Smoot knows nothing about totality

In the press release for learned doctor Smoot‘s Nobel Prize we read the following:

Smoot [analyzed] the data from the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite and produced maps of the entire sky which showed “hot” and “cold” regions with temperature differences of a hundred-thousandth of a degree. These temperature fluctuations [were] produced when the universe was smaller than a single proton….

How does Smoot know that at some point “the universe” was smaller than a proton? He does not know. He is lying.

We must clarify that the word “universe” is a standard equivocation in physics and can either mean “the observable universe” or “the universe as a whole”. In this sentence it refers to the universe as a whole or the totality.

Smoot admits that he does not know the totality; we know this because all physicists and cosmologists accept that there is no light coming to them from beyond the observable universe.

Therefore, Smoot does not know the totality; he does not know the history of the totality; he does not know the content of the totality; in short, he knows nothing about the totality. There’s no technology available to him that will let him know the history of the totality. When Smoot claims that “the totality was smaller than a proton” he is lying. Smoot knows nothing about totality.

This is a huge lie because if Smoot admits that he knows nothing about the totality, his analysis of the ambient radiation will be just that, an analysis of a local radiation. The U.S. government pays Smoot to establish by fiat, by equivocation, by doubletalk or by whatever deception that local ambient radiation he measures is a cosmological radiation that reveals the history of the totality. The U.S. government pays Smoot and other cosmologists to establish the creation myth called the Big Bang as a scientific theory proved by observations conducted by the government agencies.

There is a well-known synergy between government agencies, universities and the media. Physicists and cosmologists make this racket work — yes, this is a racket more than a synergy. NASA needs the physicists to define a local radiation as a cosmic radiation so that they can budget it as a science payload. NASA can easily get approval from the Congress if the project is marketed as a fundamental science research to reveal the origin of the universe. Congress will not give NASA millions of dollars to analyze a local radiation. NASA then creates beautiful graphics and feeds it to the media. The media loves such fantastic stories and with each retelling the story acquires an aura of truth and the lead physicist becomes a celebrity usually hyped as the next Einstein or as “one of the greatest minds of our time”. The universities love celebrity physicists in their roster. Nobel too loves celebrity physicists. The general public love stories about the creation of the universe because they believe that unlike the creation myths marketed by traditional book religions these are scientific theories revealing the true history of totality. Everyone is happy. But this is still a scientific fraud and physicists are the perpetrators. In this case, physicists are Smoot and Co. who take the money from the government, fame from the media and their academic authority from the schools where they teach.

Smoot gets away with his lie because no one questions him. His research is paid for by the government, it is supported by the university he works for, he gets the Nobel prize for his lying, the media perpetuates his lie as a scientific truth… yet Smoot does not know anything about the totality.

And you, dear reader, why do you accept Smoot’s lies without question? Probably because Smoot is a professional and we are taught since childhood to never question professionals and yield to their authority. And Smoot is not an ordinary professional, he is backed up by the U.S. government, by a well-known university and by the media. I urge you to think for yourself in this case and question Smoot’s lies. Only we can expose him as a crook.

Would you like your physical eschatology hot or cold?

1. Eschatology belongs to theology

dop is the new dot

2. Pushing the old scholastic racket in the 21st century

3. Physical eschatology

science excludes eschatology
regulate physics
there are no maps of totality

4. Mark’s reasoning is full of hidden assumptions

proof by hidden assumption is no proof

mark does not know the totality

5. Poetical eschatology

6. Mark tries to establish a fake theoretical basis for Big Bang

mathematics does not know properties of the totality

7. Eschatology is shamanism

8. No known physics can reveal the properties of totality

9. Science does not apply to eschatology

10. No passage from local to total except through charlatanism

cargo cult physics

11. Eschatologists call their prophesy predictions

12. An eschatological speculation cannot be tested

13. How do eschatologists get away with scientific fraud?

new and improved big bang

military-state-media complex

 

1. Eschatology belongs to theology ^

Doctors of Theology owned eschatology for millennia. They cleverly justified their sacred text by prophesizing the end of the world and by defining the beginning of the world.

Eventually, though, their professional racket has become transparent to their constituency who realized that Doctors of Theology were making up stories about the unknowable future and unknowable past and then proving their sacred text with their stories presented as true prophesies and then proving their prophesies with their sacred text.

These professional scoundrels have developed a proprietary complex language to hide their circular and vaporous reasoning. They kept their constituency ignorant and postured as absolute authority on the unknowable and made a nice living full of leisure at the expense of their constituency.

As civilians, we’ve known this professional racket at least since the time of Galileo.

Then how come, Mark of Cosmic Variance is shamelessly pushing the same professional racket as if it were science?

dop is the new dot

All the elements of the theological racket is with us again but this time around practiced by Doctors of Philosophy.

There are only two differences:

Instead of being a Doctor of Theology Mark is a Doctor of Philosophy. But that makes no difference. All professional doctors are in the same crooked business.

The other difference is that Mark does not use a sacred book with a supposed supernatural author as his authority. The reason is that in our era cosmology and eschatology are controlled by global states and the military. The Church has been out of the academic mythmaking business for a long time now. Newton made sure of that.

2. Pushing the old scholastic racket^

How can a professional doctor find enough authority in himself to push the old scholastic racket as science in the 21st century? Have citizens of the world fallen into the same kind of ignorant apathy as the previous victims of professional doctors, namely, peasants of the European Middle Ages and believe doctors’ every word without question?

No, but Doctors make sure that they get intelligent quadratically while civilians get intelligent linearly. They pocket the difference as authority. Not surprising, because they are the ones who control how much we can know. They control the distribution channels and make sure that knowledge flows only one way. This allows them to monetize the knowledge they’ve been hiding from humanity.

3. Physical eschatology^

Since the Middle Ages important changes have occurred in eschatology. Today academic tradition requires that a theory must be associated with an observational database. Doctor Mark of Cosmic Variance has a powerful ally in NASA who supplies the observational database for his eschatological speculations. Today we have physical eschatology.

We know that physicists have discovered the long sought after physical philosopher’s stone of the semantic kind and use it to transmutate any word into a physical quantity. Therefore, the old theological eschatology becomes a science just by calling it physical eschatology. At least, this is what Doctor Mark wants us to believe.

science excludes eschatology

In truth, there can be no scientific eschatology or cosmology. This is what makes cosmologists and eschatologists like Mark charlatans, scientific frauds and liars.

regulate physics

If physics were a regulated industry with strict rules of practice Mark’s license would have been revoked. After all a medical doctor who practices today medicine as it was known in the European Middle Ages would be disgraced and pushed out of the profession. Mark is practicing the old eschatology and calling it science. You decide if this is a breach of contract as a scientist.

there are no maps of totality

The only evidence Mark has for calling his eschatology science is his claim that his eschatological theory is associated with a database of white noise he calls Cosmic Background Radiation.

Mark fits his eschatological speculations into this white noise by using standard data reduction techniques. And since he called this white noise “cosmic” he pretends that this database is a map of totality.

There is nothing more than a linguistic association here. A local radiation does not become a map of totality by calling it “cosmic.”

Physics is done with hidden puns. Here Mark uses local-cosmic pun to justify his eschatology.

4. Mark’s reasoning is full of hidden assumptions^

Mark’s reasoning is full of hidden assumptions that he is not telling us. For instance Mark assumes that because the distance between a few observed galaxies have been diminishing therefore the entire universe must have been a point at some time.

This is fraud. This is fraudulent reasoning. Not faulty but fraudulent reasoning.

So why is it that this professional eschatologist is not exposed as a scientific fraud?

Who can expose shamans who practice observational eschatology as frauds? At present no one. Eschatologists who are physicists are the judge and the jury when it comes to eschatological speculations.

proof by hidden assumption is no proof

So Mark’s conclusion that the universe was denser because the distance between galaxies are diminishing does not hold. The hidden assumption he is making is that observed galaxies constitute the entirety of the universe. This is a lie.

This is the same lie Mark’s professional ancestors the previous Doctors of Eschatology told their constituency. Basically, they said “trust us, we are telling you the truth” while brandishing their sacred book.

Mark is perpetuating the same lie but he is brandishing NASA’s white noise as his false witness.

mark does not know totality

The following quote is a big lie because Mark does not know the totality.

Mark has no license to model totality in its totality.

But the fact that Mark does not know the totality is not a problem for Mark — lack of knowledge has never been a problem for professional eschatologists — and he goes on assuming that he knows the totality.

Mark is not telling us that he is assuming the totality. He is telling us that he knows totality by inductive scientific reasoning. Can there be a greater scientific fraud?

To claim that you know something you don’t know is a lie. When a professional in a position of authority lies about his professional activities his license to practice must be revoked. And if physics were to be a regulated industry Mark’s — and all eschatologists’ – license would have been revoked.

5. Poetical eschatology^

After citing Robert Frost’s poem Fire and Ice Mark explains us the reference:

This is typically a reference to the question of whether the [totality] will recollapse, forcing all its contents into smaller and smaller volumes, increasing the pressure and the temperature. . .

In this quote Mark claims to know the volume, pressure and temperature of the totality and claims that he has modeled totality successfully.

How does Mark know the volume and pressure of the totality? What evidence does he have?

None. None whatsoever.

As Mark and all physicists admit they do not know the totality. All physicists, cosmologists and eschatologists of all types, no matter what species of eschatology they promote, agree that they do not know the totality.

There is no ifs or buts about their ignorance of totality. There is no ambiguity that Mark and his eschatologist friends do not know the totality.

Eschatologists have never known the totality and they still do not know the totality.

But in the above quote Mark asserts that he knows physical properties of the totality such as its volume, pressure and temperature.

6. Mark tries to establish a fake theoretical basis for Big Bang^

This is another blatant lie:

Physicists arrive at this [eschatological speculation called the Big Bang] by first making observations [in the observable universe] today and understanding how these are described by well-established theories of gravity and particle physics.

Now Mark is making the false claim that his theories, ie, Einstein’s equations, “know” the properties of totality.

Mark claimed first that as a professional eschatologist he knew the properties of the totality and now he is trying to legitimate his speculations by invoking the authority of mathematics.

mathematics does not know properties of the totality

No known theory or equation ever written by a physicist, cosmologist or an eschatologist know about the totality.

So we see that this is the same doctoral racket that Mark’s professional ancestors used. They legitimized their eschatology by using their sacred book as false witness. Mark too is using his sacred book — Einstein’s equations — as false witness to legitimate his eschatology.

Both the sacred book of Mark’s ancestors and Einstein’s equations are definitions that know nothing about the totality. Einstein in a show of deep mysticism claimed to have known the radius of totality by an application of his equations and his disciples continue the tradition.

7. Eschatology is shamanism^

Anybody who claims to know as a revelation from a higher authority — whether that authority is god or equations — is a shaman, a charlatan and a scientific fraud.

Anybody who claims to compute, derive, observe or know through whatever means whatsoever the properties of the totality is a shaman, a charlatan and a scientific fraud.

There is no escaping this fact.

Totality is unknowable and therefore eschatologists cannot have access to a higher authority who knows the properties of totality. It doesn’t matter if they claim god as their higher authority or a language they have invented such as mathematics.

I hope that readers recognize this age old doctoral racket nowadays perpetuated by Doctors of Philosophy the physicists and call their bluff.

8. No known physics can reveal the properties of totality^

What about particle physics that Mark mentions to support his eschatology? He claims to use well-established particle physics boilerplate to reveal the properties of totality. This is a lie too.

Mark is lying again because the first assumptions he made about knowing the volume and density of totality is false.

Immutable fact: Mark knows nothing about totality.

Any and all attempts to associate particle physics with the totality starts and stops at NASA’s white noise map. NASA’s white noise map is not a map of totality.

This is another professional lie.

9. Science does not apply to eschatology^

Here Mark explains to us the scientific method observational eschatologists use to prove their speculations, namely, the Big Bang.

We then extrapolate back in time to infer what the early [totality] must have been like. . . .

Is this a scientific extrapolation or is it a cargo cult extrapolation? How can we tell?

Anyone who deduces from an observation of local galaxies that totality is expanding is a fool and a liar. No matter how much he extrapolates, Mark will never arrive at the early totality.

Again Mark is assuming that he knows the totality.

Mark is assuming that the galaxies that he observed constitutes the totality. This is not true.

10. No passage from local to total except through charlatanism^

So Mark observed a few galaxies for a few years then he concluded that the totality must be expanding.

As a professional eschatologist Mark enjoys 5000 years of accumulated authority of the oldest professional class called the scribes. He gets to fool humanity with this silly putty extrapolation by asserting his eschatological authority that comes with his association with the Scholastic Corporation.

cargo cult physics

Mark’s description of scientific method is really the scientific method of cargo cultists who have taken over the academic physics.

Because he is using the words “extrapolate,” “infer,” “test,” “theory,” “predictions” “observations” Mark pretends that what he is doing is science. This is exactly what cargo cult means.

Using scientific sounding buzzwords to conduct cargo cult activities such as extrapolating from local to total and justifying them by own doctoral authority is practicing cargo cult physics.

11. Eschatologists call their prophesy prediction^

So far Mark claimed that he developed an eschatological speculation called the Big Bang and he offered mathematics as false witness, and now he is saying that he makes predictions about the properties of totality and then verifies that his proposed theory predicts them.

You recognize the same circular reasoning Mark’s ancestors used to prove their definitions with their sacred book.

First of all note that physics is an unregulated professional industry full of crooked professionals. What do crooked professionals do?

They introduce whatever fake ad hoc parameters needed to save their theory. If the Big Bang fails to explain observation X, no problem, here comes the shaman Guth with his inflation and the Big Bang is saved.

This is charlatanism.

But more fundamentally, as we have seen, every assumption made by Mark about totality is faked.

Irreversible fact: Mark does not know the totality but assumes it.

So when Mark says that he is testing his eschatological theory about the totality by observations he is lying. He is just adding new lies to save his old lies.

12. An eschatological speculation cannot be tested^

This methodology . . .

We have shown that his methodology is the cargo cult. Eschatology has never been science and still is not. Science has nothing to say about the origin or end of the totality.

. . . works remarkably well and has provided us with an extremely well tested, self-consistent and coherent understanding of the [totality.]

This is a lie. Mark does not know the totality. He does not have an “extremely well tested, self-consistent and coherent” model of totality.

13. How do eschatologists get away with scientific fraud?^

How can Mark get away by claiming that he modeled the totality while he admits that he does not know the totality? I believe this happens for two reasons.

First, general public wants to believe.

The old brand religions lost their authority on cosmogonic model building. Doctors of Philosophy have taken over this department of the Scholastic Corporation. In the consumer society cosmological theories are commodities packaged as any other consumer item.

new and improved big bang

Every cosmological season a new and improved version of famous brands such as the Big Bang are repackaged with new labels: “NEW! 10% MORE ABSURD!” “COOL OR HOT! NEW BIG BANG! BELIEVE NOW!” “EXPERIMENTALLY PROVEN: 9 OUT OF 10 PHYSICISTS RECOMMEND BIG BANG TO SAVE YOUR SOUL!”

military-state-media complex

And second, as I mentioned above, Mark is in the payroll of the Scholastic Corporation who does its business with the military-state-media complex. This association gives Mark an unrivaled authority to cosmologize.

No other professional class, not even lawyers, can challenge Mark’s professional lies. The fact that all professional eschatologists repeat the same lies does not make their lies truth.

Physicists who practice eschatology are the judge and the jury. In other words, physics is pre-scientific cargo cult.

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.

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.

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.

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