God infinite zero one and singularity

  • People sued LHC authorities for potential harm to the universe.
  • People sued Darwinism for potential harm to their ego.
  • And now a U.S. senator filed a lawsuit against God to grab some headlines.

The case against god was dismissed by Douglas County District Court Judge Marlon Polk because “the Divine Defendant cannot be served notice because of his unlisted home address.”

I think that the legal realm is a perfect platform to ruminate on philosophy.

In this case we have three different types of organisms:

1. The human individual

a bodily organism with the ability to produce written word

2. The court

an unhuman organism without body that has the ability to produce written word

3. The god

an undefined organism that prefers to communicate with its constituency through a professional class called god’s earthly contractors or professional doctors of theology. God concept may have been the original singularity invented by professional doctors.

So

Human = Body + written word
The court = Human – Body
God = Infinite / zero = Singularity

We are also faced with this philosophical question:

If an entity has no known address can it influence the earth?

In physics it can. All physicists have to do is to label god Dark Glow and define its physical properties as unseen but not unfelt. This new dark physical quantity will manifest itself from outside the observable universe just like Dark Flow and will have measurable effects on earth.

Physicists’ method to explain anything unknown and unknowable is always the same: 1) Have a catchy name for a new physical quantity candidate 2) issue a press release 3) dig some evidence for it from the white noise called WMAP.

Therefore, the laws of physics allow an unseen but not unfelt Dark Glow. But you have to make sure not to say the word “god” to physicists so that they don’t feel threatened and under attack.

The organisma view of the world views the world in terms of love. The world is not matterful as physicists assume but the world is operational. So how can we analyze this situation?

For god to have influence on earth god does not need to exist. Only organisms called humans need to love god. And this is what Christianity says. Or maybe not. Christianity says that God exists absolutely. Similar to the Copenhagen interpretation in Christianity loving god makes it manifest.

But from the organisma point of view there is no paradox. The love of god has been causing all kinds of havoc on earth for a long time. Therefore, god need not exist to cause physical change on earth.

We are not reasoning via slogans and legal entities and ideologies here. We apply the organisma view of the world to the problem and see what we can deduce.

Legal systems including the law, religion and physics are unable to resolve a question like this because it’s outside their realm. Legal professionals cannot look at a question as a question to be solved. They must fit it into their immense legal system first to own the question and then assert a legal solution. But our organisma view transcends the legal and unifies nature and eliminates the professional priestly class, or the middlemen.

By ignoring the legal authority of physics and assuming a matterless and operational world which manifests itself as love we were able to solve a problem that physics could not solve.

Newton made use of this creative love. Newton knew that if he defined a quantity called force and if he made it attractive enough so that his disciples loved it unquestioningly, force will become a true physical quantity. And this is what happened.

Cosmology as grammatical error

An exchange in discovermagazine.com:

Laurie says:

Could it be that there is another “universe”, just beyond the fringe of our universe? Maybe it had a dark flow of it’s own, or perhaps the inhabitants there believe in the steady state theory and did not believe in dark flow. Since it had a creation of it’s own, It might be made up of mostly of dark flow.

Rosa says:

you mean, a “dark flow of its own …” and “a creation of its own.”

The relentless language police Rosa catches a grammatical error in Laurie’s deep cosmologizing. Indeed it should be its and not it’s. By the way note that Laurie’s cosmologizing is as deep as any professional cosmologist minus some bromide equations.

But Rosa missed the true grammatical error. Which is? Well, in the English language “another universe just beyond the fringe of our universe” is a grammatical error. Cosmology is based on such grammatical errors. Universe means the totality and does not have a plural.

Dark Flow and force

Force is a dogma of physics, and instead of questioning it physicists will always try to fit observations to their matterful and forceful ideology. Force came up again in relation to Dark Flow:

This flow is difficult to explain by gravitational evolution within the framework of the concordance LCDM model and may be indicative of the tilt exerted across the entire current horizon by far-away pre-inflationary inhomogeneities.

My problem with this statement is that there is motion in the world that requires no gravitational attraction of 1/R^2 type. In fact the authors called this a flow. Flow does not require a gravitational attraction in the direction of motion. A river flows. And like in electromagnetism the gravitational force is perpendicular to the flow. The 1/r^2 type attraction maybe an ancient habit of the physics bureaucracy that physicists do not want to give up but there are other alternatives to explain motion.

Dark Flow and Big Bang

Dark Flow

Dark Flow

There is a nice post by Carl Brannen of Mass about Dark Flow that includes some issues related to Big Bang. Some comments:

I think there is a simple explanation for Dark Flow: Cosmic microwave background is not cosmic. It is astronomical. If it is measured here then it is astronomical. There is no passage from astronomical to cosmic without passing through charlatanism. Charlatanism comes from the fact that Big Bang is based on a linear extrapolation from 50 years of observations to 14 billion years. This Dark Flow, if anything, proves definitively that such a linear extrapolation is not justified and does not work. Big Bang extrapolation must be put back on the table once again and questioned scientifically. Dark Flow proves the absurdity of Big Bang.

Carl Brannen writes that Kashlinsky and friends claim that

all galactic clusters appear to have a motion with respect to the cosmic microwave background (CMB). The motion of a galactic cluster slightly effects the energy of the microwave radiation that travels through it, so they use the temperature map of the CMB to dertermine the velocity of those galactic clusters. And the result is that the whole (observable) universe appears to be moving with respect to the CMB. This was not expected because the observable universe is approximately isotropic and so shouldn’t be going anywhere.

But isotropy assumption is just an assumption cooked up by cosmologists so that they can start to cosmologize. Again and again isotropy assumption is violated but instead of reevaluating the Big Bang physicists invent new layers of doublespeak to save the Big Bang.

The original paper states that

This flow is difficult to explain by gravitational evolution within the framework of the concordance LCDM model and may be indicative of the tilt exerted across the entire current horizon by far-away pre-inflationary inhomogeneities.

Brannen writes that

the tilt is easy to explain when you assume that the speed of gravity is larger than C: If gravitational interactions travel faster than light, you will automatically be able to feel the gravitational attraction of matter even if it is too far away for you to see.

My problem with this statement is that there is motion in the world that requires no gravitational attraction of 1/R^2 type. In fact the authors called this a flow. Flow does not require a gravitational attraction in the direction of motion. A river flows. And like in electromagnetism the gravitational force is perpendicular to the flow. The 1/r^2 type attraction maybe an ancient habit of the physics bureaucracy that physicists do not want to give up but there are other alternatives to explain motion.

Dark Flow and Big Bang

It’s interesting to witness live the marketing engine of NASA inventing a new physical quantity with the help of the media and the blogosphere. The hidden assumptions of cosmology and the conflation of science of astronomy with cosmogonic myth of Big Bang proves that our era is one of those times when science is dominated by charlatanism.

Cosmologists view the microwave background – a flash of light emitted 380,000 years after the big bang – as the universe’s ultimate reference frame. Relative to it, all large-scale motion should show no preferred direction.

Not true. There is no passage from astronomical to cosmological without passing through charlatanism. Whatever radiation observed by NASA is astronomical and never cosmic. See the Famous Big Bang trope.