Russia to instigate space exploration in the US, but that would have come naturally to him. All the ingredients for space exploration existed on earth then as well as now.

Imagine the state of knowledge today if NASA had 2000 years head start.

By eliminating the domination of modern scholastic doctors of philosophy the physicists on human knowledge and by establishing a truly scientific physics organization not controlled by political rulers and their servants the Newtonian doctors of philosophy we can give future generations a head start.

So what do you think? Is it OK that scientific research is paid for and controlled by political powers? Is this a small price to pay to allow NASA to continue discovering the universe?