The fundamental equivocation of cosmology is the universe. Cosmology is based on the equivocation the “observable universe” and the “universe as a whole”.
Or: Religion is the new physics.
There is no doubt that now religion makes scientific predictions that can be tested and verified. As you know, Harold Camping predicted the end of the world and now it was verified that he was wrong.
Physicists on the other hand no longer bother with verifiable predictions. Instead physicists make unverifiable declarations about the universe in unverefiable future or unverefiable past or unverifiable universes of their own invention.
More and more people are realizing what academic physics really is: a scientific fraud.
When religion makes verifiable prediction and physicists cannot and will not . . . what does this mean?
Newtonian gravity is obviously a conspiracy by the intellectual elite to maintain control over the masses.
Not sure if this is intended to be sarcastic, but your “intellectual elite” better known as professional classes, aka priestly scribes, since the times of Egyptians, defined and built a cosmology for the rulers for whom they worked so that rulers could control their citizens.
So, more than a conspiracy, cosmology is the fundamental method used by rulers to control their subjects.
You can no doubt find examples of how cosmology has always been the projection of the social order into the cosmos and vice versa (e.g. old Egypt: cosmos as river; 20th century: cosmos as nuclear explosion.)
Therefore, Newton’s forceful, atomic materialistic worldview with an all powerful sun “exalted on his throne” at the center controlling its subjects the planets with a god-given force may remind you the structure of the 18th century society ruled by all powerful kings; Newton’s “System of the World” was the world system these ruling classes wanted to impose on their citizens. I am sure you heard about the Sun-king.
Whoever controls cosmology controls your mind; whoever controls cosmology, controls how you perceive nature… This is true today more than ever.
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.
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
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?
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 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.
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!”
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.
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.
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]
[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.
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.
Physics is nature is newton is as good a framework as any. Physics is only one of an infinitely possible representations of nature. Physicists are not crackpots but the faithful working for the Ministry of Natural Truth programming our perception of nature with their physical semantics that’s why all of us in physics we trust. He who pays physics gets to define the world and for a few dollars physicists will define the universe for you as a spherical cow. If you pay the price you can have an FLRW universe with a cosmological constant of your choice. If your name appears in Forbes list then you can ask physicists to design a multiverse to match the color of your couch. Zeus’ physical theory of lightning was hidden physics that was revealed to us by a 2000 year old programming code. Be flattered that Doctors of Philosophy and Doctors of Theology are staging the great cosmology wars to save your soul.
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.
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?
In the case of the cow we are the outside observers of the cow so we may be able to come up with a quantity of simplification. But in the case of the universe we are not outside observers so we cannot know how much we’ve simplified the universe with a particular model. That’s why a cosmos is never a representative part of totality. This is a science versus mythology choice. Scientific rationalism either is crossed and cosmology becomes mythmaking or we accept that we don’t know the totality and we remain boring scientists and the media fails to show any interest in our work.
Physicists always choose to give the media what it wants and fail to quantify the degree of simplification in their theories. I think for physics to be a precise science each theory must be stated with its simplification error. Not with its philosophical rating stamped with physicists’ authority. After all measurement without error is meaningless in physics. Similarly, a theory stated without its simplification error is meaningless. Simplification error is the measurement error for theories.
A most general way to classify a physics model or a theory may be rating its strength as second nature, third nature, fourth nature, nth nature, regarding how well it models first nature, in analogy to Second Life and order of approximation used by engineers and physicists as in zeroth order approximation, first order approximation, and so on.
What is the order of string theory? Infinith nature? Or is it 10 to the 250th nature?
The order of simplification is better than the current criterion physicists use to evaluate string theory, namely, falsifiability. Since when physics deals with non-quantifiable philosophical notions invented by philosophers called falsifiability? Physics deals with quantities. Physical theories must be judged by physical quantities not by philosophical polemics. This is why any discussion of string theory quickly snowballs into a philosophical polemics on the meaning of falsifiability and ends up by physicists calling each other crackpots. If we know the nth nature of string theory then we know what kind of theory it is.
Any theory with an nth nature number is a scientific theory. Any theory that cannot calculate its nth nature is not a theory at all, it is somebody’s opinion. It makes no different if that somebody has a PhD in physics.
The criterion of falsifiability must be eliminated from physics. Falsifiability is a philosophical concept and makes physics subservient to philosophical polemics. It must be established that the only scientific criterion to rate a theory can only be a number. This number is the nth nature. A scientific theory cannot be rated with a non-quantitative philosophical notion called falsifiability which depends only on the authority of physicists.
1. Simplification is how much you can remove without removing defining functionality.
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.
Here’s another false factoid perpetuated by physicists:
Einstein’s general theory of relativity says that the universe began with the big bang singularity, a moment when all the matter we see was concentrated at a single point of infinite density.
Einstein’s general theory of relativity says that, sure, but it also says “no, the universe did not start with a singularity.” It all depends on physicists’ taste. If they choose to remove the cosmological constant from Einstein Equations they will get a solution with a Big Bang singularity. Einstein equations have an infinity of solutions.
General relativity is a truly general theory.
General relativity predicts all possible generalities in all possible universes. You see now what a great physical theory general relativity is! What the string theory is trying to do now, general relativity has been doing since its discovery.
General relativity is infinitely general.
General relativity encompasses all multiverses of string theory, all backgrounds and vacuums and so on. But how come general relativity works so well if it predicts anything and everything? Initial boundary conditions! Initial conditions are also known in general relativity as authority gauge. A physicist, if he has enough rank and authority, can add and remove and pick and choose and define any solution to prove anything he wants. God’s existence not excluded. In fact, statements such as “general relativity says . . .” or “general relativity predicts . . .” have no more scientific meaning than “God says . . .” or the “the Bible says. . .”
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.