Con men of cosmology

Big bang and beyond:

The Big Bang and Beyond program is designed to explore forefront issues concerning the events surrounding the big bang and how they relate to both cosmological observations and particle accelerator experiments.

Characteristic presentation:

“Eternal Inflation”: Examining the properties, advantages and pitfalls of eternal inflation. Speaker: Alan Guth

cosmology is academic charlatanism

How long can Dr. Guth milk inflation? Eternally. In the unregulated industry of academic physics charlatanism is legal.

why are cosmologists charlatans

It is charlatanism to assume that the observed universe is the totality. The fact that cosmologists do not know the totality comes before all other hidden assumptions that cosmologists make to hide the fact that they are assuming the totality.

know what you do not know

Anyone who claims to know what he does not know and proves what he does not know with authority symbols is a charlatan.

A scientist admits what he does not know instead of proving what he does not know by his authority.

state mythology

Big Bang is the state-sponsored cosmogonic mythology that states use to extract more money from tax paying consumers. Dr. Guths of the world are the charlatans who design and package this mythology for the consumption of the consumers.

old and new cosmologists

Dear reader, if I were to call the European cosmologists of the medieval times charlatans you would have agreed. They were doctors of philosophy laundering church theology into mythology sold as scientific knowledge.

cosmologists still do not know the totality

Medieval cosmologists did not know the totality. They lied and said that they knew the totality and justified their lies by showing their proprietary language as evidence. They were obfuscators and liars in the service of the church.

nothing changed

Nothing changed since then. Professional doctors of today still do not know the totality. Doctors of philosophy are still in the service of giant unhuman organisms.

doctors are still in the laundry business

Today professional doctors of philosophy launder state ideology into cosmogonic mythology sold to you and me as scientific knowledge.

if medieval doctors were charlatans . . .

Why is it that medieval doctors are recognized as charlatans but today’s professional doctors are not?

cosmology the oldest con

Anyone who claims to know what he does not know is a charlatan. A charlatan or a shaman will always offer authoritative evidence that only he can corroborate by his authority as proof that he has privileged knowledge of what he does not know.

scholastic racket works

Scholastic racket is the longest running con perpetuated by doctors of philosophy. We know how the financial professionals run their con to profit themselves. The financial con becomes visible to everyone when their pyramid scheme collapses. Why don’t people see that cosmology is a similar pyramid scheme run by another type of professionals?

academic con men

It’s about time to call the bluff of doctors of philosophy and identify them as con men in the service of unhuman organism.

scientific evaluation of cosmology

So, I am wondering, can the same bankers who sponsored Big Bang and beyond conference, D.E. Shaw & Co., whose founder is an active scientist sponsor research to investigate whether cosmology is science or charlatanism?

World categories

Curiously enough, in cosmology cosmos is not a well defined word. Cosmologists study cosmos but they confuse themselves by calling their subject variously the universe, the universe as a whole, cosmos, the world, nature, space, spacetime, large scale, FLRW, Einstein-deSitter, multiverse and so on . . . In cosmology reified mathematical frameworks are fused with models confused with the modelled. To help clarify categories for possible worlds I suggest the following list:

Sympan = totality
Cosmos = the modelled world
Ecumene = known world, observable world
Universe = fusion of sympan, cosmos and ecumene (use it when you don’t know what you are talking about).
Ta hola = the whole enchilada, including, but not limited to, the physical world, the worlds of organisma, ideas, metaphors, analogies and appearances, that is, ta hola, the whole enchilada.

No one knows what ta hola is. Imagine writing down everything you do. Soon you would be doing nothing but writing, writing, writing . . . Trying to model ta hola is as foolish. Ta hola has infinity of appearances and none is the appearance of ta hola. Measurement creates ta hola. Esse est percipi.

Semantics sharks of cosmos

In physics today cosmos is used as a synonym for universe and totality. So, both universe and cosmos are used as semantic illusions for totality. In a sentence like the one below we can see how physicists use this pun as an Implicit Cosmological Principle to make the unjustified assumption that local is total:

What the universe would look like if rotational invariance were violated during inflation — if there were a preferred direction in space, which left some imprint on the cosmological perturbations that currently show up as large-scale structure and temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background.

Here’s a list I’ve made to expose the pun layers in this sentence. There are two fundamental puns: cosmos-universe-totality and model-modelled.

1. [T-0] = [totality]
2. [U-1] = [universe]  = [T-0]
3. [U-2] = [universe]  = [T-0] - [X-0]
4. [U-3] = [universe]  = [T-0] = [T-0] - [X-0]
5. [C-1] = [cosmos]    = [T-0] = [U-2] = [U-3]
6. [S-1] = [space]     = [T-0] = [U-2] = [U-3]
7. [S-1] = [structure] = [T-0] = [U-2] = [U-3]
8. [C-R] = [CMBR]      = [T-0] = [U-2] = [U-3]

Despite all these puns — 18 out of 44 words are punny — there are only two, and only two distinct quantities here, model and modeled.

Numbers 1. to 7. are model and modeled. Number 8 is the CMBR and it’s model and modelled combined into one as an observed white noise.

Let’s simplify the list:

1. [T-0]
2. [U-1] = [T-0]
3. [U-2] = [T-0] - [X-0]
4. [U-3] = [T-0] = [T-0] - [X-0]
5. [C-1] = [T-0] = [U-2] = [U-3]
6. [S-1] = [T-0] = [U-2] = [U-3]
7. [S-1] = [T-0] = [U-2] = [U-3]
8. [C-R] = [T-0] = [U-2] = [U-3]

Totality [T-0]

[T-0] is totality.

The three universe puns [U-1] [U-2] [U-3]

1. [U-1] is universe used by physicists as a pun for totality. So, universe, universe as a whole, totality are all legal physical puns.

2. [U-2] is universe again but now it’s defined as the

observable universe = [T-0] minus [X-0].

[X-0] is the never observable, the ultimate, genuine, true and immaculate dark that was never stained with physical polemics. The region [X-0] is eternally unreachable and incorruptible by physicists‘ polemical sophistry. No matter what they claim physicists do not know this region and they never will.

Without knowing [X-0] physicists cannot claim to know the origin of totality. No amount of hidden puns will reveal to physicists the origin of totality. Therefore, Big Bang is a cosmogonic mythology or charlatanism, depending on how charitable you want to be towards physicists. So, [X-0] is the forever unknown.

Totality = not totality

3. [U-3] is again the word universe but this time it is defined simultaneously as the totality and [U-2]. In other words physicists defined totality and not totality to be the same thing:

[T-0] = [T-0] – [X-0]

This is fraud. It is fraud because totality does not equal not-totality. Totality does not equal the observable universe.

As long as physicists insist on knowing what they do not know they will remain in the same level of scientific integrity as card sharks and magicians. (My apologies to card sharks who practice in an honest and well regarded industry.)

In the original sentence whenever the words, cosmic, cosmological, universe and space occur they are loaded with the Implicit Cosmological Principle and they are meaningless words even by physics standards.

  • Physicists are semantics sharks.
  • Cosmology is fraud.

The fraud is successfully hidden as hidden assumptions in legal puns of physics. But it is there. If it weren’t hidden cosmology wouldn’t be fraud.

Newton’s System of the World

No doubt that Newton with his System of the World had in mind replacing both the Christian cosmos and Cartesian cosmos.

Newton succeeded in achieving these objectives. He effectively replaced Christian nature and cosmos and Cartesian nature and cosmos with a British occult religion called Newtonism.

How did he achieve this feat?

By using Kepler’s rule as leverage to establish his religious and occult ideology by marketing and propaganda.

Newton used Kepler’s rule in all astronomical calculations in the Principia but he claimed to be using Newton’s laws.

Newtonian school is built on Kepler’s rule branded as Newton’s laws.

Today we have a hybrid and eclectic legal physics. Newtonian force is demoted and deprecated as a physical quantity by his disciples but Newtonian school is still alive and continues to cohabit with newer frameworks invented by physicists.

force is deprecated but Kepler’s rule is not, it is still valid. What does this mean?

Two things:

Cosmological mystery revealed

In classical Greek one of the popular meanings of the word cosmos (κόσμος) was orderly arrangement. A flower arrangement may have been called a cosmos. The word κόσμος has been used since Homer but

a sufficiently clear distinction has not been drawn between 1) the ordinary meanings of κόσμος from Homer onwards, and 2) the special sense current among the philosophers.

It was Plato who first used cosmos in its philosophical sense as the universal order which

holds together heaven and earth, men and gods.

Pythagoras is also said to have applied this word to the orderly arrangement of the “starry firmament,” but this may be apocryphal. Eventually, professional priestly classes who controlled astronomical observations and the right to model cosmologies defined what they observed as the totality. In this sense, cosmos is a faked model of totality.


Cosmos is an ordered and knowable truncation of totality defined fraudulently as the totality by the professional class who is in charge of defining and packaging cosmogonic mythologies for humans to consume.

Cosmos is not totality. It is defined as totality by its designers, today, the physicists. Cosmos is a vicious pun used by physicists to fool consumers into believing that they know the totality by scientific means.

It is one of the most remarkable mysterious coincidences in the history of humankind, even more remarkable than the mystery surrounding the fine structure constant, that totality has always been only as complicated as any given generation of physicists could know. To this day there is no explanation why the knowability of the Cosmos has been increasing exactly with the same rate as the increasing knowledge of physicists.

The mystery will remain until that time when there will be a regulatory agency to regulate this last unregulated professional industry. This agency will also protect consumers by requiring that every physics theory pushed to the market through any channel, including the arxiv, peer reviewed journals or blogs ran by physicists must include a warning label:

Warning: this theory is based on no experimental evidence as implied by the author but it is his opinion disguised as mathematics

Warning: this cosmos is just a cosmos not totality as claimed by its author

Warning: this theory contains more hidden assumptions than artificial ingredients in a can of Spam

Warning: the free parameters in this theory may cause an attack of scientific incredulity in people with low threshold of suspension of disbelief

Warning: this theory has never been tested in any of the multiverse it happily predicts. Believe at your own expense. Study for easy laughter as needed.

Warning: Newtonism is religion. Nature is not Newtonian. Question Newtonism.

Is the universe a spherical cow?

Spherical cow universe explains all the known dark stuff and makes predictions: three more dark things awaiting discovery.

When a given physicist says, “let’s assume a spherical cow. . .” can we quantify how much simplification she is making?

Because I want to measure the order of simplification of the universe. When physicists assume an FRW universe how much simplification are they making? Unless this simplification is quantified we must take physicists’ opinion that their model is an acceptable simplification of the system they are studying. But in physics if it is not quantified it is opinion. You can’t quantify opinion so opinion has no place in physics.

If physicists cannot quantify their simplifications then they are not in the business of science but in the business of playing in the academic physics sandbox. When Witten writes a paper about gravity in AdS3 toy models, what is the order of simplification of his toy model? Is he proposing a spherical cow AdS3 or is he proposing a spherical point AdS3? It may be both, Witten doesn’t say. Thus, it appears that in academic physics there is no way to tell the simplification threshold of a given theory beyond which the simplification ceases to be a functional of the simplified. In practical applications engineers use order of magnitude approximation and that’s invaluable but in theoretical physics where engineering is elastic and plastic and semantic how do we know how much of a simplification a toy model is?
Is physicists’ universe a spherical cow simplification or is it, say, a spherical cow with legs simplification? Or is it a tail waving kind of simplification?
Can we even know the order of simplification of the universe?
I distinguish between cosmos and universe. I define cosmos as a spherical cow. Cosmos is conceding that we don’t have the tools to investigate the whole system as an entity so we reduce the system to a level of complexity that we can model as an entity with our present tools of modelling. Therefore, by definition cosmos is never the totality. Cosmos is not a functional of totality.
In the case of the cow we are the outside observers of the cow so we may be able to come up with a quantity of simplification. But in the case of the universe we are not outside observers so we cannot know how much we’ve simplified the universe with a particular model. That’s why a cosmos is never a representative part of totality. This is a science versus mythology choice. Scientific rationalism either is crossed and cosmology becomes mythmaking or we accept that we don’t know the totality and we remain boring scientists and the media fails to show any interest in our work.

Physicists always choose to give the media what it wants and fail to quantify the degree of simplification in their theories. I think for physics to be a precise science each theory must be stated with its simplification error. Not with its philosophical rating stamped with physicists’ authority. After all measurement without error is meaningless in physics. Similarly, a theory stated without its simplification error is meaningless. Simplification error is the measurement error for theories.

A most general way to classify a physics model or a theory may be rating its strength as second nature, third nature, fourth nature, nth nature, regarding how well it models first nature, in analogy to Second Life and order of approximation used by engineers and physicists as in zeroth order approximation, first order approximation, and so on. 
What is the order of string theory? Infinith nature? Or is it 10 to the 250th nature?

The order of simplification is better than the current criterion physicists use to evaluate string theory, namely, falsifiability. Since when physics deals with non-quantifiable philosophical notions invented by philosophers called falsifiability? Physics deals with quantities. Physical theories must be judged by physical quantities not by philosophical polemics. This is why any discussion of string theory quickly snowballs into a philosophical polemics on the meaning of falsifiability and ends up by physicists calling each other crackpots. If we know the nth nature of string theory then we know what kind of theory it is.

Any theory with an nth nature number is a scientific theory. Any theory that cannot calculate its nth nature is not a theory at all, it is somebody’s opinion. It makes no different if that somebody has a PhD in physics.

The criterion of falsifiability must be eliminated from physics. Falsifiability is a philosophical concept and makes physics subservient to philosophical polemics. It must be established that the only scientific criterion to rate a theory can only be a number. This number is the nth nature. A scientific theory cannot be rated with a non-quantitative philosophical notion called falsifiability which depends only on the authority of physicists.


1. Simplification is how much you can remove without removing defining functionality.

Example: A bicycle frame is not the bicycle.

2. Order of simplification is the ratio of the total number of measurable terms to the measured terms.

Therefore, order of simplification involves only counting. It doesn’t allow physical philosophical opinions.

3. Order of approximation is a term of art that physicists use to indicate the quality of a fit.

Therefore, it involves authority.

Therefore, order of simplification is quantitative while order of approximation is authoritative. That’s why physicists prefer it. And that’s why order of simplification is scientific.

Rules that physics must adapt

1. A measurement must be stated with its measurement error
2. A model must be stated with its modelling error
3. A theory must be stated with its theoretical error

All these three can be achieved with a unit of simplification error. The first rule has been in use, at least in theory.

In general, a quantitative statement stated without its corresponding error is an opinion and has no place in physics.