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?

DOP & DOT

Because we are created as personal beings

we reason that the Creator must also be a personal Being.

We are not created as personal beings. There is no absolute person. Human body is porous and there is no discontinuity with the environment. There is no reason to believe that human individual is created separately from the rest of stuff.

Here we see once again physics and theology converging.

Doctors of theology and doctors of philosophy think alike, reason alike and build similar self-serving theories. Only the names of their theories differ because both use their own professional lingo to brand their product.

Physicists come up with multiverse and call their anthropocentric reasoning the anthropic principle. Theologians too reason anthropocentrically and make human body a privileged object.

  • DOT says god loves humans
  • DOP says universe loves humans

Same difference.

These two species of professional doctors — the oldest collaborators of unhuman organisms against humanity — believe in the same religious dogma of atomic materialism and exploit it for professional profit.

  • DOP uphold atomic materialism so that they can divide and reveal the mysteries of indivisible atoms
  • DOT uphold atomic materialism so that they can define and reveal the mysteries of inaccessible spiritual realms

DOT and DOP have been perpetuating the same scholastic racket for millennia. They hide and monetize what they have hidden and call it true knowledge.

DOP will never question their professional creed formulated as Newtonian atomic materialism. Instead of investigating if indivisible particles exist or even if we can know if they do, DOP accept Newton’s zeroeth law without question and assert with their authority that nature is matterful by definition.

DOT too assume implicitly Newton’s zeroeth law, after all it was God who revealed to Newton that He created a Newtonian nature because He loved Newton and his disciples physicists so much. DOP and DOT are God’s chosen professionals.

Therefore, for DOT and DOP human body is a discontinuous object. And God or Universe or Unigod favored humanity so that he can exist.

DOP call conventional units that they defined themselves absolute constants of nature. DOP’s gods are the constant they themselves defined.

DOP define the so-called “constants of nature” themselves and then reason that if constants of nature were any different humanity would not have existed! This is not even pre-scientific anthropocentric reasoning. It is the standard self-serving professional legal doctoral polemics asserted as truth by doctoral authority. No wonder physicists deny historical evidence that they defined constants such as Newton’s universal constant of gravity themselves.

DOP know how silly they would look if it is proven that conventional units defined by the previous generation of DOP are always reified by the next generation of DOP into constants of nature so that they can study “physical properties” of standard units. Standard units do not have physical properties, they acquire them magically when physicists start to call standard units constants of nature. Physics is synonymous with reifics.

DOP is a more vicious strain of anthropocentric self-serving propagandist than DOT because DOP claim to use their mathematical cryptics and white noise map plotted by NASA and their crooked reason and their self-defined constants of nature to arrive at their grand anthropocentric conclusions.

Theologians uphold the authority of their book. They are the faithful. Academic physicists are the opportunistic institutionalized shamans.

Believe or question?

religion-god-questions

If God does not exist then where does our notion of God come from?

We know best what does not exist. But the notion of god comes from marketing. Religion is a method to program humans. The method is as old as the oldest mythologies. Probably existed before the written word.

I don’t think I ever believed, but I really did enjoy the sense of belonging and kinship that I found there.

The same belonging and kinship can be found in fans of sports clubs or even in facebook. We don’t need to experience the cosmogonic baggage of religion to feel connected. What makes us feel good is marketing. We can only perceive abstract things visualized by a symbol. You can apply your rational skepticism to prove that a sports club does not exist and you would be right. In this sense it is better to enjoy then to question.

I don’t believe in any god, or gods. . . . I mean this in the sense that there is absolutely no reason to believe deities exist and therefore I reject even their possibility of existence.

Deities may not exist but they fulfill a purpose in daily life. The way humans are designed they cannot perceive without a model. Deities is a particular set of models for humans to identify with. (This is the reason why you felt belonged in your Lutheran community.) Different religious components such as rituals, ceremonies, cosmogony and rules and laws that regulate how to live are all different parts that are added to the core faith later. The cosmogonic part of Christianity was developed in Alexanderia I believe in the 3rd or 5th century. The philosophical component, as in Aristotelianism, was developed by Peripatetic philosophers. Yet, marketers of religions conflate all of these into one branded package.

I have to act on the best available evidence and since any god that would interact with the universe would leave traces, including one which did nothing more than create it.

I don’t understand this sentence. For a believer everything observed is evidence of creation by a god.

Yet belief persists in our society. There seems to be a pathological need to believe.

Belief is not pathological. It is natural. Nothing will happen without trust. When you make a contract with someone else you must believe that he will hold his side of the deal. Society works on trust and belief.

The reason is that a belief in an idea has no bearing on the truth of an idea.

I think this is debatable. You believe that ideas have an absolute truth/untruth value that we can know. I disagree. On the contrary, believing in god makes god to exist. Think about money. There is nothing called money. Money is not the paper you exchange. It’s not the electronic signals that you transfer in Paypal. It’s nothing. It exists solely as a standard which has various appearances. It exists because every human being agrees contractually that money is the universal unit of exchange. This way, any item, tangible or intangible, compatible or incompatible can be translated into money and exchanged easily. God is something like that, it exists because people believe in it.

If you wish to seek further evidence for the existence or non-existence of god, science or rational reasoning cannot help you. The type of evidence will not be scientific evidence because god by definition is an absolute entity. Science cannot reveal god and science cannot disprove god.

Nor does the popularity of religion lend any credence to the many variants of its ‘truths’. This begs the question of ‘why’ religion exists.

Religion exists for marketing reasons. Religion is the easiest way to program humans. Human character is such that no individual would ever do something that another human orders him to do. But if that human individual is indoctrinated in believing in the existence of superhuman deities and fears them then the programmers will tell human individual what to do through gods and he will do it.

Like pretty much every other behavioral feature, curiosity is the end result of a long series of evolutionary accidents which shaped our nature.

Yes, curiosity may have created god. Also, curiosity is a defining property of humans but the education system controlled by the programmers of humans make sure that human curiosity is eradicated and humans are turned into consumer drones unquestioningly obeying the programmers’ orders.

Ours is the most highly developed consciousness on the planet and it is only fitting that we take curiosity to an extreme.

Taking curiosity to the extreme leads to the fox/hedgehog paradox. Curiosity must be focused to be useful. Intelligence is to know how much you can ignore, not how much you know.

Wanting to answer questions such as ‘how did we get here?’ or ‘why are we here?’, what I will call ‘the Burning Questions’, are a natural by-product of this characteristic.

This seems to me an acquired characteristic of humans, not an innate characteristic. Because to ask these questions you need a theoretical language system, like the written word, and then you need to have the leisure to ask and ponder theoretical questions. Raising of these questions coincided in history with the rising of a leisure class in antique Greece. If, as has been the case for the majority of humanity, the entirety of your day is taken up by work to feed your family then “how did we get here?” “Why are we here?” are irrelevant academic questions. There is only one burning question for 85 per cent of humanity: Where is the next meal coming from?

Religion, in my view, is nothing more than an accident of behavioral evolution – rationalization of the fruits of our premature curiosity satisfaction taken to an extreme.

I believe this alludes to personal and humane religion or a religion of a small group or a clan. It may describe the state of religion before the book religions incorporated themselves into giant marketing organisms that feed on humanity. The individual shaman of the clan became the incorporated shamans (physicists?) as clans incorporated into huge city states.

And this is where religion has its roots. It offered a way to answer the questions which are still front-and-center in our psyche.

Yes, I agree. Religion offers ready-made answers to cosmogonic questions. We no longer sew our own clothes. Or make our own transportation vehicle. Or buy raw material to bake bread daily. Religion is like that, a ready-made answer to academic burning questions. Consumers buy their life-long answers from a global purveyor of burning answers nicely packaged as a recipe for happy living and don’t ever worry about cosmogonic questions again. I think that’s a good solution. Why do you object to it?

Considering that human lifetime is limited we must by necessity suspend our rationalism and take the word of the professional marketers at least in some major areas. You apply scientific skepticism to religion but as far as I can see not to law. You take law as given. You take political system as given. You take big pharma as given. You take physics as given. As individuals we just don’t have the time to question every marketing pun and trope and polemical monopoly. And the Unhuman Organism makes sure that humans remain divided. I am sure you realize that one of the fundamental objectives of religion is to keep humans divided so that they cannot combine forces and figure out the burning questions in a rational way. Religion is not about god, it is about keeping humanity forever divided.

Today, religions have evolved (and are continuing to evolve) into more sophisticated forms, as evidenced by the regimented structures of the world’s most popular religions.

The reason for this is that religious brands are hierarchical and bureaucratic organisms. They must grow in order to continue to exist. And after they reach their critical size they divide into two like organisms and a new similar organism is created.

In other words, gods were born out of our ignorance and nothing has changed.

I think the god of brand religions is a sophisticated marketing construct. It is a good marketing vehicle. Consider the highly effective Catholic iconography developed by the best painters of Europe starting from the earliest times. That’s sophisticated marketing that cost a bundle to the Church. But the Church knows marketing. It is about marketing. Their god was not born out of ignorance but it was created by sophisticated marketers, like Paul, whose global book tour established the Bible as the Book. This is where Newtonism comes in. Newtonism is the modern state-sponsored religion that replaced Christianity as the state-sponsored religion.

Even Newton, arguably the greatest scientific mind that we can name, demonstrated this ignorance.

How do you argue that Newton was the greatest scientific mind that ever existed? The evidence suggests just the opposite. Newton is a deity and I invite you to apply your scientific skepticism to this deity as well and see if you continue to believe the propaganda that deified Newton as the Moses of Mechanics. You can start by reading Halley’s Ode to Newton that starts the Principia to see the deification process in action.

. . . in his great opus, the Principia, God appears nowhere . . .

As you mention below this statement is not true. Newton’s zeroeth law says that God created a Newtonian world. God is in the foundation of the Principia.

That is, until he could not solve the many-body problem of the motion of the planets. Try as he might, he could not find an analytical solution which would accurately describe the solar system.

Another myth. Newton worked with proportions not with equations. A concept of analytical solution makes no sense in the context of Principia.

And also Newton only computed about half a dozen astronomical quantities and he never tried to “describe the solar system” accurately. He projected his few calculations to the entire universe by fiat and by polemics by calling his force universal. Physicists still believe Newtonian creation by fiat. I also like to mention that Principia is a brand and it makes no sense to criticize it. It’s futile.

Well, if he, the Great Newton . . .

Newton was the greatest marketing genius ever lived, that’s true, he was a shrewd politician, true, and it is also true that he was the greatest anti-science ever lived.

. . . could not figure it out, no one could and it had to be because of the Great Designer! Putting his arrogance aside, to Newton God was all about Newton.

I agree. As Huygens pointed out Newton intended Newton’s force to be Newton’s soul that permeated the universe.

So you too realize that Newton was a propagandist, a self-promoter and a sophisticated marketer who established his own brand of the system of the world as the standard nature.

NASA gets along just fine by calculating the trajectories of probes to other planets solving the equations numerically with an unimaginable precision.

I agree totally. NASA is not using Newtonian dynamics to compute orbits which obviates Newtonism but they still project in their websites that Newton’s laws rule.

Many more modern names, like those of Albert Einstein and Paul Davies lend no credence to God’s existence

But these are the opinions of these writers. The fact that Einstein knew how to manipulate mathematical symbols does not give him the authority to pontificate about the existence of god. On this subject his opinion is as good as yours or mine or anybody else’s.

Einstein’s concept of God seems to spring from his own prejudice and not from any hard data.

If you define god as the ultimate designer there will never be scientific evidence or hard data for or against. If we confine ourselves to science we must accept that we cannot know absolutes and ultimates.

When viewed through the lens of skepticism, both God and Religion fall apart.

Brand religions and their gods fulfill very well what they are suppose to achieve. They are living organisms.

In turn, I will be looking at specific aspects of the concept of God – philosophical arguments of its existence, the necessity of religion for morality, religion benefits society – and why they are all demonstrably wrong.

Well, thanks I’ll read that next.

Note: I also tried to draw a map of this comment here. It turns out that God and religion are linked by marketing. I thought that was interesting.

Zeus’ physical theory of lightning

I’ve proposed a new method to rate physical scenarios designed by physicists. My goal was to free physics from the philosophical choke hold of the notion of falsifiability and institute a quantitative method based on the ratio of database to model. In order to test the method Spyros asked me to apply it to Zeus’ lightning theory. Here’s my answer.

So we want to evaluate a theory that says that lightning is caused by Zeus. And we want to know if we can find its nth nature.

Theory: Zeus is the cause of lightning

I observe that this is not a very precise theory. There is no database of measurements that this theory is trying to model. The stated natural event, lightning, is nothing more than a repetition observed in nature and classified under the rubric “lightning.”

We need to know what are measurable quantities and what we actually measure so that we can take their ratio.

\textup{nth nature}=\frac{n}{N}

where N is the number of columns in the database and n is the number of columns in the model.

Zeus’ lightning coil

It is known that Tesla stole Zeus’ lightning coil and gave it to humans as a gift. Struck a second time by a Promethean thief who stole his trade secrets Zeus condemned Tesla to a never ending obscurity and this is the reason why Tesla never gets the scientific credit that he deserves.

First, we know that Zeus plays with his lightning coil only when it rains. This is proved by observations. When there are no Zeus clouds around there is no lightning so this observation eliminates the “Will of Zeus paradox” inherent in this theory. Zeus is classical, deterministic and predictable because lightning activities of Zeus are scientifically correlated to rain. We could have explained away the Will of Zeus paradox by the standard physics method of compounding a paradox with another paradox e.g., by associating it legally with the EPR paradox or by choosing a suitable version of the Mach principle, but there is no need to be so rigorous at this point.

Thus, our problem is reduced to the trivial problem of computing the parameters of Tesla coil for lightning. We then use the mathematical theory of probability to predict where lightning will occur.

Zeus theory of lightning is a good physical theory

It is very mathematical. It uses known legal physics. It makes real predictions. It is based on observations. It has all the properties of a good physical theory. Can currently accepted physics theory predict lightning better than Zeus theory of lightning?

Physics harbors shamans

In case you think physics has advanced much in the direction of science since the times when people believed anthropomorphic gods caused natural phenomena you may be only partially right. First of all cosmology is in the process of legalizing once again the totally unscientific anthropocentric reasoning, I guess you will agree on this. A large percentage of physicists occupy themselves with shamanistic activities and physics in general still uses absolute causes as explanation of natural phenomena.

When physicists say gravity is caused by a mathematical object called a tensor what do they do? When they reify coordinates into space and time, what do they do? They endow mathematical symbolism with active natural qualities that it does not possess. This is not anthropomorphism proper — I don’t know what the name should be — but it is still an explanation of natural phenomena with an abstraction that does not have natural properties to cause a natural event.

A mathematical object explains gravity as much as the mythological object Zeus explains lightning. The process is the same.

Science saves appearances, it does not look for hidden underlying causes. If you look for hidden causes you may find Zeus’ hand throwing lightning or God’s hand adjusting gravity, as Newton reported. Ernst Mach:

Physicists have nothing to seek “beyond the appearances.” Whether philosophers will always find it necessary to affirm something real … whose relations may only be recognized in the wholly abstract form of equations, may be left entirely for the philosophers to decide. Hopefully, physicists of the 20th century will not let their investigations be disturbed by such meddling!

Academic physicists of the 21th century have become polemical philosophers and mythmakers discussing ultimate hidden causes beyond physics.

Physics still uses anthropomorphic causes

Furthermore, the anthropomorphic mythologizing process is still used in physics but instead of starting from an anthropomorphic deity such as Zeus, physicists start from a human being, called Newton, and gradually deify him and then attribute natural phenomena to the deified Newton.

Mythmaking process goes like this:

1. Notice a repetition in nature
2. Assign a word to the repetition
3. Define the assigned word as the cause of the repetition
4. Anthropomorphize the causal word by sculpting it
5. Attribute human actions to the anthropomorphized label.

This is explanation by definition packaged as mythology.

Now assume the 5th step is not an anthropomorphized label Zeus but a historical being, Newton:

5. Historical Newton
4. Deified Newton
3. Force as cause associated with deified Newton
2. Force as universal cause
1. Whatever observation

This process too is the anthropomorphic mythmaking and explanation by definition. Physicists deified Newton and made his defined force the universal cause. Whatever is observed is caused by force. But I admit that physics is moving towards science since physicists no longer explain all with their deity Newton, they also deified Einstein, and some things fall into the domain of Einstein. So mythological pantheon of physics is scientifically increasing. I don’t deny that the rituals and ceremonies of derivations with which these mythological gods are made to save natural phenomena are very elaborate and require the services of a priestly class called physicists.

Comparison of pre-scientific people with us

Please note that it is very easy to be a scientist and produce scientific speculations when we know that Zeus is not in the sky throwing darts of lightning. People who believed that Zeus was the cause of lightning were as far removed from an understanding of the earth’s atmosphere as we are from an understanding of the origin of the universe. We are in a pre-scientific state regarding the Big Bang. Today, the same professional class produce the same mythological nonsense interpreting the hidden and the unknowable for consumers and market it as science. They’ve become more sophisticated, that’s all. Do you think we are better than pre-scientific people when it comes to believing in absurd nonsense marketed as science by arrogant shamans like Guths and Susskinds of the world? I just want to note that these people are physicists.

Theory or opinion

On further reflection, I think that “Zeus is the cause of lightning” is not a theory. It’s an opinionated guess. In order to find the nth nature of a theory we need a database and a model that models the database. Here there is no quantitative database to model. So this is not a theory but a baseless opinion and its nth nature is undefined. As I wrote in the original article

any theory that cannot calculate its nth nature is not a theory at all, it is somebody’s opinion.

So, in this case my proposition holds. But I think there is more work to do and in any case falsifiability needs to be replaced with scientific criteria.

Cosmology this week 1

If it is true that we cannot know the whole universe cosmologists who claim to know the whole universe must be shamans or charlatans. You choose. Fish cosmologist thinks the entire universe is made of water because she assumes that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic. Human cosmologist uses the same cosmological principle to create his cosmos. In this sense the banana republic of physics called cosmology loses in scientific status even to intelligent design since physical design is as offensive to science as intelligent design. If the Bible is the book of the Intelligent Designers the physics code is the Book of Physics. If these two types of doctors came together and wrote a revised version of the Bible would that be a Bible written in the language of differential equations? But these two types of doctors will never come together because their careers depend on fighting each other. If Big Bang is fraud can we have enough people to counter the authority of doctors of philosophy who own the Big Bang? We have to convince these people joining forces against Big Bang that cosmology is a grammatical error.

1. Fish cosmology

  • Why do human cosmologists behave like fish cosmologists
  • Observable world is our fishbowl
  • To accept ignorance of the totality is to be scientist

2. We can’t know how big the whole universe is

  • the totality is unknowable
  • There are part of the universe from which no information comes to us and never will

3. Cosmology as grammatical error

  • universe does not have a plural
  • cosmology exploits a grammatical error

4. The tipping point for the Big Bang

  • Is Bang Bang an observational theory
  • Local is not total
  • What is the tipping point for the Big Bang
  • Fundamental hidden assumption of cosmology
  • People against Big Bang

5. Professional doctors skirmish on origins

  • Absolute origins are not knowable
  • People who claim to know absolute origins are charlatans, shamans, or physicists
  • Cosmology is a tug or war between two types of professional doctors

6. Bible: the differential version

  • The revised version of the Bible written by the two academic rivals, DOP and DOT

7. Intelligent design versus physical design

  • Intelligent Design people and Intelligent Physics people reason alike

Cosmology as shamanism

The old shaman

The old shaman

Cosmology is based on the hidden assumption made implicitly by all cosmologists that “thermodynamics is applicable to the universe as a unique system.” The phrase in quotes is mentioned in passing on page 82 of Ralph Alpher’s book The Genesis of Big Bang.

Ralph Alpher mentions this when talking about the thermodynamical absurdity of inflationary scenarios. So

Is thermodynamics applicable to the universe as a unique system?

The scientific answer is No. The shamanistic answer is Yes.

New Shaman

New Shaman

The Big Bang mythology is based on the supposition that the universe is a closed (or unique) thermodynamical system. But we know that this is not the case. Even physicists concede that there is a Dark Universe from where no information comes to us and never will.

Physicists use all kinds of scholastic sophistry and cosmological principles and doublespeak hidden in mathematical looking formulas to justify that the totality is uniquely thermodynamical. In this way physicists assert that they know scientifically what they do not know and they will never know. This is not the scientific method. This is the well-known method of shamans.

Physicists working on Big Bang mythology look more and more like shamans who launder cosmogonic mythologies for unhuman organisms who then sell them to consumers as scientific theories.