Tuesday, April 1, 2014

Evidence for the Big Bang or Overinterpretation of Data?




Some days ago the BICEP2 experiment made headlines in the news all over the world. The scientists claimed that they have found evidence for gravitational waves by measuring the polarization of the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR). These gravitational waves were interpreted as observational proof for the Inflation theory, which is an essential part of the current Big Bang model. According to the enthusiastic reports in the press, Inflation can now be considered a scientific fact.
Actually Inflation (the expansion of the universe at a speed faster than light during the early stages of the Big Bang) has all along been treated as a scientific fact, because without it the Big Bang theory would have collapsed long ago. But now some scientists have become so bold to claim that they have empirical evidence for it due to the results of the BICEP2 experiment.

But what was actually observed by the BICEP2 experiment? They observed tiny pattern of polarization in the CBP. These patterns are so week that they could only be made visible by complicated mathematical procedures that took them several years. They have neither observed the Big Bang, nor Inflation, nor gravitational waves. These are all just interpretations of the polarization patterns.
The newly published paper of the BICEP2 project starts right away with a description of the Inflation model taking it for an established fact and then interprets the data based on this premise. This is a nice example of circular reasoning, starting the argument with the conclusion (Inflation is real.) as one of its own premises. Alternative explanations for the observation were not even considered. Of course the BICEP2 results are consistent with Inflation, but this is a typical feature of circular reasoning. It is consistent, but nevertheless a logical fallacy, since it does not prove anything.

But the main problem of the BICEP2 experiment is that it assumes that the observed pattern of polarization is really a property of the Cosmic Background Radiation, which is pretty far-fetched. The first assumption would normally be that the polarization pattern is the result from something that is between the CBR and the telescope.  We are talking about 13.7 billion light years here, so there should be enough stuff that can polarize the radiation.
The paper refutes this possibility that the pattern is caused by something in the foreground by stating that they measured no gradient in the polarization patterns towards the galactic plane, which would exist, when the effect was cause by interstellar matter inside our galaxy.
But the BICEP2 scientists overlooked the most likely cause for a foreground effect. It is not some galactic or even intergalactic dust. It is far more likely caused by the Oort cloud.



The Oort cloud is a spherical cloud of particles that surrounds our solar system. Whatever light or radiation we observe on Earth, it has first passed through the Oort cloud and will interfere with its particles.
This expensive and time consuming BICEP2 experiment has therefore not measured a phenomenon in the Cosmic Background Radiation, but patterns in the Oort cloud. The results are therefore useless to make any cosmological statements. The only way to exclude the effects of the Oort cloud on the measurement would be repeating the measurement in another star system, e.g. Alpha Centauri.
This shows once again that cosmological questions are a vain enterprise as long as we have not even left our own solar system. The mysteries of the universe cannot be solved from an armchair in our bedroom. Without interstellar space travel asking such questions is a foolish thing.
Again dozens of well-paid scientists have wasted their time and millions of taxpayer dollars for nothing. Nobody benefits from this kind of research. The only purpose is to defend the doctrines of the "scientific religion" that attempts to give the biblical creation story some "scientific" fundament.

Sorry, but the patterns in the Oort cloud that have been indirectly observed by the BICEP2 experiment allow no statements about gravitational waves, nor the Inflation theory.
Inflation remains what it has always been – pseudoscientific nonsense that is incompatible with Special Relativity.

Wednesday, March 12, 2014

Steady State Model of the Universe

Observable Universe
As already explained in an earlier post the Big Bang theory has serious flaws. It has not been able to make predictions that were later confirmed and is heavily based on free variables and arbitrary assumptions (inflation, mysterious force that expands the universe, dark energy etc.). As such it is useless as a scientific model and untenable as a valid theory about the past and future of the universe.

I have criticized the Big Bang in many occasions, but have not provided any alternative model yet. Of course admitting not to know something is better than claiming knowledge when only speculating, but the proponents of the Big Bang theory could claim that there is simply no alternative to their model, even if it is not perfect.
Therefore it is necessary to propose an alternative explanation for the state of our universe to undermine the monopoly that the Big Bang creationists have on cosmology.
The alternative model that I am going to describe in the following does not claim to be true, it is only a possibility and it explains at least as many phenomena as the common cosmological model, but requires far less arbitrary assumptions. 

The only arbitrary assumption that I am going to make is that anti-particles are not stable. This is no new idea, because the Big Bang theory also requires this assumption to explain the obvious lack of antimatter in the universe. However the instability of anti-particles has not been experimentally proven yet.

Steady State Universe
The universe in this model is a steady state universe. This means it is infinite and has neither a beginning nor an end. It does not change its state over large scales. However it expands. Its expansion has been going on forever and will continue forever.

Vacuum Quantum Fluctuation
We know that the vacuum is not just empty. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle requires a certain vacuum energy. This vacuum energy is expressed in the spontaneous creation of virtual particle pairs that immediately annihilate each other by the particle colliding with its anti-particle. This is no speculation yet, this is a commonly accepted aspect of quantum physics.

Asymmetry of Particle and Antiparticle 
Now we make our only arbitrary assumption, the asymmetry of the particle-antiparticle pair. we assume that antiparticles are instable and can decay spontaneously with a probability, which is extremely small but > 0. This is based on the observation that we can only see matter, but no antimatter in the universe.
If the antiparticle decays then the particle will have nothing to collide and annihilate itself. This means a particle has come into existence out of nothing. This is a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics about the conservation of energy, but we will get to this later. 
We have now established a mechanism that creates small amounts of matter out of the vacuum.

Gravity Bending Space-Time
Matter has gravity and according to General Relativity gravity bends space-time. When space bends around matter, then there is more space than in a flat continuum without matter. This means the distances inside the bent space are larger than in a flat space. Therefore by creating matter, we have also created space. It means we have stretched the space around our new matter particle. Essentially the space around the particle has expanded.


Effect of matter on space-time

Space Expands
Now space-time has the tendency to prefer flatness. Bending space requires energy, which is essentially in the matter of the particle. However when the space stretches out it can conserve its flatness over a large scale. This is the force that expands space. The force that expands the universe is therefore the result of the permanently created particles due to quantum fluctuation. It is not much but over large distances like a few million light years it is a significant expansion. We have now explained why the universe expands.

Conservation of Energy
With our supposed mechanism of creating particles out of vacuum we have violated the First Law of Thermodynamics, which states that the energy of a closed system is always conserved. It can neither increase nor diminish. 
However our universe is infinite. The total energy of the universe is therefore also infinite.And an infinite value +1 is still an infinite value. The law of the conservation of energy cannot be applied to an infinite universe. Not the total amount of energy in the universe can be conserved, but only the density of energy, this means the amount of energy per volume. This is why an increase of matter causes an increase of space. If we create matter, we have to create space in order for the energy density of the universe to remain the same over a large scale. This is another view at the mechanism that causes the expansion of the universe. It is a result from the conservation of the energy density.
It means we have to changethe formulation of the First Law of Thermodynamics, from energy to energy density, so it can fit an infinite universe.

Entropy
According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics the entropy of a system can only increase. However this is in contradiction to our observation that the entropy of the universe is not at its maximum value. This is why cosmologists assumed that the age of the universe cannot be infinite. However they overlooked the main problem that remains even in a universe that has a beginning: How did the universe get into this highly ordered state at its beginning? This is another flaw of the Big Bang theory that cannot be explained by common cosmological models.
However our model of permanent creation of new particles has solved the problem. The universe permanently creates new matter in a highly ordered state, this means with little entropy. The total entropy of the universe does therefore not increase. It remains always the same. The increase of entropy is a local phenomenon that is compensated by the permanent creation of new low entropy matter.

Horizon Problem
One argument against an infinite universe is that in an infinite universe we would look at a star no matter in which direction we look, since the number of stars is infinite.Therefore the sky would not be black but white. Light would hit us from everywhere in the universe. And even interstellar nebulae could not block the light because the permanent radiation they would be exposed to would make them emitting light themselves. 
However this argument is false. Because the sky is not black. In a certain way it is white, better said it is red due to the red-shift.
The farther a light source is away from us the more it gets red-shifted due to the Doppler effect of the expansion of the universe. Fact is that we see light in every direction we look. It is the so called Cosmic Background Radiation. It is light that is red-shifted to a wavelength that is equivalent to IR radiation of 2.7 K.
Big Bang creationists believe to see the Big Bang itself in this radiation, but it is a far more elegant explanation to say that it is the light from the infinity of stars in the universe. The steady state model predicts this radiation. It's wavelength is equivalent with the energy density of light in the universe.

Isotropy of the Universe
The Big Bang theory had the problem to explain why the universe was so isotropic. This means it looked the same in every direction. Even two spots that were so far away from each other that they could never have influenced each other since light could not have traveled far enough since the Big Bang. This was explained by the phenomenon of inflation, this means space was thought to have expanded with a peed faster than light. Also these scientists were aware of Einstein's theory of Relativity that does not allow speeds faster than light,n they argued that this law does not apply to space itself. Objects can not travel faster than light, but the space between them can and it would somehow carry these objects with it.
Apparently these Big Bang creationists did not understand what Relativity is about. Space is not some kind of cosmic ether that can carry objects with it that float within it. The speed of light is the maximum velocity and there are no exceptions to it. Period. Speed is defined as the increase of distance between two objects. There is no absolute coordinate system of space that can be moved around or whose scale can be inflated. The speed of light is the maximum speed in which two objects can move away from each other. The space between them is not some kind of substance. It is nothing than a measurement of the distance of these two objects.
In an infinite universe the problem of the isotropy of the universe does not even arise. Only a flawed fabrication like the Big Bang theory can create such a problem.

Apparent Diameter of the Universe
The distance in which we can look in either direction of the universe appears limited. The common explanation is that the universe is only 13.7 billion years old. So we can only see light that has traveled less than this time.Objects farther away are beyond our horizon. This leads to the strange phenomenon that objects are disappearing from our horizon, because some objects are so far away from us that they will move away faster than light due to the expansion of the universe. 
Again the Big Bang creationists argue with the absurd concept of faster than light movement. But this is not possible. 
Even our steady state model assumes an expansion of the universe. And this means that objects farther away are moving faster away from us. However due to the Theory of relativity, they will never reach the speed of light. The Lorentz length contraction prevents this. Distant space appears contracted from our point of view due to Relativity. So the speed in which distant objects move away from us will never exceed light speed. This causes the effect of a finite horizon although the universe is infinite of course. However space in this distance appears compressed together until the Lorentz contraction becomes infinite. This means the infinity of space at this horizon is compressed to a value close to zero.

Summary
This was an overview of the steady state model of the universe, which is a valid alternative to the Big Bang theory. It needs less free variables and less supernatural phenomena like dark energy, mysterious forces that expand space, inflation faster than light or even a creator as the first cause of the Big Bang.
This theory has its flaws that would need further investigations and additional explanations, but it is still more elegant and simple than the Big Bang theory. It explains why the universe expands, why it is flat, why it has a horizon, the Cosmic Background Radiation, the low entropy, the large scale isotropy and extremely old globular clusters and ancient galaxies whose age is incompatible with the proposed age of the universe according to the Big Bang theory.
I don't claim that this model is true. I only claim that it is a possibility that deserves at least as much attention as the Big Bang theory that is falsely treated as a scientifically proven fact.
But maybe the whole question about cosmology and the beginning and end of the universe is simply absurd and irrelevant. For all that is important to us, which is not more than a billion years into the past and future, the universe has remained the same. Why do we need to question beyond this time at all?
There are more important scientific questions, questions that we have a chance to answer. It is better than wasting our time trying to answer questions that we cannot answer since we have insufficient data. Leave cosmology in the speculative realm of religion where it belongs to. 

Saturday, February 15, 2014

Irrational Reaction to a Non-Issue: Homosexuality



In Africa, especially Nigeria and Uganda, we have currently a strong move to criminalize and persecute homosexuality. Just today a mob attacked alleged homosexuals in the Nigerian capital.
Why can such an irrelevant issue that affects nobody cause such a strong emotional reaction in many people? When the topic is discussed, both sides use totally absurd arguments like it leads to declining birth rates (as if low birth rates would be a problem in face of today's overpopulation) and the claim that homosexuality is a totally "normal" behavior (which it cannot be due to the simple fact that it is a minority phenomenon).

For sure the issue has gotten out of hand. Homosexuality has a long history but was never the cause for so much fanaticism. In ancient Sparta it was the norm, but not a cause for outrage among people of other cultures. It was considered an odd peculiarity of the Spartan civilization but did not cause an emotional reaction.
What is different today?

There seem to be two main causes that this topic has become so important:
  1. Certain religions (Christianity and Islam) have a hate campaign going on. Once again the Abrahamic religions, which are notorious for stirring up troubles throughout history, are the culprits. Strangely enough these are exactly the institutions where homosexuality is most common today but hypocritically denied. Denial of suppressed inclinations is supposed to be the main cause for homophobia. So there is a good explanation for the radical strance of these religions.
  2. At the same time Western governments are pushing aggressively a pro-homosexual agenda. Same-sex marriage is institutionalized, although one should expect the decision to evade traditional gender models is a clear statement against them, i.e. against the patriarchal family and its gender roles. So why should anybody have an interest in imitating what he just has rejected?
    Western governments interfere actively with foreign cultures through granting and withdrawal of foreign aid and political pressure to promote more liberalism for homosexuals and maintain media campaigns that give the impression that homosexuality is just as common and normal as heterosexuality. This is very odd, since the same governments have also campaigns going on against prostitution, which is a far more frequent (i.e. normal) behavior and try to tighten  existing laws. So it is not about sexual freedom in general. It is about promoting the one and persecuting the other.
    It should not come as a surprise that other cultures don't like this kind of interference in their way of life.
We have to get back to a status quo based on reason and common sense. Sexual orientation is a private issue and should not be subject to legal regulations, neither criminalization nor institutionalization. Homosexuality is a minority phenomenon and should not get more attention as less than 5% of the population would deserve.
Mob lynching of homosexuals in Africa is unacceptable, especially since these countries have certainly far more urgent problems at hand. Religious leaders should be held responsible for these actions, not only in the countries where this happens, but also in the West. Hate speech in churches or mosques (and this includes any kind of criticism of homosexuality) cannot be tolerated and must have legal consequences for bishops and imams. Churches and mosques have to revise their stance on homosexuality or should be indefinitely shut down.
It is also unacceptable that Western media and government institutions indoctrinate the people that homosexuality is a normal behavior. It is not, just as any other sexual aberration. Sado-masochism or fetishism are not more or less normal than homosexuality. Neither of it should be subject to criminal persecution, but we don't need a thought police that tells us what we are allowed to think about it.
All of that are private issues. It does not concern any other people than those who practice it. The private life of the citizens must be respected and should not be publicly discussed, neither in a positive nor in a negative way.
If everybody minded only his own business, we would have much less troubles in our society.

Monday, February 10, 2014

Australian Scientists Discover Oldest Known Star


http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/02/10/australian-scientists-discover-oldest-known-star/
A team of Australian astronomers say they have identified the oldest known star in our universe -- one that formed a mere 200 million years after the Big Bang.
"This is the first time that we've been able to unambiguously say that we've found the chemical fingerprint of a first star," lead researcher, Stefan Keller of the Australian National University (ANU) research school of astronomy and astrophysics said in a press rele.
The star, named SMSS J031300.36-670839.3, is estimated to be 13.6 billion years old and is much older than previous stars found in 2007 and 2013, which were believed to be 13.2 billion years old. [...] The star was first spotted on January 2 in the Milky Way, 6,000 light years away from the Earth using the ANU Skymapper telescope. 
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12990.html
A single low-energy, iron-poor supernova as the source of metals in the star SMSS J031300.36−670839.3
The element abundance ratios of four low-mass stars with extremely low metallicities (abundances of elements heavier than helium) indicate that the gas out of which the stars formed was enriched in each case by at most a few—and potentially only one—low-energy supernova. Such supernovae yield large quantities of light elements such as carbon but very little iron. The dominance of low-energy supernovae seems surprising, because it had been expected that the first stars were extremely massive, and that they disintegrated in pair-instability explosions that would rapidly enrich galaxies in iron. What has remained unclear is the yield of iron from the first supernovae, because hitherto no star has been unambiguously interpreted as encapsulating the yield of a single supernova. Here we report the optical spectrum of SMSS J031300.36−670839.3, which shows no evidence of iron (with an upper limit of 10−7.1 times solar abundance). Based on a comparison of its abundance pattern with those of models, we conclude that the star was seeded with material from a single supernova with an original mass about 60 times that of the Sun (and that the supernova left behind a black hole). 

The self-contradicting nonsense in this announcement is really hard to digest, so let's summarize once again the central statements.
  • These scientists seriously want to make us believe that the first stars formed 200 million years after the so called "big bang". This would be right in the middle of the so called Dark Ages of the universe, when according to the big bang theory the universe was so dense that it was opaque. However they are telling us in this announcement that common stars could already form in such an extreme environment.
  • The assumption of first stars existing already 200 million years after the big bang contradicts former models that place the earliest stars at 400 million years (see graphic above). Once again the big bang theory failed to make useful predictions.
  • Again we have to read about black holes, a theory that has just recently been abandoned by its principal proponent Stephen Hawking.
  • The star is just 6,000 light years away. However during the last 13.6 billion years it has rotated approximately 60 times around the center of the galaxy. Shouldn't the remains of this ancient supernova have meanwhile been equally distributed  over a major part of the galactic spiral arm while other younger matter should have had plenty of time to mingle with it?
  • The age of the supposed star that caused this early supernova is calculated based on the low amount of iron in the spectrum. However the little amount of iron in the spectrum is supposed to be the proof for the calculation on which the estimate for the age of the star is based on. This is a classical example for circular reasoning. The conclusion is its own premise. Personally I can think of many reasons why a particular region in space has less iron than another.
Isn't this discovery much more an indicator that our estimate for the age of the universe (13.7 billion years) is simply wrong? Wen are discovering more and more stars and galaxies that are older than 13 billion years. So nothing important has happened in all this time, when the universe had only a small fraction of the age it has today and was many times smaller and more dense than today?
What we actually can observe is that galaxies have not evolved at all during the last 13 billion years. The universe still looks the same as it has always looked as far as we can observe it.
There is no rational justification to assume that the universe had a beginning apart from religiously motivated wishful thinking.
The big bang theory is inconsistent and cannot explain our observations. It has not made any useful prediction that could not be explained differently. We don't have enough data to make statements about the time more than 13 billion years ago. And furthermore it is irrelevant for us what happened 13 billion years ago.
Science should try to find answers to questions that can be answered, not speculate about questions that cannot be answered with the amount of knowledge available. For all that is relevant to us as human beings, the universe had no beginning. It was the same as far as we can look back. What is beyond this horizon is irrelevant. Assuming infinity of the universe allows accurate predictions for everything in the universe that might be important for humanity. We don't need a model that assumes a beginning of the universe and only creates new questions and contradictions in its conclusions and our observations. 
We don't need a big bang in science. Leave that kind of mythological stuff in the bible where it belongs to.

Monday, January 27, 2014

Black Holes


Recently the high-priest of theoretical physics, Stephen Hawking, publicly announced that black holes do not exist in the way as they were so far supposed to do.
Extracts from the article in Space.com

Stephen Hawking: There Are No Black Holes
Hawking's unpublished work titled "Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black Holes" [...] declares that "there are no black holes."
[...]
[The] apparent conflict between what general relativity predicts and what quantum dynamics predicts [...] is precisely what theoretical physicists are trying to understand. This appears to be yet another situation where gravity and quantum dynamics don’t play nice, the solution of which may transform the way we view the Universe.
[...]
Hawking thinks that the idea behind the event horizon needs to be reworked. Rather than the event horizon being a definite line beyond which even light cannot escape, Hawking invokes an "apparent horizon" that changes shape according to quantum fluctuations inside the black hole — it's almost like a "grey area" for extreme physics. An apparent horizon wouldn't violate either general relativity or quantum dynamics if the region just beyond the apparent horizon is a tangled, chaotic mess of information.
Now suddenly after so many decades of theories about the physics of singularities, black holes, wormholes and other mysterious stuff that no human being has ever observed but nevertheless has kept generations of theoretical physicists busy with speculations and made astronomers treat black holes as an established fact discovering new examples of them all over the universe, now suddenly even Stephen Hawking has serious doubts that things might not be as theoretical physics has established as a doctrine of faith.
Maybe black holes have no event horizon at all.
Over years one could wonder how theoretical physicists simply could extrapolate gravity equations up to infinity considering that we don't have a full understanding of gravity at all. We can't even explain how galaxies are held together without introducing the mysterious "dark matter". We don't know how general relativity goes together with quantum physics. Nevertheless they extrapolate equations, which have only been proved in gravity fields, which are many magnitudes weaker than what is expected in a black hole.
Nobody has ever made experiments with the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole. Nobody has observed its physical characteristics.
Shouldn't science work the other way around, first the observation, then the theory? Now we have first the theory and then astronomers look for observations who could possibly fit into the theory.
Even the whole concept of a black hole is inconsistent. General relativity tells us that at the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole time is slowed down until its stops, when it reaches the Schwarzschild radius. So actually no object can ever reach the Schwarzschild radius, because time becomes slower and slower. So the event that it reaches the Schwarzschild radius never occurs. For an observer outside of the black hole space around the Schwarzschild radius is bent into an infinite scale. The distance to the Schwarzschild radius becomes infinite. So any object will fall forever and never actually reach the Schwarzschild radius. The redshift becomes bigger and bigger, but light never reaches the point when it would be unable to leave the black hole. Therefore the black hole is deep red at best, but not black at all. Light will never be able to get so close that it could not escape anymore. 
And since time has stopped at the Schwarzschild radius of the black hole, it can never grow. It can never change in any form, because time itself has stopped within the Schwarzschild radius. And without time there is no change. 
So a black hole, if it existed, would not be able to swallow anything. Matter would just fall forever without reaching its surface. 
Now Stephen Hawking has come up with another phenomenon around black holes, a chaos-wall, as the article calls it. It is another attempt to circumvent the event horizon issue.
But why don't we just wait before we understand gravity a little bit better, before we try to answer questions by extrapolation? We don't understand gravity. General relativity has only been proved in weak gravity fields like that of Earth or stars. We don't know if space can be bent infinitely or if there is a maximum limit.
Let's do real science, before we speculate. And science starts with an experiment or an observation and not with an empty paper and some equations. It may be math, but it is not physics.
As long as we have not created a black hole in a lab or a particle accelerator or we have not sent a spacecraft to the next black hole and conducted some experiments with the event horizon, we cannot claim that such things as black holes exist.
Black holes are not science, they are science fiction.

Tuesday, December 3, 2013

The Second Law of Thermodynamics


The entropy of a closed system never decreases, because closed systems spontaneously evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium—the state of maximum entropy.
The above statement is known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In other words it states that the order of a closed system always decreases.
It is one of the basic principles of physics and indeed no process in nature has ever been observed where this law of nature does not apply. So if anybody comes up with a new theory that does not comply with this Law of Nature, it is considered false.

This law is one of the arguments why it is assumed that the age of the universe cannot be infinite. It must have had a beginning. Otherwise the universe would have reached a thermodynamic equilibrium yet, i.e. the entropy of the universe would have reached its maximum.

However this argument reverses the direction of the scientific method. It is unscientific to say that an observation is wrong, because it does not fit into one of our established laws of nature. If an observation and a law of nature are incompatible, then it is not the observation, which is false, but our law.
We can observe that the universe is not in a thermodynamic equilibrium. Therefore there must be a mechanism that decreases the entropy. Otherwise our universe would never have gotten into its current state. The assumption that the universe was in a state of minimum entropy at its beginning and has since increased its entropy doesn't explain how it got into such an improbable state in the first place. If there was no mechanism to reduce the entropy,the universe would have begun in thermodynamic equilibrium, because this is the most probable state. The probability that it started in such a highly ordered state with a minimum of entropy has an infinitely small probability and can therefore excluded as a possibility.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is definitely false. At least it can only be valid under certain limited circumstances. Otherwise we could not explain the current state of the universe. If our universe and our laws of nature disagree, it is not the universe that is wrong. It is that we have the wrong laws.
Saying that the universe has only a limited age does not solve the problem, because we would have to explain how it got its initial state.
Therefore the Second Law of Thermodynamics is no valid argument for a limited age of the universe. Compliance wit this law is no argument at all, because we know for sure that this law has only limited validity. So we have to look where its limitations are. Which are the mechanisms that allow entropy to decrease? We know that they must exist, even if we don't know what they are. The Second Law of Thermodynamics can therefore not be used as an argument against a steady-state universe.

Wednesday, September 4, 2013

The Decline of the United States of America




America once used to be a beacon of freedom.
The United States of America were the first democracy of modernity. The Bill of Rights was the first instance that human rights were established in a constitution. It was founded as an egalitarian republic by founding fathers that were dedicated to the principles of humanism, tolerance and individual freedom.
In two World wars the United States defended the values of Enlightenment against imperialist and fascist regimes. During the cold war America was the leader of the free world against Communism that threatened to subdue the world under a totalitarian system.

But how much is this America as we used to know it different from today! America has turned into the total opposite of what it once used to be.
  • America is not the land of the free anymore. In no other country of the world such a large part of the population is held in prison.
  • America doesn’t spread the idea of freedom anymore; it systematically destroys secular countries and installs Islamic terror regimes by wars of aggression (Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and soon Syria).
  • The United States is allied with the most oppressive and intolerant regime human history has ever seen, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and supports Islamic hate preachers so they can freely travel all over the world and spread intolerance and religious fanaticism. While immigration of Muslims into Western countries is encouraged, Visa requirements for non-Muslims are getting more and more difficult for non-Muslim travelers from developing countries.
  • America sponsored terrorism in Cuba, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Libya and now in Syria.
  • American soldiers and agents of law enforcement and intelligence services circumvent the laws and the constitution and even use torture and extra-judicial killings abroad. And what makes it worse is that it has been authorized by a US president.
  • Unmanned drones are used for surveillance and killings in the name of the United States, domestically and abroad
  • America leads an international hate-monger campaign against prostitution all over the world (code named as human trafficking). And while heterosexuals are increasingly suffering from these oppressive measures, homosexuality is actively promoted by the US government. The hate campaign against innocent sex-workers as well as the promotion of same-sex relationships is supported by cutting and granting foreign aid in developing countries.
  • The war on drugs has been enforced by US authorities worldwide. Millions of innocent people have been imprisoned or killed. The privacy of people is violated by drug controls.
  • Citizens are increasingly restricted in their private lives by bans on smoking, alcohol or special types of food.
  • The US government has taken control over every financial transaction worldwide, reversing the principle of assumption of innocence. Now whoever owns or moves money is forced to prove his innocence or face arrest and confiscation of his property.
  • US intelligence services have established total surveillance of their citizens and even friendly countries.
  • The United States have effectively become a totalitarian police state with extraordinary powers for the police force and 17,985 federal, state and local law enforcement agencies.
  • The use of biometric documents and the disrespect for privacy have been made compulsory for international travel by pressure from US authorities.
  • Anti-modernism enjoys protection of the US government and unscientific nonsense like creationism is taught in American schools, as if it was a valid theory.

The United States as they are today have corrupted the word “freedom” and turned it into its opposite. In every single conflict today the US government sides with oppressive and intolerant forces. The principles of a civil society, of humanism and Enlightenment are undermined by US authorities inside and outside the borders of the United States.
So it is not surprising that the technological capabilities of America have declined. The NASA is not only unable to return to the Moon, they can’t even get a human into low Earth orbit anymore. The development of the latest fighter jets F-22 and F-35 have been failures and been unable to comply with required specifications. The USAF has been unable to maintain its “Space Fence” satellite surveillance system, which had to be shut down this year.

Maybe the United States have already developed beyond the possibility of reforming. They have become the biggest obstacle for human progress. They are not the leaders of the free world anymore; they have become the worst enemy of freedom. The sooner the final collapse of the United States will come, the better for the progress of humanity.

Monday, September 2, 2013

Politics VII: The Law



Modern law has become an absurdity. 
Laws are supposed to be rules of how people should interact with each other in a state. The first requirement   for obeying a law is to know it. Unfortunately this is impossible in a modern state due to the sheer number of laws. No single human being is capable of knowing every law in a state. A special profession had to be invented for specialists in laws, the so called lawyers. But even these lawyers can't know every law. They have to specialize on a small fraction of laws. But that small fraction is still too much for a single person to know, so usually a lawyer has to look up the exact wording of a law in order to give an advice.
So what is the sense of rules that nobody can know because their number exceeds the storage capacity of a human brain? How can people be expected to obey to rules that they cannot know?

To make things even more difficult, laws arbitrarily vary from country to country. What is legal in one country is illegal in another one. It is therefore not enough to know the totality of all laws, it is necessary to know all laws of every social community you are moving in.

So since it is impossible for a human being to know all laws, how do people manage to obey them?
The answer is quite simple. People don't care what the law says, but every human has more or less an idea what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in a human society. So he assumes that the law in accordance with this concept of "right and wrong". And mostly people get it right. Everybody understands that everything that causes unprovoked harm to others is wrong and that there is probably a law against it, even if he doesn't know which particular law it is, and what the law says exactly.
This means people are totally ignorant about the laws and don't need them, but they manage to obey most of them anyway.

So why do we have laws at all? What do we need them for, if nobody knows them and everybody acts simply according to his general understanding of right and wrong?
The truth is, there is no logical reason for laws, at least not in the form laws exist in a modern state.

One of the first codes of law was the Code of Hammurabi. It was a collection of laws written on a stone stele and made visible in a public place. It was possible for every citizen to read and know all existing laws. So the Code of Hammurabi still made some sense.
Meanwhile the number of laws have been inflated by many magnitudes and we have a permanent legislative power, which invents a flood of new laws every year making the problem even bigger.
If we want to give back any meaning to the institution of the law, we need to reduce the number of laws drastically.Their number must be limited to something every citizen can learn and remember. Therefore all laws of a country should fit on a letter-sized piece of paper. If a new law is added, an existing one must be removed, so that the total number of laws never changes. Only if the citizen of a state can actually know the laws, they will make sense for the state. Laws that are not known by every citizens are a waste of paper and have no effect on the life within the state.

Another irrational aspect of modern laws is that they are permanently changed. How can the citizens make any plans for their life, when the rules that they have to obey to can suddenly be different the next day. This is a similar situation like a football game where the rules are changed during the match. This would undermine the whole idea of the game. In the same way laws that can be changed undermine the whole idea of laws.
A law is no law, if it can be changed. Laws have to be immutable.

The only possibility to change a law should be by unanimous consent of all citizens. When all citizens are asked for their consent, it is made sure, that every citizen knows about the change and that this change will not interfere negatively with his plans that he made based on the former law.

So there are two requirements for laws to make sense:
1. Their number must be limited to something that every citizen can easily remember (one letter-sized page).
2. They must either be immutable or only be changed by a consensus of all citizens.

Friday, August 30, 2013

Overcoming Religious Irrationalism




The continuous progress of human civilization was suddenly interrupted at the end of antiquity with the rise of Christianity to the head of the Roman Empire and its subsequent fall. No other event was so disastrous for the intellectual evolution of mankind. It was followed by an Age of Darkness that lasted more than a thousand years, until humanity began slowly to recover from the catastrophic effect that Christian monotheism had brought over it. It was the Renaissance (= Rebirth) of antiquity and its culture followed by the Age of Enlightenment that put an end to the decline of humanity.
However the cause of the decline is not dead yet and we can again see the deteriorating effects of this dangerous religion on the progress of humanity. Religion is again on the rise during the last decades, and it is accompanied by a visible stagnation of science and technology, a retrocession of humanist values and basic human rights and a resurgence of barbarism and violence all over the world. The disease of Christianity (including the Mohammedan sects) has not been eradicated while there was an opportunity for it. It will now continue to cause problems for mankind and obstruct any further progress.

The mistake was the attempt to jump from a monotheist religion right back to the path of reason and logic. Such an attempt was doomed to fail. Once you have taken a wrong road, you cannot just jump from there back into the right direction, when you realize that you have taken a wrong turn. You have to take all the way back to the point where you have left the right path and from there continue into the right direction.
There is no direct path from monotheism to reason. A Christian atheist still has tacit Christian doctrines implied in his thinking. For example whatever answer he gives to the simple question “Do you believe in God?” - whether “yes” or “no”, he already strays away from the path of reason and surrenders to multiple Christian fallacies. The preposition “in” makes no sense in conjunction with the verb “believe”. Why is the noun “God” capitalized? Where is its article?
Such an irrational question cannot be answered rationally and could only be countered with another question: Believe what about which god? Any answer would imply the concept of an omnipotent creator and the affirmation that such a concept is even thinkable. The whole question of the existence of “God” is meaningless from a rational point of view and commits the fallacy of presupposition (Plurium Interrogationum) since it presupposes statements that have not been agreed upon (that an omnipotent creator is a valid hypothesis, that the world has a beginning, that there can be a logical distinction between natural and supernatural).
Whenever such a Christian atheist makes a statement about ethics, he is also unaware that he implies tacit Christian values. He also uses a language polluted by Christian terminology that makes it difficult to express himself without falling into the mental trap of Christian concepts.

For a monotheist to embrace reason, it is indispensable to return to the pre-Christian concepts of thought first and at least formally learn classical mythology and adopt the customs and language of polytheist antiquity. This is the point in history, after which mankind strayed away from the path of intellectual progress.
Only a classical polytheist is able to overcome religious superstition. From monotheism there is no direct shortcut to rationalism. First all false concepts of Christianity and its spiritual predecessors like Zoroastrism have to be totally erased from the mind, before it is possible to advance on the path of reason.

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Politics VI: The Constitution



The administrative mechanisms as well as every law of a country are based on its constitution. It is the constitution that gives authority to the government and to the laws and decrees that regulate the state affairs.
But where does the constitution derive its authority from?
According to the modern understanding of a state, which is based on the philosophy of the Age of Enlightenment (especially Jean-Jacques Rousseau), the constitution of a state is a social contract that its citizens have agreed to. This means, a constitution is only legitimate, if it is based on the voluntary agreement of the citizens.
In our modern democracies, this agreement is formally done by a majority vote of the citizens who either approve or reject a draft of a constitution. If the constitution gets the majority vote, it is considered to be legitimate and binding for all citizens and all branches of the public administration and the government.

However this is not how a contract works. A contract is only valid, when it is signed by all involved parties, not just by the majority of them. And it is only binding for those who signed it. 
Or would a contract be valid if a group of people signs it in order to justify a hostile action against some other people or to make regulations for people who have not agreed to the contract? Of course this would not be possible, not even if the group who signed the contract is more numerous than the other group that it is applied to against their will. Such a document would not be a contract, rather it would be a conspiracy.
For this reason the constitution of a state cannot be subject to a majority decision. It requires the consent of every single person that it is supposed to be applied to. A constitution cannot have any authority over any human being who has not personally signed it showing his consent. Otherwise it is not a constitution but a conspiracy pact.

It might be objected that it is impractical to try to get the signatures of every citizen under the constitution, but this is how a contract works. If you don't have the signature of all involved parties, the contract is void. If it is not possible to get the signatures of every single citizen of a state, then the terms of the contract, i.e. the constitution, have either to be changed or the reach of its authority needs to be limited into smaller units. If it is not possible to get the signature of several million citizens, then probably the political entity is too big and needs to be divided into smaller units (e.g city states), which are able to agree to an unanimous consensus among them.

A very important principle of a constitution is that it must be limited to the smallest common denominator. Therefore it cannot have too many terms, since it would be impossible to reach a consensus over them. 
Second, a constitution must not include any controversial issues. We know that topics like abortion, family laws or religious references are controversial. So there is no place for them in a constitution.
It needs also to be considered that future generations of citizens must be willing to sign the constitution, so it needs to be free from temporary political trends. 

A constitution is only valid, when every citizen has signed it and it is only applicable on the citizens who have signed it. Therefore it has to consider what to do with people who refuse to sign it. And even if a consensus is reached among all citizens at the moment, it is possible that people reaching adulthood and citizenship in the future might not be willing to sign it.
A person who has not signed the constitution is not subject to its regulations. This will have certain disadvantages, because the person will not have the protection of its laws, but nobody can be forced to give his consent and nobody can be forced to fall under the authority of a law whose legitimacy he has not agreed to.
A state, which is based on such a constitution, has to leave these people in peace. It has no authority over them. It cannot force them to anything, but it also has no obligations towards them. 
However it is in the interest of a state to make the terms of its constitution as agreeable as possible for everyone in order to avoid that too many people refuse to give their approval to its constitution and therefore to its legitimacy.

Since these requirements of a legitimate constitution are not fulfilled by any modern state, no existing country has a legitimate constitution and any legitimate authority.We need a radical change of the political system and the understanding of what constitutes a state. All authority is derived from the citizens. And without their signature and consent to the constitution, the state has no legitimate authority over them. The state has to respect its citizens, not only their majority, but every single one of them.
Every human being is free to agree to the authority of the state or to reject it. No government institution can claim authority over a human being from any other source than this particular human being himself.
The age when state authority was derived from divine mercy or some kind of profane substitute of it (e.g. the "will of the people", the "common good", the "national security", the "proletariat" etc.) needs to be over once and for all.