I'm going to make a bold claim.
Everything that comes out of a State funded theoretical physicists mouth is a lie.
In fact, nearly everything that comes out of any State funded scientist’s mouth is a lie.
I've spent the past several years doing extensive research on cosmological theory - the nature of the universe. This subject has interested me greatly because of its over-arching spiritual implications. The big question of “why are we here”.
I'm not a particularly religious person, I don't really believe in any organized modern religion that exists today. I pretty much make up my own religion based on what I learn about the world around me. I feel it’s important to state this because I want those who read this post to understand I am not trying to push science that has been hacked to fit some fundamentalist philosophy. All I care about are the facts.
And the facts will shock you.
I've taken the time to put together a post on my blog that details why modern theoretical physics (key word theoretical) is nothing more than a flaming pile of dog poo.
The post is highly technical. I didn't write it with the average lay person in mind. So I figured I'd throw out a few random facts from the post for discussion and explain them so normal humans can understand them:
Black holes don't exist. - I know, this is a shocker. Einstein didn't believe in them and neither did Schwarzschild. In fact, they both published papers that demonstrated black holes to be impossible. Einstein knew his theories better than anyone, and he knew that black holes violated special relativity’s prohibition on infinite point mass particles (a black hole). If something violated special relativity, then it must also violate general relativity. The two theories can not violate each other. The detailed physics of why this is so can be found in the link.
Further, dissident physicists have demonstrated that there are NO solutions to Einstein’s field equations that allow for the existence of more than one black hole per universe. When physicists construct black holes in their models, they are literally creating a fake universe out of numbers on a piece of paper. The paper proof of this was published by McVittie in a journal article for the Observatory. Additionally, physicist Stephen Crothers has done some epic work showing all the reasons why black holes violate Einsteinian relativity.
The evidence against the existence of black holes is truly epic if one takes the time to look for it. It is not just the mathematical physics of black holes that proves them to be fraudulent, but the actual observational data also refutes their existence. Just to look at one example, we see the M87 galaxy shooting out matter at speeds that appear to be moving faster than light. Scientists say this is because there is a black hole in the center of the galaxy shooting out matter, but by the mainstreams own standards, it is utterly impossible for a black hole to shoot matter out at speeds faster than light – not to mention the fact that black holes are supposed to SUCK not BLOW. There are no good solutions to these observations, so physicists have proposed the ad hoc solution that perhaps the galaxy is just at a weird angle to us, so we aren’t really seeing what we are obviously seeing. (by the way, there is a logical explanation for this that does not violate the laws of physics or require black holes).
Some more interesting facts you might find amusing is that all of the comet nuclei that we have directly imaged with space probes have turned out to be made of solid rock. When we look at images of comet nucleus, it is IMPOSSIBLE to tell them apart from asteroids. They look like they are made out of rock, because they ARE made out of rock. Scientists would have us believe they are dirty snowballs, but all the evidence points against this. – sound preposterous? Not if you assume the comet is an electrically charged body. When physicists analyze the comet’s light spectrum, they see a huge amount of ionized hydrogen and oxygen and assume this is water being broken down by sunlight, thus they conclude it must be melting ice causing the comet tail. But an electrical plasma discharge can generate these exact same effects. Of course, in order for a comet to electrically discharge like this we would have to throw out the current theory of stars, because such a plasma discharge would require a solar electric field.
I could literally go on for hours – and hours – and hours pointing out all the problems with the physics and observational evidence that refutes the standard model.
The conclusions I’ve drawn from my research indicate the following:
Watch this video – it will give you a general overview of a theory that I believe to be what is really going on. I have several more videos linked in my blog post that either make interesting philosophical points or present direct evidence that refutes the standard model.
Some of you may have heard of this theory before. It is called Plasma Cosmology. I’m sure someone in here will run to Wiki to get the low down on PC, believe me when I tell you that the entire wiki article is nothing but lies. If you look at the discussion and history, you’ll see there are a handful of statist liars that have put the article on a virtual lock down. Any attempts to edit the article that present real facts result in an immediate ban.
For example, the wiki article states:
“Alfvén's models do not provide any predictions that can account for any cosmological observations including Hubble's law, the abundance of light elements, or the existence of the cosmic microwave background.[10]”
Well, here’s a paper that explains a reason for Hubble’s Law in steady state.
Here’s a paper on light element abundance.
Here’s a paper on the CMB.
Etc.. etc.. etc.. – the article is nothing but lies. Those aren’t the only papers on those topics either; there are dozens more on each of them.
The points I make in my blog post and the papers I reference all support the plasma cosmology theory of space.
Take the time to read it over. Even if you don’t understand everything, I think you’ll still get something out of it.
At the very least you'll see example after example of physicists blowing hundreds of millions of dollars on failed experiments trying to prove space actually bends and that "dark matter" actually exists.
I am far from qualified to comment scientifically on this but this catched my eye:
When physicists construct black holes in their models, they are literally creating a fake universe out of numbers on a piece of paper.
My immediate reaction was "sounds like mainstream economists creating their own economy with rational agents".
What is the most respected and best known website/institute for alternative physics? If what you say is right, is there a Mises.org for physics?
Could you explain why this has happened? What incentives are in place to make this happen etc?
I don't bring this up to be rude, but you may want to give yourself an "ego" check test to avoid epistomolgical error:
http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics/msg/5312a801e0785e66?hl=en&
Plains fly, water boils, refrigerators work, poison kills, my iron irons, my mac works, ...
So; why should I care?
The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is.
[Planes] fly, water boils, refrigerators work, poison kills, my iron irons, my mac works, ... So; why should I care?
His claim is on theoretical physics, not on the more practical aspects used in most modern engineering. From what I read of his work he mostly has problems with the conclusions drawn from astronomical data.
I have to agree with the other posters here. What possible motivation could the entire physics community have for purposefully manufacturing so many fundamental lies? Perhaps this has some relevance here.
Michael,
Just out of curiousity, do you have any professional experience in the field? I know this sounds as if I'm about to say "you don't have the proper PhDs", but I'm not. I'm just genuinely interested in knowing the amount of experience you have with the subject. I, personally, know almost nothing.
(Sorry about the spelling error. English = 3rd language.)
Anyway; I sort of have 2 points: first of all; even accepting that all of his claims are true: why should we care? Stuff works. Secondly; if all the science is wrong, how come stuff works? Can his theory explain why stuff works, or is there like a big disconnection between the theories that apply on earth and the ones that 'proof' that there are things like black holes?
And, related, I concur with the objection that it doesn't really make sense to fake it all.
Most of my professors know that theoretical physics is lacking. One of them basically admitted to me that its not possible for the universe to "make sense". All the possible answers are bunk. We're trying to model the universe with math. This presupposes that the universe is the kind of thing that can be understood. "Understanding" is simply an evolutionary advantage on earth.
Michael Suede: There are no black holes Space does not bend Gravitational waves don’t exist Basically anything that sounds too fantastic to believe probably is.
If only we can convince the public that black holes exist, they will become sheeple for us to dominate! Bwahahahaa!
Michael Suede: Everything that comes out of a State funded theoretical physicists mouth is a lie.
Okay, so you don't think that they are just wrong about it, but you think that they are intentionally saying what they believe is wrong. What makes you think that they aren't just wrong? What incentive would the entire community of mainstream theoretical physicists have to lie about everything? Why would they benefit from lying? Why would the state benefit from them lying?
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
AdrianHealey: Anyway; I sort of have 2 points: first of all; even accepting that all of his claims are true: why should we care? Stuff works. Secondly; if all the science is wrong, how come stuff works? Can his theory explain why stuff works, or is there like a big disconnection between the theories that apply on earth and the ones that 'proof' that there are things like black holes?
What stuff do you use that works because of theoretical physics?
Secondly; if all the science is wrong, how come stuff works?
Modern engineering isn't based on state-of-the-art theoretical physics.
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
Not necessarily. I'm willing to bet Michael doesn't believe in quantum entanglement either. If so, why do our quantum computers work? And why do we have to shield them from decoherence?
Ok there is a lot to respond here, so forgive me if I don't answer your question specifically, it takes a lot of time to write responses.
As this thread progresses and people have specific questions related to the content of the blog post that is linked, I will try and prioritize those first.
The blog post (more specifically the knol article linked in the blog post) has the exact answers to your questions.
For example, I noticed someone posted a reference to gravitational lensing - I cover this extensively in the post and I am able to talk at length about why this is a total fraud.
I have a BS in comp sci and I study this stuff on the side. I also want to be clear that these arguments are not my own. When I make a claim, the claim is based on the science and claims of other PhDs in electrical engineering and plasma physics. Hannes Alfven, the man who came up with this theory, was a Nobel Prize winning plasma physicist.
I also saw comments saying I'm not talking about classical physics that engineers use - this is absolutely correct. Engineers base their work on Maxwell and Kirchoff. Both of whom have proven laws of physics, and both of whom's laws are based on an infinite universe with a universal speed.
My beef is strictly with theoretical physicists who base their work on SR and GR - no one else. I believe these two theories are grossly incorrect and completely detached from reality.
Someone made the claim "why should I care" - you should care because NASA is spending on billion dollar tax payer funded science experiments that are attempting to prove the impossible.
You MUST WATCH THE VIDEO that I linked otherwise you are going to be totally lost in this discussion. The video will give you a rough tutorial in the science behind my claims.
I doubt the scientists' perhaps misguided theories and assumptions are due to some pro-state conspiracy, rather a case of ignorant group think which likely occurs in many fields of research. The independent and free thinking scientists are generally the one's that scream 'eureka!' now and then while the others keep on milking the cow.
Take current electromagnetic theory, perhaps the true nature of this force can be found here?
We are the soldiers for righteousnessAnd we are not sent here by the politicians you drink with - L. Dube, rip
Post deleted due to duplication [slow server]
Regards, onebornfree
For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].
Michael Suede: I'm going to make a bold claim. Everything that comes out of a State funded theoretical physicists mouth is a lie.
Of course, this is to be expected, and it is not confined to science- government money eventually corrupts all institutions that receive it. Science, banking, education, economics, media, health care, transportation, the list is endless.
Lesson: Never believe anything the government, or a government funded institution [or member thereof] says - at least not straight away [if ever].
As far as science itself goes, the National Institute of Science [N.I.S.T.] is but one minor example- it lied, and continues to lie about what caused the WTC towers to fall on 9/11[fires caused by aircraft].
However, again, this is to be expected,par for the course in fact.
Once the principle is understood it is fairly simple to make the mental adjustment and automaticaly dis- believe anything governments and their sycophants tell you is "the truth".
At least, it works for me.
Onebornfree, since you dismiss anything coming from a government or government funded source as a lie and/or completely wrong I guess I can dismiss anything you say because you're a 9/11 truther (since that position is completely insane and not supported by anything).
Protip: Don't be so ridiculous
Religion is fake because it's logical nonsense, that has nothing to do with physics. I see no reason to take anyone seriously who contends that magic is real.
That aside, physics is largely a useless state project and it has outstripped the ability to test or develop technology, so a lot of it is probably bogus.
“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” - Benito Mussolini"Toute nation a le gouvernemente qu'il mérite." - Joseph de Maistre
justinx0r: Onebornfree, since you dismiss anything coming from a government or government funded source as a lie and/or completely wrong I guess I can dismiss anything you say because you're a 9/11 truther (since that position is completely insane and not supported by anything). Protip: Don't be so ridiculous
Young sir, [20 and knows everything, right?], first of all my comment were addressed to the instigator of this thread, not yourself.
You are free to believe whatever you want to - your beliefs are your responsibility, not mine. I don't give a flying rat's a$$ what you believe.
If you choose to believe everything the government says is "the truth" , and that what others outside it/them say is therefor "ridiculous", that is your look out.
Good luck with that.
Liberté: That aside, physics is largely a useless state project and it has outstripped the ability to test or develop technology, so a lot of it is probably bogus.
I agree. It seems to me that the place to look for new developments in science, or scientific theory [or anything else!] is outside of government funded research.
Any/all of the future breakthroughs in theoretical physics will most likely come for scientists outside of the scientific community funded by government [either directly or indirectly], for example from the minds of people like the instigator of this thread - even from people without "proper scientific education /accreditation"]
Scientific breakthroughs nearly always come from those determined to think outside the box created by government institutionalized "groupthink" . Those most likely to achieve this mindset are independents, un-funded or perhaps minimally funded, by the state.
Regards, onebornfree.
Young sir, [20 and knows everything, right?], first of all my comment were addressed to the instigator of this thread, not yourself. You are free to believe whatever you want to - your beliefs are your responsibility, not mine. I don't give a flying rat's a$$ what you believe. If you choose to believe everything the government says is "the truth" , and that what others outside it/them say is therefor "ridiculous", that is your look out. Good luck with that. Regards, onebornfree
Nice strawman.
Post this at physorg or some other science specific site. I would like to see what they say.
From my very limited understanding in the realm of theoretical. It's theoretical. They pose theroys to try to make sense of the universe. We can only observe, we can't create suns or black holes to test and independantly verify. THe scientists take what they can observe and fit it to models.
Basically like a computer program that runs stable. IF something is observed that is not explained by current theories, they try to make sense of it.
Kealey - The Myth of Science as a Public Good
Kealey - Science is a Private Good; Or Why Government Science is Wasteful
BP restricted scientist involvement in the oil disaster. Given the scope of the area, it is not easy but they tried.
Is it far-fetched to consider that government controlling the disaster area afterwards, who can analyze the situation, the physical evidence, etc, can filter what evidence it wants leaked out?
Wibee: Is it far-fetched to consider that government controlling the disaster area afterwards, who can analyze the situation, the physical evidence, etc, can filter what evidence it wants leaked out?
Of course not. Government and BP both had [and continue to have] a vested interest in restricting the free flow of information in this scenario.
Same with all national and state level major events [ e.g. 9/11, OKC etc.].
It's par for the course- to be expected.
@Michael: Thanks for the interesting blog post and many links. I too take an amateur interest in physics and cosmology (and mathematics) and I think that most lay people do not understand just how detached many of these theories of the "universe in the large" are from any reality checks. I have read the first few chapters of Ernst Mach's book The Science of Mechanics: A Critical and Historical Account of Its Development and I have to say that the difference between how he lays out even rudimentary physical principles, such as the law of inertia, and how a mainstream physics textbook lays it out is very analogous to the difference between reading Austrian economics and mainstream macroeconomics. The clarity of Mach's exposition of the history of physics is nothing short of stupendous. I actually understand how Galileo and Newton came to the law of inertia (Galileo derived his argument from a series of empirical observations that, when taken in the limit, imply that a body in motion will remain in motion) instead of simply taking it as an "assumption" or "way of thinking", as it is often presented in physics classes.
Based on the little research I've done into the subject of plasma cosmology, I suspect that there has been a paradigm error, namely, the focus on the gravitational force as the dominant organizing force in the universe. And the Big Bang is on much more shaky ground than many physicists put it across. We can't know what the difference is between a universe that is only finitely old and a universe that is infinitely old, that is, we can't know from introspection how to discriminate between one or the other by observation. I find the red-shift argument to be persuasive but then there's more to it than just "everything is moving away from us now, so everything must have been moving towards us in the past."
Taking the assumption of a finitely old universe is actually very problematic, philosophically speaking. If we set the two alternatives on the table, side-by-side, for any given universe we should prefer the infinite age thesis over the finite age thesis by Ockham's razor. The finitely old universe requires some further cause in order to be explained, the infinitely old universe does not. In other words, a finite-age universe just pushes the problem of origins outside of physics whereas the infinite-age universe simply abolishes the problem of origins. Nevertheless, the real problem may just be that we don't fully understand time. Time is the least understood aspect of physics yet it is the most important. Perhaps the choice between finite and infinite-age universe is a false dichotomy.
In any case, I think that physics has gone off into the "weird for its own sake" territory. This is in large part a result of its subsidization by the State which looses science (and all other study) from its mooring to the reality of human action. In the past, scholars were often patronized by wealthy private individuals. To acquire patronage, your patron had to have a reason to believe that your ideas were worth listening to, whether by himself or others he cared about. Today, you just file the grant paperwork and the whole process is regulated by the same sort of groupthink dynamics as popular election lobbies. Whatever plays (like "string theory") is what gets funded.
Clayton -
If we set the two alternatives on the table, side-by-side, for any given universe we should prefer the infinite age thesis over the finite age thesis by Ockham's razor. The finitely old universe requires some further cause in order to be explained, the infinitely old universe does not. In other words, a finite-age universe just pushes the problem of origins outside of physics whereas the infinite-age universe simply abolishes the problem of origins.
Well, it depends on what you mean by the universe. If you mean the four-dimensional spacetime structure itself, I don't think it makes any sense to say how old it is, infinitely or not. The spacetime structure exists outside of time.
As for causality itself, I'm beginning to wonder if it is an aspect of information rather than an aspect of physical processes.
Information is certainly far more important than physicists have, until recently, imagined it to be.
I prefer to think of physics from the point-of-view of humans acting. What are we really doing? What we're really doing is trying to understand the physical world to a sufficient degree as to be able to make predictions about its behavior, predictions that are sufficiently good to build machines that can help us harvest and utilize energy from the Earth and the Sun more efficiently.
This should cast a shadow over any sort of ontological speculation regarding the unseen world (either in the microscopic, macroscopic or other realms which we can only observe indirectly or not at all). The point-particle model, for example, could itself be a significant hindrance to taking that next step in really understanding the physical world (getting past the current hurdles facing physics today), just like the ether was a hindrance to physicists for a period. Speculative ontological entities like quarks or black holes may be useful as imaginary constructs that help physicists anchor their comprehension of their own theories but, in the end, physics is about trying to explain what the world does, not what it is.
@Adrian
The connection between things on the macroscale (like planes flying) and theoretical physics is called the correspondence principle. It states that quantum mechanics must be able to predict everything that happens on the macroscale. basically, if you go from a few particles to billions of billions of particles or from low temperature to high temperature quantum mechanics must become classical mechanics.
I'm a chemist, not a physicist so I'm not really interested in anything smaller or more fundamental than electrons and protons (neutrons too, I guess) but I know a thing or two about quantum mechanics. I'm working on my PhD so I also happen to know a thing or two about the realities of publicly funded science research in the US of A. Although I am currently being paid by a government agency, not everything that comes out of my mouth is a lie. You forgot to think about the fact that theoretical physicists and other scientists are quite intelligent people. Of course they love government largesse but for the most part they are more motivated by the same thing that has motivated you to learn about cosmology and physics on the side. They want to know the truth and they would really like to do something useful with their lives. This is what sets public science funding apart from defense contractors and the other disgusting mechanisms by which governments throw money away. Don't get me wrong, I know things would be much more efficient if private funding were dominant but It isn't as bad as you think (at least in the realm of chemistry and biochemistry). I don't know all the ins and outs of grant writing but scientists at research universities decide who gets funded and who doesn't. The government doesn't have a direct role in deciding what gets done. It just says: The NSF gets x amount of dollars for this research area and y amount for that area and then actual scientists decide which individual project gets funded. It's certainly not the most efficient system in the world, but it could be worse, I'm sure. There is always competition between professors to do new and innovative things. It's not a competition to see who can throw away the most money in the smallest amount of time like it is at most other government jobs.
Azure:As for causality itself, I'm beginning to wonder if it is an aspect of information rather than an aspect of physical processes.
I did some thinking about this last night. It seems that "causality" is a human-level explanatory term to refer to one of three concepts:
1. Deduction from a model. For example, assuming perfect Newtonian mechanics, if we know that a rock is falling toward a planet, we know exactly what will happen if we plug in different values for time t. If we know the initial velocity, mass, and so forth, we can derive exactly how the system will change through time: neglecting friction, the rock will accelerate on its way down. To put things in terms of human usefulness, we say gravity "caused" the rock to accelerate. But really, in this case we started with a pure mathematical model and simply deduced the conclusions for given times; all the results were already contained in the initial conditions. We have noted nothing more or less than that in the equation
F=ma
F (the force acting on the object; in this case gravity) being positive "caused" a (acceleration) to be positive. Well yes, increasing F increases a; that's one of the things being implied by the equation - the directly proportional relationship of F and a. The premises of our system already contained that fact, and we are just recognizing it in a different way for our human purposes and comprehension. So in this case, we can make a logically certain statement of the form "Event A is always followed/accompanied by event B (assuming the model)" but that is only phrased in these more human terms of causality for our ease of comprehension. To say that something caused something else is no more than merely choosing a way to carve up the concept space of that system so that the significance of certain aspects is more readily apparent to humans.
2. Strong enough correlation, often backed by a "story" given in terms of 1 (whether or not the model in 1 is so idealized), to form a data-fitting tentative hypothesis of the form "Event B will always be observable following observation of event A."
3. Chains of the above.
I believe science uses 1 when using mathematical models or other idealized systems of axioms, 2 when making empirical theories to fit observed data, and 3 when the mechanisms in the gaps are not well-understood or are when it's simply not necessary to go into the details at that time.
Why anarchy fails
Hmm, interesting. What would you happen to think of this?
I'd post what I did above as a response to that
Of course, these questions cannot be entirely answered until one assumes a certain perspective on epistemology, and I think Eliezer's uncertainty in that article is based on a deeper uncertainty about which epistemological perspective to adopt, at least back in 2008 when he posted that.
1. If you believe there is a universe and it is deterministic, and that when you speak of cause and effect you are talking about that universe (rather than your knowledge about it or model of it), then you will probably find that - like my 1 above - that there are no causes or effects but only co-presences or relations, like the relation of F to a in F=ma. To speak of causality would only be a convention of explanation for human-comprehension purposes.
So time wouldn't factor into it at the base-level of physical analysis of a single "cause and effect" event, because all "events" are after all just features of the initial conditions of the system and its physical laws, just as all mathematical theorems are already contained in the axioms of the system. In both cases, a sufficiently intelligent being would find all such events and theorems too obvious to be worth mentioning - in fact tautological - given the starting premises. We would still need to use these concepts, though, because unlike that super-intelligent being we do not find all the implications obvious from the starting conditions/premises (not to mention that we don't even have full knowledge of all the starting conditions and physical laws).
2. If instead you remain agnostic about the existence of "reality" other than your own subjective pattern of experience (as I do for this kind of analysis), then when you speak of cause and effect you are talking about what you hypothesize you will observe based on your past experience observing. Essentially, you simply identify patterns of sensory phenomona and try to use those patterns to predict future sensations you will experience, particularly how other patterns of sensations or your own actions will likely change the pattern of sensory phenomena you experience.
If I can use these words without all the baggage they usually entail, I would call it "empirical inductive prediction (of sensory phenomena) based on models that seem to fit the sensory data." Of course then you can perform pure deductions with those models/hypotheses as starting premises, as well.
In this latter case, time would factor into it, because we have a subject experience of time, or at least of memory. (I'm not yet sure whether to conceive of memory in terms of time or time in terms of memory, but I'm leaning toward the latter: that from the perspective of strict methodological individualism time would be a concept constructed in terms of memory.)
That's putting it very abstractly, but in more common terms you simply predict the future of your sensory experience based on the past, and cause-and-effect relationships are a useful heuristic for thinking about things like that. You only have limited short-term memory to work with, so it makes sense to think in those terms most of the time. However, I suggest that at a deep enough level of analysis this (cause and effect) reveals itself as just a heuristic.
1) Write Paper
2) Proove you're right
3) Nobel Prize in Physics
4) ???
5) Profit!!
Nobel Prize is bullshit. It is like when a statist is proposing to anarchist: "wow, if private defence and health care is so cool, why don't you write to our government and ask for permission to do what you wanna do?"
I think you get what I mean. Nobel Prize is very political and can be very biased too.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
MaikU, it was a (sarcastic) joke :-).
But, yes, for the most part I agree with you, albeit to a much lesser degree in Physics than, say, Peace or Economics which i would consider a downright fraud.
oh, ok :) I agree with you. Especially on "peace" and "economics" :D