Tag Archives: Cosmology

Saul Perlmutter: You are a charlatan

Posted on by

Saul Perlmutter

Look at this paper by Saul Perlmutter and Co.: Cosmology from Type Ia Supernova.

The paper looks so scientific; it is full of charts and measurements. I have no doubt that all those astronomical measurements are impeccable measurements.

Where is the charlatanism? Charlatanism is in the projection of local to total.

Based on observations of a set of 40 supernovas, Perlmutter concludes that the universe is expanding forever.

Perlmutter projects his few local observations to the total universe. Perlmutter measures 40 astronomical objects and concludes that the universe as a whole is expanding.

Does Perlmutter know the universe as a whole? No.

The 40 objects are not a representative sample of the objects in the universe. Perlmutter does not know the number of objects in the universe. This is a fact that even Perlmutter himself admits. All astronomers admit that they do not know the totality of the universe because they know that there is a part of the universe from where no light reaches the Earth.

It is a scientific fact that astronomers do not know the totality of the universe. Any astronomer who claims to know the totality while also admitting that he does not know the totality is a charlatan and a fraud.

Example:

Suppose you are running in the presidential elections and you want to know what percentage of woman voters will vote for you and you hire Perlmutter as your pollster. Using the same sampling method he uses in his astronomical work, Perlmutter polls the first woman who comes nearest to him and after polling one sample, Perlmutter reports his result to you as a generalization to the entire female voters.

Will you pay this charlatan who bases his report on a poll of one voter?

But taking one sample of a known population is lesser charlatanism than taking 40 samples of an unknown population as representative.

Claiming knowledge of the unknown whole from a non-representative sample is charlatanism. Perlmutter knows that his local sample is not representative of totality. Therefore, Perlmutter not only is a chlarlatan but he is also a scientific fraud. His glossy astronomical charts have no cosmological value.

We must expose Perlmutter and his ilk as charlatans and scientific frauds who try to establish observational basis for their creation myths.

The New Revolution: A Scopes Trial Against Newtonism

Posted on by

I am planning to stage a Scopes-type trial against Newtonism which is taught in public schools in the United States as science under the name of “physics”.

The goal of the trial is to

  1. expose Newtonism as a British cult that impersonates science;
  2. remove Newtonism from the curriculum.

The first order of business is to find a trial lawyer who would take an interest in this case. (Or alternatively, to find supporters who would fund the project, including hiring a lawyer.)

This lawyer will

– translate the claim that Newtonism is a cult into the legal language understood by the US legal system;

– help choose the venue, the plaintiff and the defendant;

– help develop the marketing strategy;

– file the case with the court and see it through.

***

The following are my own thoughts as a layman about how such a trial may progress and why as an individual we must all take part in questioning Newtonism as a patriotic duty to our nation.

***

I have no experience with jury trials but I believe that in the US-type jury trials, the judge presiding over the case is responsible to apply the law and the jury is responsible to find the facts and discharge a decision.

I assume that in a case like this where the plaintiff claims that the defendent has been indoctrinating US pupils with unverified and unverifiable occult doctrines of a British cult; the judge will ask the parties to call expert witnesses to present their case to the jury.

***

The plaintiff claims that the fundamental doctrine of what is taught as physics in public schools is based on the religious doctrines of a British cult whose founder was a British subject called Isaac Newton.

The defendent rejects the plaintiff’s representation of physics as a British cult and conflates technology, engineering and practical astronomy with occult foundations of physics and claims that all of science is nothing but physics and the defendent is justified to teach physics as science in the United States. The defendent insists that the teachers of physics are licensed by the state to teach physics and no laws are broken by teaching physics.

***

I am not sure where the burden of proof lies in this case; but it appears that the plaintiff has the burden of proof and must prove that Newtonism doing business as physics is a British cult that crossed the Atlantic somehow and infected the scientific institutions of the new nation from the beginning. The Founding Fathers denied the authority of the tax-imposing British King; but they were fooled into accepting The System of the World of the British King of the Occult as the true science of the nation they formed.

***

In any case, it is obvious that the defendent will call an eminent professor of physics practicing in a brand-name “prestigious” university famous for its football team so that such a high-learning center will be recognizable to the jury as the cradle of science in the United States.

To the jury, the famous professor in the witness stand will appear to be the personification of science in the United States. In reality, such universities are the academic breeding grounds of Newtonism; universities endow the cult of Newtonism with its academic authority. There is perfect synergy between Big Education, Big Physics, Big Media, Big Finance and Big Government; they are the conspiracy against the little man.

***

Calling a professor of physics to defend physics in a trial against physics is like calling the Pope as an expert witness in the trial of Galileo. In fact, the proposed trial can be marketed as the “Revenge of Galileo”.

Would the judge allow such a biased witness to testify against the claim that physics is a cult?

Questions like this may best be answered by a trial lawyer (or tested by the actual trial).

***

And what kind of standard of evidence will the court enforce on the parties to prove their case?

Physics has no standard of evidence; in academic physics anything goes. Physics is an unregulated and corrupt-to-the-core professional industry where the practitioners have absolute authority over their professional legal code which they call –surprise! surprise!– “Newton’s Laws”.

Physicists can disprove any attack against their Newtonian doctrine by defining a new term and by inserting it into the existing legal physics equations. The physics equation which is sanctified by physicists as the only true representation of nature is in fact the most crooked timber in the collection of physical crooked timber called physics.

***

So, let’s get the trial going and let’s say Doctor A is a physicist called in to testify as an expert witness. Doctor A takes the stand and easily proves to the jury by using legal physics equations that Newton’s force is an experimentally proved fact of Nature; this is a well-known textbook fact, Doctor A says, and it is taught even in grade school (physicists are fond of circular reasoning). “Yes, Newtons force exists in nature” Doctor A testifies.

Next in the witness stand is another physicist, Doctor B, who has comparable rank and seniority and therefore the same level of academic authority as Doctor A. But Doctor B is hired by the plaintiff and has no difficulty proving by using equally legal and well-established physics equations that Newton’s force does not exist in nature; Newton’s force has long been superseeded by spacetime, Doctor B proves; or quantum gravity; or graviton or something or other; or all of the above. Doctor B testifies for the record that “No, Newton’s force does not exist in nature.”

To settle the issue the court calls its own witness, Doctor of physics C, who is yet another authority in matters of physics and equally endowed with academic credentials as Doctors A and B. Doctor C proves to the jury with unequivally certain physics equations that “there are no forces in nature because according to the M-Theory [sic] nature is made of strings”. This opens the can of worms called the String Theory on which no two physicists are in agreement; there is even a faction within the string theory community proving mathematically that the string theory is a special case of Newton’s Laws!

***

The judge is getting impatient now and he calls the great Doctor D who is a professor emeritus of physics at the University of Chicago; if Doctor D is not (yet) a Nobel laureate, it is not for his lack of lobbying the Swedish Academy through his agent who handles the contracts for his popular physics books written for the laymen; Doctor D is a living legend in physics establishment and has academic credentials dwarfing the credentials of Doctors A, B and C combined.

The eminent Doctor D wastes no time to impress the jury by filling the chalkboard installed in the courthouse just for this historic moment with precise physical equations revealing what the Lord God was having for breakfast 3 minutes before the Big Bang (2 eggs, hard boiled, with bacon and toast and orange juice). The great Doctor D then computes the density of an egg before the Big Bang and how long it took to hard boil an egg before the Big Bang, all in the plain language that the jury could understand.

The jury is awed by Doctor D’s magical talent not only to read the mind of god but his revelation of God’s culinary habits as far back as before the Big Bang just by writing a couple of physical equations on a blackboard.

The plaintiff counsel observes the excitement Doctor D’s revelations caused on the jury and considers this to be the breaking point of the case against his client’s claim that physics is a shamanistic personality cult where practitioners achieve impossible feasts by just rearranging some symbols in an equation; so he immediately objects:

Objection your honor! Doctor D has his signs mixed up! According to the Kerr Spacetime metric that he is using to extrapolate to the Big Bang his cosmological constant lambda must have a negative sign in front of it, otherwise it will lead to the Big Crunch not to the Big Bang; I have Doctor D’s monumental textbook Introduction to General Relativity in front of me; and I can prove that he is wrong. I am looking at page 2895 paragraph 705(a)(i)(A)(x) and equation number 2,987,551 where Doctor D writes this exact same equation he just wrote on the blackboard but with a positive sign in front of it! He is confusing Big Bang with the Big Crunch.

The great Doctor of physics D, is used to such amateurish objections to his physical authority and calmly instructs the jury that he is using a “pseudo-Kerr spacetime, not a regular Kerr-spacetime” as the plaintiff counsel claims and that his paper revealing the correspondence of pseudo and regular Kerr spacetimes will appear in the next issue of Physical Review Letters D; so his results are correct.

Plaintiff counsel tries again: ”Objection! He just made pseudo-Kerr stuff up!”

“Overruled”, says the judge, who has no intention of going into the subtleties of a theory that requires over 3 million equations to calculate… what? Not sure, but it is not worth meddling with a physics professor who has the authority to define on the spot any pseudo anything to counter your argument. If you argue the letter of the law the eminent prof will argue the spirit; if you argue the spirit he will argue the letter; and given his immense authority supported by his fame gained through his popular books making loads of money for the publisher, he will win any physical argument.

The jury is in a scientific (physical?) trance induced by the academic authority of Doctor D who brings first hand news to the jury from the Bing Bang and their Lord God; the jury starts to applaud Doctor D’s great achievement; the judge is not amused and orders the jury to show no outside sign of emotion favoring one side or the other.

***

The physical authority of Doctor D and the magic of his physical equations succeeds in swaying the jury to a decision in favor of the defendant.

***

But the veteran judge who is presidening over our trial is used to the courthouse showmanship performed by trial lawyers more colorful than Doctor D and he is not fooled by Doctor D’s performance to demonstrate the authority of physics over the Lord God. On the contrary, the judge now realizes that the doctors of physics who came to his court as expert witnesses make it clear that physicists are expert in one thing and one thing only:

Physicists are experts in corrupting the ancient science of physics to save the authority of their master Newton.

The judge is fed up with these professional enemies of science and decides to enforce new rules of standard of evidence to be obeyed by everyone who takes the stand in his court.

After all, what kind of standard of evidence exists in physics that allows the revelation of what our Lord God was eating before he created the Big Bang that modern physicists discovered by reading the mind of God? Nil. There exists no such standard of evidence; in physics anything goes.

***

Would an academic physicist accept the authority of a legal court in matters of legal physics? Would a judge have the courage to impose legal standards of evidence on corrupt physicists who believe that they are the judge and the jury when it comes to matters of physics?

These are the questions that this case is aiming to test.

***

I realize that teaching Newtonism as true science is a well-established habit of society; social habits are very difficult to change; in this case it may take over a decade to expose Newtonism as a British cult colonizing US minds.

Consider your own immediate reaction when you read the claim that Newtonism is a British cult designed to colonize the minds of US citizens.

You instinctively thought

What nonsense! If Newtonism were wrong satellites would fall to earth; chaos would reign in the solar system; the cosmos as we know it would cease to exist; academic physics would collapse under its own weight as Peripatetic philosphy did; observations prove that Newton is nature and nature is physical therefore how can physics be wrong? This guy is wasting his time taking Newtonism to court; it is impossible to prove Newtonism wrong; Newton’s authority is infinite; Newton is the mortal closest to gods etc., etc.

***

But when you cool down, and reconsider your reaction as described in the above paragraph you will see that your reaction is not based on any scientific evidence that you systematically evaluated by using your own reasoning powers; no! you are just channelling the authority of Newtonian priests who indoctrinated you with the doctrine that Newton is a British demi-god who discovered the laws of nature in an orchard.

When you first heard the apple myth as applied to Newton, you were in grade school and you assumed that since it was such a well-known myth that explained both the ultimate human sin and the ultimate human discovery it must be correct; at the time you did not have the intellectual capacity to question the Newtonian cult and its myths; but now you can and you must question the doctrines of the Newtonian cult.

***

You might for instance start by questioning Newton’s Zeroth Law:

God in the beginning formed matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable movable particles.

then you may concede that you did not read and understand Newton’s original writings; you did not study the original writings of Newton’s famous disciples such as Cavendish, Lagrange, Laplace, Gauss, Hamilton and many others who successfully branded Kepler’s Rule as Newtonian mechanics over the course of two centuries after Newton founded his cult.

But worst, you may have taken a few physics course during your university adventure and still failed to figure out that the teachers who teach physics are Newtonian priests; this is how stealth Newtonian cult is at this point.

***

You can offer no evidence for your defense of Newtonism except the authority of Newtonian priests who wrote all the books that you may have read to form your opinion of the Newtonian cult.

If you take the time to study some fundamental physics experiments you will see that the same most respected Newtonian priests have been faking experiments to prove that Newton’s occult force exists in nature (occult force does not exist in nature); and faking physics equations to prove that orbits obey Newton’s laws (orbits do not obey Newton’s laws).

***

There is nothing new about the realization that the state teaches you and everyone else sanctified conventions as the only truth. Newtonism is one of many such sanctified conventions taught by the state.

The state knows nothing about Newtonism. The state outsources academic knowledge to the Doctors of Philosophy, also known as physicists, and they teach the cult of Newtonism as true science.

***

This is the standard method used by the state to teach citizens its own legal values. The state indoctrinates its citizens with its official doctrines presented to the citizens as the only truth. We all know this.

Another example of sanctified convention taught by the state as the only truth is the base-10 number system. The state teaches the base-10 number system as if it were the only true number system. Think about the moment when you realized that other number systems such as binary and hexadecimal systems were equally valid number systems and none of them were privileged or sacred.

Why was it that when the state taught you the base-10 system it was not made clear to you that base-10 system was just one of infinitely many number systems possible? The reason is that the state, more specifically its agents, the teachers, do not want you to know that there alternatives to what they are teaching and then question their authority.

The state, and its agents the physicists, do not want you think for yourself and find out that Newtonism is a cult.

Were you excited to learn that there were non-Euclidean geometries? Why was it that teachers taught Euclidean geometry as the true geometry for thousands of years?

***

The realization that Newtonism is a sanctified unit system served to you as the only true “system of the world” is the same kind of wonderful realization that will open up new intellecutal horizons for you.

***

We must expose and get rid of this last remnant of the British colonialism in the United States.

###

Notes for the curious:

  • Physical semantics: Physicists corrupted the good word “physical” to map any natural word into physics. The result is that whenever we use the word “physical” we are proving Newtonism as the only truth.
  • Five ideological physics experiments physicists corrupted to save their Master Newton’s sacred authority. It is a disgrace to call these polemics with a gadget “experiments.”

Cosmology is the projection of the local to the universal

Posted on by

jarin writes:

Newtonian gravity is obviously a conspiracy by the intellectual elite to maintain control over the masses.

zeynel replies:

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.

Lubos Motl defines the word universe

Posted on by

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.

Cosmic variance at Discover

Posted on by

Cosmic Variance blog has become a part of Discover magazine. The user Zeynel was banned in the original Cosmic Variance but my first couple of comments went through on the new blog. Not for long though. After I posted these two comments Zeynel is censured again:

Sean Carroll wrote:
“But when you start digging into the details of the documentary hypothesis, demonstrating that the Bible is just like any other collection of essays, culled from disparate sources with incompatible agendas and stitched together by more or less conscientious editors — human, all too human, in other words — it really hits home.”

Yes. Moreover, Bible, which literally means the Book, as you know, was the first book which became The Book. The book was as great a technological advance from scrolls as the printing press was in later times. And Paul’s was the first successful book tour. I think the bible and people who wrote and packaged it deserve credit for such an incredible marketing campaign. They could have taught Procter&Gamble a few things.

QWerner Says:

“nuclear energie is on of the worst thing the humans did.”

Isn’t this an unjustified generalization? It was not humanity who created nuclear energy and nuclear weapons but professional physicists.

I don’t understand why these comments touch a nerve in Cosmic Variance.

This is the comment that I tried to post today which was censured. The post was yet another one where Sean Carroll asserts that

Evidence for the big bang is overwhelming.

It is a model that keeps making predictions, which keep turning out to be correct, while the steady state made many predictions that turned out to be wrong.

My comment:

There is zero evidence for big bang if big bang is stated as a property of totality. All evidence for big bang is a fit to CMBR. But CMBR is a local radiation. Cosmologists must assume that CMBR is cosmic not because its marketing name includes the word cosmic but it relates to totality. How do they do that? They assume that local is total. Hubble’s observations of local galaxies represent the totality. This is not justified because it includes a knowledge of totality.

All evidence offerred in support of big bang is based on the pun universe-cosmos-totality and on the implicit cosmological principle which says that local is total.

There is no doubt that Big Bang has replaced Chistian cosmogony as the new official cosmogonic mythology of humanity. Physicists are selling a cosmic mythology as experimentally verified scientific model.

NASA makes every year more discoveries than Europeans could not make in 2000 years

Posted on by

In this article Lubos Motl talks about Sean Carroll’s Dark Photon paper that I wrote about yesterday. He too remarks that there is nothing new or ingenious in proposing dark species of existing light physical quantities. But I cannot agree with Motl’s first sentence:

Everyone knows that the media help to ruin the quality control in climate science — a discipline that has become extremely politicized. But we can see that glimpses of such dynamics can also be found in disciplines that have not been politicized — cosmology and theoretical physics.

How can a physicist be blind to the fact that cosmology and theoretical physics are so political that you cannot separate political content from scientific content? Big Bang is nothing more than a state-sponsored cosmogonic mythology. Political rulers have always used cosmogonic mythologies to control the ruled. This is still the case.

Global unhuman organisms who own physics and pay for physics research have been very successful in marketing physics as an independent scientific endeavor striving for the well-being of humanity. This is the reason why Lubos Motl is unable to perceive that physics is in the service of political rulers.

One consequence of this is that a theory such as the General Relativity is not a scientific theory. Not anymore. General Relativity is owned by the global Organism who uses it for its marketing purposes. Any change in General Relativity must be paid for and approved by the Organism. Physicists can do nothing but repeat what is legal. This is not science. And academic physicists are fooling themselves and us if they believe that they are discovering fundamental properties of nature to do humanity a favor.

  • Should physics be freed from the domination of unhuman organisms?
  • Can physics be called an independent science as long as theoretical physicists are paid by unhuman organisms to do either military research or to develop mythological scenarios that unhuman organisms use as scientific cover for military research.

There is a dilemma here.

NASA makes every year more discoveries than Europeans could not make in 2000 years. This is an incredible acceleration in the rate of discovery. The success of NASA is the definitive proof that scholasticism invented by Europeans is the true enemy of knowledge. Physics is still controlled by scholastic Doctors of Philosophy — dogmatic and absolutist academic careerist bureaucrats who call themselves theoretical physicists — not by engineers. Doctors of physics are the reason why physics remains a pre-scientific cargo cult.

If Alexander the Great founded NASA instead of bankrolling major temples in Didyma and Priene, among many others, he would have been truer to the scientific vision of his teacher Aristotle. And Alexander was proud of his scientific curiosity and made sure to send Aristotle interesting artifacts from his travels in exotic places. And there is no reason why Alexander could not have founded an organization with the same mission as NASA, that is,

to advance and communicate scientific knowledge and understanding of the earth, the solar system, and the universe.

Maybe first he had to found the US and then Russia to instigate space exploration in the US, but that would have come naturally to him. All the ingredients for space exploration existed on earth then as well as now.

Imagine the state of knowledge today if NASA had 2000 years head start.

By eliminating the domination of modern scholastic doctors of philosophy the physicists on human knowledge and by establishing a truly scientific physics organization not controlled by political rulers and their servants the Newtonian doctors of philosophy we can give future generations a head start.

So what do you think? Is it OK that scientific research is paid for and controlled by political powers? Is this a small price to pay to allow NASA to continue discovering the universe?

He who pays physics gets to define the world

Posted on by

Physicist Coulomb in military regalia (1736 -1806)

Physics demi-god Coulomb was a military guy working for big projects for the unhuman Triumvirate of State-Military-School. When the Triumvirate needed a French version of Newton’s laws they asked Coulomb and Coulomb complied by defining the law of static electricity with a pendulum. Today academic physicists do not wear military uniforms but they still define the world for the rulers of the world.

What can be wrong with collaborating with unhumanity so that it can kill more innocent human individuals? After all that’s an old human tradition, some of the greatest scientists over the ages were military contractors: Archimedes, Da Vinci, Galileo, Feynman, to name a few. Descartes was in the military for most of his life. And Newton? He was too busy setting standards for unhuman organisms to be a military contractor.

  • Newton moved the European scholasticism from the Aristotelian to Newtonian standard
  • Newton moved the world system from French Cartesian standards to the British Standard System of the World
  • As director of the Mint Newton moved the Pound Sterling from the silver to gold standard.

Newton’s System of the World is the projection of the British class system into the celestial realm with the Sun-King at the center and its subjects the planets held together by a universal force emanating from the center. You can’t design such a system and not get your shoulder tapped by Queen Ann.

Therefore from its prehistory to its Newtonian beginnings and from Newton to the 19th century when physicists shed their uniforms and got out of their academic walled gardens and went into the military labs to build weapons or to conduct military research under scientific cover physics has always been in the service of unhumanity.

Is Big Bang a state-sponsored cosmogonic mythology?

Global states and the military pay for cosmology through schools. Is cosmology the hobby of the Triumvirate? Or do they get something out of it? Is it a coincidence that in the nuclear age the cosmogonic mythology of humankind is a nuclear explosion? Is it significant that the Triumvirate designed and developed Big Bang in their own image to exploit humanity?

Legal is corporate science is human

Unhumanity cares only for what is legal because the legal-born unhuman finds its own legitimacy in itself. Science does not find its own legitimacy in itself. It was invented as the antithesis of legal. Science is humans’ way of fooling themselves by creating new appearances with new tools.

Galileo was a disillusioned corporate man who was branded later as a romantic revolutionary in the service of the corporation and the corporation called Galileo’s disillusionment the scientific revolution.

No wonder everyone’s for science and everyone’s for Galileo. Including the Triumvirate.

Unhuman authority and human individual

There is an age-old conflict between individual and civil authority. When Jesus the individual stormed the temple where professionals burned the carcass and ate the good parts while people ate boiled lentils he was facing an establishment in which religion was simply an arm of government. Who won ultimately? The unhuman organism rebranded itself as a new religion and continued to exploit human individuals. Both Jesus and Galileo have been burned into the DVD of history as heroes of unhuman organisms they were fighting against. There is no way to change that. Big Brother rewriting the history. . . but everybody knows this already.

Socrates in Athens was killed by the same unhuman organism for practicing individual thinking. Mahatma Gandhi faced the same imperialist organism that created Newtonism that has been colonizing human mind for over 300 years.

We are the consumers

With the Industrial Revolution the Triumvirate realized that science practiced by then amateur physicists meant power and they wanted to harness it for their own anti-human purposes and they have been. So this is a fight, if there is a fight, between human individual and the unhuman organisms. Humans are bound to lose it. So don’t bother to fight. Ignore and collaborate. But realize that this is not about science and religion. Or physics and religion. Both physics and religion are owned by the Triumvirate. This is Gandhi against British imperialism. This is us against Newtonism. This is us against state sponsored cosmogonic mythology. And we are the consumers, we are not the individual. We are against nothing and we don’t really care as long physicists entertain us with their absurd scenarios.

Don’t make a fetish out of legal science

Realize that science is not a corporation. Science is not anything. It is a meaningless container filled with propaganda as needed just like religion. But physics is the name of a corporation. Physics is defined as the romantic profession of heroic scientists. The Triumvirate uses this propaganda to attract new recruits to its side. Most physicists have gone into physics to be the next Galileo or the next media Einstein. They ended up being academic bureaucrats.

As humans we’ve now passed the stage of science v. religion wars. We’ve passed the cargo cult science stage now. We’ve grown up scientifically. It’s been three centuries since Galileo. Forget about him already. The players long changed their names but they are still milking the Galileo myth they’ve created. This is not about science. It is about human freedom.

Human curiosity must be placed beyond the reach of state authority, someone said, creativity and innovation can be encouraged through decentralization, but if intellectual endeavor in the United States continues to be controlled through centralized federal funding, we will one day witness the end of independent thought and political freedom.

As if anyone cares. It’s better to collaborate with the Triumvirate and believe in the official cosmogony and live a happy life. The official cosmogony is as good as any.  Just ignore even if you read it this far.

Physics under attack

Posted on by

A comment to Moshe of Shores of the Dirac Sea

It’s interesting that you titled your post “defending our turf“. Indeed, this is an old academic turf war between two types of doctors, Doctors of Philosophy who are now called physicists and Doctors of Theology.

Today DoP are the incumbents. So you are defending your academic turf. But when Newton started his career in Cambridge DoT were the incumbents. As you know, in Newton’s time science was taught by DoT and it was a mixture of Aristotelianism and Christian theology — the academic middle ground DoP and DoT defined as science.

Enter Newton. Oh, by the way, what is the cause of the enmity? Why do you think that you feel under attack and that you need to defend your academic turf? Is physics so weak that it needs defending against religion by a String Theorist? No. The turf wars, actually, it should better be called, an academic blood feud, is about cosmology. The recent Origins conference makes this clear. The war is not about science or even physics, it is about cosmology.

Newton reshuffles scholasticism

So, again, enter Newton. Newton was a corporate raider. He raided the European scholastic corporation and toppled Aristotelianism and established the new School of Newton. In the process he grabbed the authority to cosmologize from DoT and gave it as a present to his brethren the DoP who had agreed to join his school. This is why today cosmology is practiced by DoP. But DoT, as good academics, never forget and never forgive. So they are still fighting to gain back their authority to cosmologize. This is the cause of the blood feud between DoP and DoT in a nutshell.

In Newton’s time cosmology was controlled by a giant bureaucracy called the Catholic Church. Today cosmology is controlled by another giant bureaucracy and DoP are in its payroll. DoT want this lucrative business back. In other words, just follow the money.

Therefore, even though you say you are defending science you are actually defending your career.

The incumbent Doctors of Philosophy will not let go of their authority on cosmology and become once again the lowly DoP teaching DoT’s religion as science. They prefer to teach their own religion as science.

Cosmological constant and hemlines

Posted on by

Physicists have turned the cosmological constant into a legal physical quantity. As such cosmological constant is open to speculations. Some even tried to tie the value of the cosmological constant to hemlines:

This is true in science as well. In the old days high authorities in the form of professional doctors designed a cosmogonic model for humanity to believe in and generations believed in the same cosmogony. Today there is a cosmological season tied to the semi-annual meeting of the industry in some paradise island. During the meeting the cosmologists unravel the latest state of cosmos and tell us the true value of the cosmological constant for that season.

Fashion industry regulates the hemlines, physics industry regulates the cosmological constants. [a nice graphic showing how hemlines and cosmological constant change over the years would go well here. There may even be a correlation!]

This may be an extreme idealization of the situation worse than associating hemlines and financial markets. But the story of the fluctuations in hemlines as told in Wikipedia is similar to the emancipation of the cosmological constant from being a constant of nature into being a variable constant of physics bureaucracy.

In the history of Western fashion, the ordinary public clothes of upper- and middle-class women varied only between floor-length and slightly above ankle-length for many centuries before World War I. Skirts of lower-calf or mid-calf length were associated with the practical working garments of lower-class or pioneer women, while even shorter skirt lengths were seen only in certain specialized and restricted contexts (e.g. sea-bathing costumes, or outfits worn by ballerinas on stage). It was not until the mid-1910s that hemlines began to rise significantly (with many variations in height thereafter). Skirts rose all the way from floor-length to near knee-length in only about fifteen years (from late in the decade of the 1900s to the mid-1920s). From WW1 to roughly 1970, a woman had to wear skirts near their currently-fashionable length or be considered almost hopelessly unstylish, but since the 1970s, women’s options have widened, and there is no longer really only one single fashionable skirt-length at a time.

Fashionable value of the Cosmological Constant

Is there a fashionable value of the cosmological constant? Is it true that

cosmological constant has been in and out of fashion; like an odd piece of plumbing pipe it has been found to be a useful cosmological tool on various occasions?

Is it also true that physicists have been debating philosophical aspects of the cosmological constant pretty much endlessly for the last hundred years? And that there

have been three occasions when it was introduced to explain some observational fact thought to be true at the time. But on all of these occasions subsequent observations have changed (or have been contrary to) the original observation and sent the cosmological constant back to the shelf waiting for its next appearance.

We see the great science of physical cosmology at work here. Maybe cosmologists’ option widened and nowadays there is really no one single fashionable value for the cosmological constant?

Hemlines v. physical constants

Cosmologists will argue that hemlines fluctuate according to social winds. There is no experimental and correct value of hemlines. For the cosmological constant this is not true, they will say. Cosmologists claim that they are searching the correct experimental value for the cosmological constant e.g., in the white noise they call WMAP. The fact is that there can be no experimental value for the cosmological constant as a property of the totality.

Cosmologists do not know the totality

Cosmologists trace the scientific origin of the cosmological constant to an offspring of Einstein equations called Friedman equations. Friedman equations assume homogeneity and isotropy therefore they assume that totality obeys Friedman equations. Evidence by fiat has been very fashionable in cosmology. But what real observational evidence are there that the totality obeys a 19th century Russian meteorologist’s particular choice of equations? None. Cosmologists do not know the totality and they will never know.

Whatever cosmologists derive from Friedman equations is mythology because Friedman equations assume the totality to begin with.

A comparison of scientific properties of Cosmological Constant and hemlines

Observational value of the cosmological constant is as fashionable and arbitrary as hemlines. But at least people who set the hemlines do not claim to base their value on observations and on science. But if you read the Wikipedia entry carefully, you’ll see that for a long time the male dominated society forced women to wear floor length heavy skirts and enforced this habit as if it were a law derived from the true laws of true society, i.e., male dominated society. Science is dominated now by the same kind of dogmatic professional doctors. The emancipation of science will reveal the true nature of authority constants such as the Cosmological Constant.

This table shows similarities and differences between the cosmological constant and hemlines:

Property Cosmological Constant Lambda Hemline Constant Psi
Legal Yes. A Legal Physical quantiy Previously was a legal social quantity. Now a free variable
Observational No Yes
Experimental No Yes
Equational Yes. Friedman equations Yes. Social norms
Theoretical Yes Yes
Fashionable Yes? Previously not. Now yes
Cultural Yes. Product of physics culture Yes. product of social culture
Exists No. It’s an equational artifact of physics Yes. Its instances can be measured
Owned by Physics industry Fashion industry

The table suggests that “hemline” is a more scientific quantity than “cosmological constant.” Hemlines exist and they can be measured. Hemlines are dependent on seasons, on society and on culture and they may just be an arbitrary quantity but they can be measured. In fact if we agree on a unit and reference frame for measurement and call it for instance Psi, hemlines will become a physical quantity.

\Lambda = \textrm{Cosmological Constant}

\Psi = \textrm{Hemlines Constant}

Furthermore, hemlines do not claim to give any deep, absolute and fundamental truth about totality by faking to be a scientific quantity. In this regard too cosmological constant looses to hemlines in terms of scientific character.

Also, is there really a place where the value of the cosmological constant is plotted as it varied since its creation a century ago to compare it with the hemlines? Since the same theory holds for financial markets maybe recently out-of-work quants may be of help here?

If the unit of archiving were to be numbered Physical Quantities instead of physics papers the story of the cosmological constant would not have been buried in specialized physics papers.

Bible: the differential version

Posted on by

Why is cosmology a tug of war between religion and science?

The answer is very simple.

  • Religion is practiced by professional Doctors of Theology.
  • Science is practiced by professional Doctors of Philosophy.

Both doctors claim ownership of cosmology. This is an academic border dispute between two types of doctors.

Before the reign of Newton DOT had the sole authority on designing, hiding, packaging and marketing their cosmogonical mythology under the True and Genuine Faith brand. Newton grabbed cosmological authority from DOT and gave it to his brethren DOP as part of his Scientific Revolution. Now DOP have been designing and packaging and marketing their cosmogonic mythology under the True and Genuine Physical Cosmology brand.

DOT never forgot this humiliating loss of authority and they are still fighting to get it back. This is not like a friendly competion between two corporations. No, this is more like an ugly academic turf war. As a consequence consumers are the biggest losers.

My advice to both DOT and DOP: Forget about old enmities and academic blood feuds with your brother doctors and sit down and resolve this issue like civilized politicians that you are at heart. The Pope already implied support for the Big Bang. But if you read the fine print of his Bull which is written in Latin you would see that it could be interpreted to support the Big Bang, the Big Bounce, the Steady State, and various native American cosmologies if need be, it is all inclusive and generally relative just like standard physical theories. So, what I mean is that there is room for negotiations. Just agree to disagree and draft a modified version of the Bible and market it as the new translation of recently discovered clay tablets in caves somewhere near Dead Sea.

Here are three useful bullet points for you to get started:

1. Start from Genesis I.

Don’t question who wrote Genesis I. Accept Genesis I as a physical initial condition. This assumption is as scientific as exotic assumptions physicists routinely make to obtain a class of solutions to Einstein equations called exotic solutions. So you see religion and science use similar methods of reasoning. In fact, it can be argued that God lifted Genesis I verbatim from a modern cosmology textbook, so you guys may be closer than you think.

2. Agree on the true value of Cosmological constant

Even before sitting on the table have your graduate students and minions negotiate a preferred value of the cosmological constant and approve it as the true value of the vacuum energy that god used to create the expansion. Remember God is not a blunderer. Don’t ever change the value of the Cosmological constant again. Ever. There is no more negotiations on the cosmological constant. Understood? Then apply that true value lamba_T of the cosmological constant to Genesis I to obtain a well-gauged and finely tuned Genesis I that both parties can agree on.

3. Agree to disagree on interpretations

Remember that unless you are fluent in Aramaic, you are reading a particular interpretation of Genesis I in your language. Just like in Quantum Mechanics, in the realm of the Bible too, interpretation rules. There are some fundamental things that are lost in translation. Bible is not Lorentz invariant and it is not even invariant under Galilean transformations. The Bible may have its roots in Galileo but does not give a hoot to Galilean transformations. In fact, any kind of translation is known to introduce new physics into Bible. So don’t do it. Agree on this in the preliminaries. Example: It happens to be that in the original it is not God but Gods who created the cosmos. There goes your monotheism. So if you dig deep enough you will reach semantic Hell and your negotiations will go there. So, as sensible professionals we must assume Genesis I in modern English as given just to start the negotiations.

Let me throw in some ideas:

  • In the beginning God created the universe with a Big Bang.

I think this should be an acceptable compromise to both parties. Or if that’s too explicit, try

  • In the beginning God may have created the universe with a Big Bang.

Or make it as subtle as you want

  • A hypothetical supernatural being called God G with physical characteristics of vengence V and cruel punishment P toward his creatures Cn may have created the universe with a singularity S called Big Bang that only he could have created and only physicists could have discovered.

I think this version pats nicely the egos of both Doctors of Theology and Doctors of Philosophy. The main thing in a negotiation is to save the egos of both sides, so we are on the right track here. Well, you see that there is hope for reconciliation. I look forward to a peaceful resolution of this longstanding dispute between the two honorable types of professional doctors so that we as consumers of cosmogonic mythologies know where we stand in the cosmic order of things. Now we are divided and confused.

Actually, after some googling I’ve found that there is already a version of an ancient Bible that I.B. Cohen found in Newton’s library. Newton had translated this primordial Bible while he was waiting his mercury to boil in his little alchemical shop in Cambridge as evidenced by traces of mercury fumes on the manuscript. This may be just what you need. I copy it below:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth according to the theory of the Big Bang. Now the earth was formless and empty because geology departments were not yet populated with great European geologists; darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters according to Newton’s laws.

And God said, “Let there be electromagnetic radiation,” and there was electromagnetic radiation. God saw that electromagnetic radiation was good, and he created Maxwell to enshrine electromagnetism in physics as Maxwell’s equations and connect Newtonian mechanics with Einsteinian relativity. God called the speed of light c, and the spacetime he called many names but most famous of them he called Schwarschild solution.

And God said, “Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water.” So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above and called it space so that NASA can explore it. And it was so. And there was evening, and there was morning–the second time the earth went around the sun. Or vice verse according to Ptolemy. Ptolemy was a necessary evil so that God could create Copernicus and set things aright and teach a lesson to anyone who was crazy enough to believe that God could not make the earth move.

And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear and he called dry ground Gondwanaland and it was so and God carefully fine-tuned the motion of tectonic plates so that they formed the continents as we observe them today. And God created Alfred Wegener to discover the plate tectonics. And God created Jimbo Wales who created the Wikipedia so that we can know all this. God called the driest ground desert and sent various clans and families of his chosen people to that godforsaken hot place to murder each other with relish for generations to come and then God gathered waters and he called them Atlantic ocean, Pacific ocean, Dead sea, Mediterranean, etc etc. . . God was a great geographer and enjoyed being a great geographer. And God saw that it was good, everything fell where they fell according to Galileo’s time squared law.

Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation and let global corporations grab the produce from honest farmers for cheap and sell the vegetation to humans with a hefty profit leaving half humanity desperately hungry: Let these global corporations corrupt all natural seed bearing plants and trees on the land with genetically modified fruit with seed in it so that they look good on shelf but taste like wood pulp. And let plant biologists classify vegetation of the land into neat taxonomies and make academic careers. And it was so. God was happy that he created yet another academic department and that he modeled nature according to academic departments so that each and every academic can make great discoveries and have good careers and each to its kind. The land produced vegetation as planned and banana plantations produced slavery and the great music of blues. God loved blues. And made sure that humans loved it too. And God gave humans a lot of suffering so that they can enjoy the blues. And there was evening and there was a lot of drinking and fooling around listening to blues and there was morning and there was a lot of hangover — the third day.

And God said, “Let there be lights and he created New York skyline to separate day shift from the lobster shift and let workers serve giant private banks lodged in skyscrapers by punching clocks in and out of their cubicles. And it was so. God made two great lights — the greater light to give a good tan to the leisure class in Cote d’Azur and the lesser light for lovers to whisper sweet nothings to each other under its light looking at its reflection on the Mediterranean. What a great God he was creating such beautiful places for His people. And he also made the stars. God set the stars so that they expanded according to Hubble’s law so that his favorite sons the physicists can discover how he created the universe with a Big Bang as we proved above in Genesis I. And God saw that it was all so far so good and all according to the laws of physics — the fourth day.

And if God wanted to he could have created Donald Knuth and written all this down in precise differential equations of physics making it easy for physicists but then how could physicists make their glorious careers discovering these equations and be awarded Nobel prizes so God decided to say all this in Latin and then said Let Newton be! and Newton put all this Latin into his Principia in the form of Newton’s laws and revealed them to humanity as a gift. And God looked at the oceans he created and saw that there was nothing in them so God said “Let’s not forget to populate the waters so that oceanographers can make their careers and God populated the water with living creatures, and then he remembered ornithologists and made nice looking colorful birds to fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky. So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was all soo beauutifuul. So cool! And God said I wished I lived on Earth, I made it so beautiful. And God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” And God asked Darwin about the right way to do all this stuff for these beautiful animals that he created and Darwin said let them evolve and God created the theory of evolution and saw that it was good theory. And there was evening in some parts of the Earth and morning in some other parts as you can see in Google Earth and as the earth went around the sun or vice versa as the case may be the sun never set on Google and God saw that the universe existed so that he could create Google — the fifth day.

God was getting tired so he started to rush things and it turned out that God was so tired when he created us humans that he made many design mistakes. But let’s not dwell on God’s mistakes here, this is God’s Book after all and let God have his say and God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground and cats that do not move around much and mice to give something for cats to play with. And God saw that it was good at least for cats.

Then God said, “Enough is enough, there needs to be a master creature of all that we have created in previous days and let’s make man in our image, in our likeness, and let him rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock over all the earth and over all his women and over all the creatures that move along the land except cats. Man must clean up after cats and feed them and love them without expecting any love back. And man agreed.

So for the readers who have not gotten the message before, here in Genesis 27, God says again and again:

God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them in his own image; God in his own image created male and female . . .

Are there more permutations of this sentence? Maybe in extra dimensions discovered by Lisa Randall there could be. More dimensions means more permutations of meanings. God thought about extra dimensions too. And God created Lisa Randall to discover the extra dimensions. And God saw that extra dimensions were good for string theory.

God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase the number of extra dimensions and fill every dimension of the Earth with toxic waste, greenhouse gases and plastic bottles. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground. God saw that all was good but could be better. You see, God loved to double deal, so he told us humans that we were the total rulers over everyone and everything and then when we weren’t looking he turned to virus and bacteria and said my little friends you are the real masters of this earth and of this human kritter that I wired with design flaws and I let you rule over humans and give them all kinds of diseases so that my favorite creatures global pharmaceutical corporations could make loads of money selling drugs to the sick with no intention of curing them. And God saw that it was all good and balanced.

Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every desolate crater on the Moon and I give you the red soil of Mars and toxic atmosphere of Saturn I give you all that and more and I invented NASA to take you there. And all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the little chicks that you mass produce in conveyor belts — everything that has the breath of life in it — I give them to you for killing, kill them and then learn how to kill and love killing and be addicted to killing and if you want to make me happy go ahead and kill each other, every man and woman and child who has the breath of life he or she is your enemy all according to their kind go and murder them in the name of your God– ME. And I give every green plant to you for salad. Make good salad. Put olive oil dressing on it. Put feta cheese. Sprinkle with myrrh. Of course, if you can afford it. There is a price for everything.

God saw all that he had made, and it was the best of all possible multiverse. And cosmologists and physicists were happy and there was evening and all went for a drink and there was morning and god said what a miracle! It’s been six days and six nights and this universe is still working as planned according to Einstein’s equations. Am I a genius or what said God and physicists and cosmologists stood up and applauded and thanked him for not writing the Bible in partial differential equations and let physicists die of hunger but they thanked God for hiding all these equations in everything that he created under the sea and above the sky and on the land for physicists to find like Easter eggs. And Doctors of Theology in their churches and temples and mosques also saw that God created everything in their favor and they said the world is a wonderful place. You just have to be a professional doctor to enjoy this world created by God. There is no room for skeptics here who say that professional doctors themselves designed this system in their favor in the name of God. Well, whatever. God, saw that it was all good. So it must be good.

G_{\mu \upsilon} + \Lambda g_{\mu \upsilon} = \frac{8\pi G}{c^4} T_{\mu \epsilon}

So dear DOP and DOT, you see that there is room for negotiations. You can find a common ground and issue a cosmogonic mythology blessed by God and by physicists. We are anxiously waiting for it.