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.

Definition:

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.

Definitions

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.

The number of atoms in the cosmos

This is the view of physics by physicists as stated for instance in this paper:

The primary role of physics remains the deep insight and rational understanding of measurable, natural phenomena.

On the next page the author gives some big numbers used by physicists:

Number of electrons in a cm^3 of a metal = 10^22
Estimated number of atoms in human body = 10^28
Estimated number of atoms in the Universe = 10^80

This is how physicists are lying.

Human body is a well-defined entity and the number can be estimated. Let’s say electrons in cm^3 can also be estimated. But the number of atoms in the Universe cannot be known rationally and it cannot be measured. This physicist, like every physicist, is using the Universe-Cosmos pun. He means there is 10^80 atoms in the cosmos, an entity invented by physicists, then he secretly defines his cosmos to be the whole Universe, the Universe with initial cap.

Why is this important? For a physicist this is semantics. For a physicist lying is mere semantics because he is repeating what is legal. That’s all that matters for a physicist. He repeats what is legal physics. This is what separates a physicist from a scientist.

Friedman-Robertson-Walker Universe or FRW Universe

  • This is an old essay. I copy it here so that I can refer to it more easily. It’s incredible that cosmologists still use this model as if it were anything more than a joke.

When you see a universe named after not one, not two but three dead European scholastic physicists run not just walk.

Friedman was a Russian meteorologist who first suggested an expanding universe with positive spatial curvature (k=+1) and non zero cosmological constant. He derived the models “as a mathematical exercise rather than a model of the real universe.” So Friedman’s contribution to the FRW universe is that some term in the mathematical model may be +1.

What is Robertson’s contribution? Robertson summarizes his contribution this way: “The idealized cosmological problem, in which the nebulae are considered as particles in homogeneous flow, is analyzed from the standpoint of the operational methodology, allowing the fundamental observers the use only of clocks, theodolites and light signals.”

The general relativistic observers no longer are required to carry theodolites with them now they use GPS, the theodolite is no longer a sine qua non of a Robertson universe.

Robertson continues: “The increased knowledge of the structure, distribution, and radial motion of extragalactic nebulae, which has been amassed during the past decade, has brought about a renewed interest in cosmological speculation.” Robertson sees cosmology as speculation.

And what mathematical model Robertson prefers to speculate about the cosmos? He chooses the “least ad hoc” of these speculations which is “that offshoot of Einstein’s relativistic theory of gravitation….” Robertson calls General Relativity an ad hoc speculation (albeit, less ad hoc than other speculations).

What is the purpose of this ad hoc speculation? “It seeks to develop from the general theory of relativity an idealized universe suitable for the gross description of the observed nebular phenomena.”

How does it do this? “This is accomplished with the aid of a general a priori uniformity postulate” which is the cosmological principle. Robertson says that he is studying “the problem of determining the most general kinematical background suitable for an idealized universe in which the cosmological principle holds.”

Therefore, the fundamental premise of the Robertson universe is that it is based on the Cosmological Principle. But it has been shown that the cosmological principle is an anthropocentric principle.

And what is the contribution of Walker? He writes: “Out of all possible material systems, we know consider only those which satisfy the cosmological principle.” So Walkerian universe is also based on the Cosmological Principle.

Then, we have a definition for the FRW universe:

FRW universe is an ad hoc speculation based on an a priori anthropocentric principle.

This is how the creators of the FRW define their universe. This is also the definition of cosmology.

We note that the definition of what cosmologist studies contains the words: ad hoc speculation, a priori, and anthropocentric.

It is clear that FRW universe is an anthropocentric truncation of the universe, i.e. a cosmos. Therefore, contrary to what the cosmologist claims, he does not study a physical entity but a cosmos that he invented himself, he is the pre-scientific mythmaker.

This short visit to the archives makes several things about physics and cosmology clearer: they are scholastic disciplines based on pre-scientific principles.

Note that just about 50 years ago physicists were so naïve and frank about what they do. No physicist today would use the word speculate about his work, he would use technical words like, toy model and scenario, for instance.

Note also the perception of general relativity as what it really is, an ad hoc speculation of some European petit bourgeois scholastic with megalomaniacal tendencies. These physicists use it as mathematical playground to do some mathematical exercise.

Again and again, we see that physicists are scholastics and they avail themselves of all the traditional scholastic methods.

Scholastic physicists turned FRW universe into a substanceless form. Just mentioning the label FRW along with the formal substanceless equations associated with it combined with other buzzwords culled from the literature will make a perfect cosmological paper. This was done as a parody a few years ago, and no one noticed for a while that it was a parody.

It seems that first time in the history of mankind, after Thales, after the realization that a scientific knowledge as opposed to the mythological knowledge, humans are going through such a dark period when science is totally absent and scientific free thinking is absent.

Technology, and craft and art exist, but the free science as opposed to the faith knowledge is crushed by cosmology, physics and technology. Citizens do not care, because the primitive European society is based on the model developed by the European peasant which places faith-based authoritative bureaucracy at the center of weight of society and any kind of freedom and free thinking is killed at first sight.

Origins

The study of origins is called cosmogony. If the origin of something is known then there is nothing to study. If the origin of something is hidden then enter the professional class called Doctors of Philosophy or Theology and they will tell you the origins of hidden things as explained in their legal Book or legal Code. These two academic enemies perpetually fight for the ownership of subjects they think belong to them. Cosmology and cosmogony are two subject these two types of theoretical doctors believe are their own property. This post advertises a seminar in California on cosmogony. You pay $200 and enjoy all you can eat buffet and learn about the origins of “big things” such as

time
laws of physics
the universe
life
consciousness

I don’t know about origin of life or consciousness but on the origin of time and the universe and the origin of laws of physics I have somethings to say.

The origin of laws of physics is very simple. You don’t need cosmogony or physics to know where the laws of physics come from. It is like the origin of laws of the land. All laws are drafted by a professional class to ensure the perpetual exploitation of non-professionals.

Where do you look if you want to find the origin of U.S. Constitution? You look at a place and time where some people negotiated a set of definitions then agreed on some and defined them formally and then published their definitions as laws. This is the origin of laws that legislate society.

The laws of physics are the same.

What may confuse you is that the laws of physics are not drafted in one place in a meeting by physicists in order to draft the laws. No. Physics negotiations happen in conferences around the world and in published papers.

But the process is the same.

Professional physicists negotiate definitions and when there is a consensus they seal the definition as a law by publishing it. This is the origin of physical law.

In the glory days of physics someone called Newton did not have to negotiate laws with his minions the physicists so he just drafted them himself and published them as laws. If you care to check the Principia you’ll notice that Newton presented what came to be known as Newton’s laws of motion as “Axioms or Laws of Motion.” So Newton as a good physicist double-defined his laws as axioms and laws and then made sure that the axiom thing was forgotten and his definitions were known as laws of nature.

There is of course here the assumption that laws of physics are laws of nature.

And what Dr. Susskind will be talking about in this seminar is those laws of physics assumed to be laws of nature. This is the same old “my axiom is the law” fraud so much loved by Doctors of Philosophy of all ages.

Regarding the origin of the universe.

Big bang is big charlatanism. So here we have religion against charlatanism. Big Bang is based on an extrapolation of charlatanistic proportions. Physicists extrapolate linearly from 50 years of observations to 13 billions years. The recent Dark Flow proves that linear extrapolation of this proportion is nothing more than charlatanism. Charlatanism because physicists do not know beyond the observable universe. But they claim they know what they do not know.

There may be Dark Flows out there.

When you make a linear extrapolation from 50 to 13 years you are like a moth cosmologist living but a spring day extrapolating to 13 billion years. Poor thing will die believing that it is spring all the way down. But as a human you know that it’s not spring all the way down. You laugh at the moth cosmologist and you say he is no scientist because he extrapolates linearly but doesn’t know about seasons.

You recognize that to explain things with God is unscientific but how can you fail to see that to extrapolate from 50 to 13 billion years is charlatanism? There is a very thin line separating science from fraud. The opposite of science is not religion. The opposite of science is legal. Physicists do not explain things by a legal faith known as god. Physicists explain things by their own legal faith known as physics code.

What we are witnessing here in this seminar is the never ending academic war between two natural enemies: Doctors of Philosophy and Doctors of Theology. This is a turf war. It is a turf war just like the never ending war between Israelis and Palestinians. In the case of doctors the hatred go back to Newton. Newton took the cosmogonic and cosmological authority of Doctors of Theology and gave it to Doctors of Philosophy. Doctors of Theology will never forget this. This an academic fight on old scholastic topics that both of these doctors feel are their own property.