Sabine Hossenfelder writes:
According to general relativity, our universe started in a singularity.
This is lie. As Sabine knows very well, general relativity predicts ”all possible generalities in all possible universes” including a static universe, an expanding universe, a contracting universe and anything in between. In fact, general relativity is such a general theory that it predicts anything and everyting and even nothing. It all depends on which cosmological constant Sabine chooses to insert in Einstein’s equations. Selecting one option among many others and presenting it as the only truth is one of the oldest propaganda techniques used by all professionals who want to sell you their point of view as the only truth. Professional physicists are masters of propaganda, that’s what they do.
Furthermore, there are no solutions to general relativity predicting anything other than toy universes with no matter in them.
How can a practicing professional spread such big lies and get away with it? Physics is a professional field full of corrupt professionals and these professionals are not regulated by any type of outside authority. Sabine can tell any lie she wants to and as long as her lies are legal lies, as in this case, none of her colleagues would call her a liar.
* * *
Here is another rhetorical deception from the same article. “Spacetime” is one of the fundamental equivocations routinely used by physicists to spread their lies. Sabine like all physicists assume that space and time separately ceased to exist with the emergence of general relativity. So she writes, “Since gravity is really a consequence of spacetime being curved, we are looking for a theory of the quantum nature of space and time itself”
Like all physicists, Sabine is a master of casuistry and equivocation and other rhetorical deceptions and here she’s telling us that there are no space and time because it is all spacetime and right in the next sentence she promises to investigate the properties of space and time separately. This is charlatanism.
Unless these corrupt professionals are regulated by an outside authority, they will keep corrupting your language and your mind with their lies and distortions and propaganda. All corrupt professionals like bankers, are regulated, and bankers just steal your money. Physicists corrupt your perception of nature and they must be under regulation as well.
Non-existence of Black Holes, The Failure of General Relativity
13:15 There are no known solutions to Einstein’s field equations for two or more masses and there is no existence theorem by which you can even assert that his fields equations contain [...] solutions for such configurations of matter. So all solutions to Einstein’s field equations pertain to only one of two things: a universe that contains nothing; or a universe that contains one mass, whether cosmological or otherwise. That model is nothing in reality and has really no meaning because we know from experiments that gravitation is an interaction between two bodies… 13:57
I am working to put the material in this blog in book format, I appreciate if you have any comments. Here’s a draft outline.
These are the main headers:
- Big Questions
- Why densytic
Antimatter discovered computational errors in a little-known paper by Einstein that “offers a lot of interesting insights into his thoughts on the first tentative evidence for an expanding universe. The error is found in the calculations where Einstein “estimates values for the radius of the universe and the density of matter using Hubble’s results”.
* * *
There is nothing out of the ordinary if someone makes mistakes in his calculations, especially in those days when all computations were done by hand. Only if you deify a person you would be surprised to find out that they too made mistakes in their calculations. This is the case with Einstein. Physicists, in collaboration with the media, turned Einstein into a deity and then they started to believe their own propaganda. Now they think it is a big discovery to find out that the physics deity they created made mistakes too. Einstein’s disciples do not realize that Einstein was able to make his discoveries because he was not afraid of making mistakes. And he made lots of them. There is a book by Hans Ohanian called Einstein’s mistakes: The human failings of genius.
Why physicists care so much about mistakes and consider them “human failings” instead of viewing making mistakes as an important component of research process? That should be a question to investigate in another post.
* * *
In Einstein’s case, the “numerical error in the computation of the radius of the universe” based on Hubble’s observations is trivial compared to the logical error in his basic reasoning.
In my opinion, the importance of Antimatter’s pending paper is to reveal to the world that Einstein is the source of the fundamental equivocation of cosmology, that is, the equivocation of the universe with universe-as-a-whole.
Einstein-the-cosmologist makes the most elementary statistical mistake of extrapolating to the unknown whole from a non-representative sample. Einstein extrapolates from observations of 50 galaxies to unknown number of galaxies in the universe-as-a-whole. His sample is not representative. Einstein’s computations are based on the equivocation of ‘universe’ and ‘universe-as-a-whole’ and therefore they are worthless.
* * *
If a pollster claims to predict election results by polling only 1 (one) person would you consider that a scientific prediction? I am sure that you would at least ask this lazy pollster “What election?”, “How many voters are there?”, “What is the population of voters?”. The sample of an unknown population cannot be a representative sample. This is true for elections as well as for astronomy.
In Einstein’s case, the total number of galaxies are unknown. How can Einstein extrapolate from 50 measurements to the unknown whole? Even a deity cannot do this, only a charlatan can. It’s hard to believe that a genius like Einstein who could calculate the radius of everything that exists in a short paper, did not notice that it is absurd to extrapolate from a few astronomical observations to the cosmological whole. Einstein must be credited as the father of the modern cosmological con.
The state of physics as described in Bankrupting physics by Alexander Unzicker and Sheilla Jones:
A particularly worrying symptom of the current state of affairs in physics is the so-called discovery of the Higgs boson at CERN. The media-hyped announcement in 2012 has been followed up by a series of announcements each installment making the case that the big sensation is “increasingly more likely”. But what was actually discovered were a number of unexplained signals obtained by extensive filtering methods, raising many questions for everyone who takes a sober perspective. Nobody can claim to oversee the analysis of the massive pile of data produced by CERN’s collider experiments.
Nevertheless, these signals are pushed to serve as evidence for the long-theorized Higgs boson supporting the “standard model” of particle physics, although this standard model is not even a well-defined theory. Such an interpretation speaks more of desperation to validate the past six decades of research and to shore up a model that is wobbling precariously under the weight of all the bits and pieces glued onto it to make it work.
I can hear the protests of physicists who conveyed the message in good faith. But they had little choice. The CERN particle search is the most expensive experiment ever conducted, and the thousands of scientists doing high-energy research there had to celebrate any outcome as a breakthrough, if only to justify the billions of dollars of public money being spent.
I was suprised to read that Sean Carrol, one of the con men of cosmology, has the ability to recognize a faulty extrapolation based on a small and unrepresentative sample. He is writing about a study to decide wether poker is more about skill or chance:
In the case of this new study, the methodology is pretty crappy. Most obviously, the sample size is laughably small. Each player played only sixty hands; that’s about two hours at a cardroom table, or maybe fifteen minutes or less at a fast online site. And any poker player knows that the variance in the game is quite large, even for the best players; true skill doesn’t show up until a much longer run than that.
When he is doing cosmology Sean Carroll suspends all rules of logic and extrapolates linearly from 50 years of observations to 30,000,000 years. The question I want to ask is this: If Sean Carroll has the logical ability to recognize that the sample size in the poker study where each player played only 60 hands constitutes a “laughably small” sample, how come he loses all powers of reasoning when it comes to extrapolating linearly from 50 years to 30,000,000 years to prove the Big Bang?
When it comes to his own work Sean Carroll wants us to suspend all disbelief and believe his reckless and laughable extrapolation without question.
Why is it that Sean Carroll does not see that in his Big Bang extrapolation the sample size is laughably small? Is it because he is a Big Bang Bigot?