Friday, December 4, 2015

The End of the Nation State

History of the Nation State in Europe

The concept of the nation state was essentially introduced to Europe by the Romans. Although Alexander the Great had ruled the Empire before them, his reign was centered in Babylon in Asia and later under his Seleucid successors in Seleucia and Antioch, after the former capital had been devastated during the civil war (Wars of the Diadochi). The Hellenic Empire was not a European invention, but Alexander had simply taken over the throne of the Achaemenid dynasty.
When Rome finally defeated the Hellenic dynasty of the Seleucids, the center of gravity of the Empire shifted to the West. Rome became the capital of the first European Empire. The polis, the independent city state that had dominated the political order of the civilized part of Europe, was replaced by an Empire that claimed universal sovereignty.
The Roman Empire was however not a nation state as we understand it today. Not every inhabitant of the Empire was a Roman. The authorities distinguished between peregrini, essentially barbarians that lived within the borders of Rome’s influence, and  Romans with different degrees of citizenship. The Empire was not the political entity of one nation, but a multinational entity ruled by one nation, the Romans. What defined the Empire, was that it included everybody who was under the protection and control of the Roman military. Its borders were defined by the reach of the Roman legions. One was part of the Empire, if one fell under the reach of the Roman military.
Over time the Roman citizenship was extended over more and more barbarians that lived within the borders of the Empire. This occurred by freeing barbarian slaves whose children could acquire full citizenship with all political rights or by granting full citizenship to peregrini after 25 years of service in the Roman military, mostly the auxiliary cohorts. Therefore Roman citizenship or nationality lost more and more its ethnic meaning. Most Romans were soon not of ethnic Roman origin.
The final step was done by Emperor Caracalla who was at least partly of non-European ethnic origin by the Constitutio Antoniniana. This edict granted every free man living within the borders of the Empire full Roman citizenship. The distinction between Roman and peregrinus was abandoned. The Empire was not ruled by a nation anymore but had changed into a solely political entity unrelated to nationality or ethnicity.
So it was only a logical consequence that shortly after Rome lost its status as capital and the Empire its Roman character. Only the name remained as a meaningless designation.
Emperor Diocletian who had moved the capital away from Rome also initiated the split of the Empire into a Western and an Eastern half. This had far-reaching cultural consequences that remain until the present day. The East became  essentially Greek, the West remained Latin. Under Diocletian’s successors both parts of the Empire adopted an oriental superstition as their state religion losing much of the European character and culture.


Due to the cultural alienation in the Western, European part of the Empire the central government soon lost political control over its provinces. These provinces organized more and more into autonomous kingdoms of formerly barbarian nations. Finally during the 5th century the central government of the West was dissolved. De iure the autonomous kingdoms fell under the supreme authority of the Emperor in Constantinople, but he was unable to fully exercise his authority there.  The Western provinces had de facto become independent nations.
In the year 800 the Western part of the Empire finally got its own central government again under Emperor Charlemagne. However his Holy Roman Empire could only exercise direct control over some provinces. The other provinces remained de facto independent kingdoms. These kingdoms became the nation states that we recognize today, although they remained de iure provinces under the political authority of the Western Emperor and the religious authority of the Pontifex Maximus in Rome. However there were only few occasions, when this central government could exercise its formal authority, one of them being the crusades against the Arab barbarians.


The nation states during these Middle Ages were defined by the feudal system. Citizenship in these political entities was based on personal loyalty to the corresponding feudal Lord. This is why these states are known as states of personal loyalties (Personenverbandsstaat). The feudal system superceded ethnic or territorial borders.


This entire political system fell into disorder after the fall of Constantinople to the barbarians. The intellectual elite of the Empire fled from Constantinople to the West and triggered the Renaissance. It was an attempt to restore European culture and to free Western Europe from the grip of an oriental superstition that had been the state religion during the Middle Ages.
Indeed the Renaissance managed to break the religious authority of the Pontifex Maximus in Rome and the Western Emperor (of the Holy Roman Empire), but it also caused the Reformation. This religious conflict led to the devastating Thirty-Years-War and ended the political system of the Middle Ages with a de iure Emperor and de facto independent provinces organized into feudal states.
The resulting Peace of Westphalia finally established the modern concept of the nation state (Territorialstaat). Since then the nation state has been defined by its territorial borders and its citizens developed an own national identity with a national language, culture and sense of patriotism. This was often independent from the former ethnic origin. Celts, Franks, Roman and Normans considered themselves French, because they lived within the borders of France. Visigoths, Romans and Iberians became Spaniards, because they lived in Spain, Lombards, Normans and Romans became Italians because they lived in Italy. When the national borders shifted due to wars, the population was  often moved along with the territorial borders.
These new national identities even survived the Great War from 1914 to 1919, while in any other regard the political system of Europe was completely restructured, the Emperors of East and West overthrown and the republican system established throughout the Empire. The citizens maintained their national identities unaffected by their nation being a monarchy or a republic.
The Westphalian concept of the nation state therefore survived almost unchanged for over three centuries.

Westphalian Definition of a Nation State

The Westphalian nation state is a territorial state. It is defined by the borders of its territory rather than by its population. A citizen is expected to live in the territory of the nation state.
Apart from the territory the citizens of the nation state are usually united by their common language, their common ethnicity, their common values and culture and their solidarity community. The last one has in Europe developed into a sophisticated welfare system, where all citizens contribute to a common fund which pays for extraordinary expenses in case of unforeseeable misfortunes like accidents, sickness, unemployment or incapacity due to old age.


Nation states with a high degree of ethnic homogeneity usually have ius sanguinis (right of blood) as basis of their citizenship. This means citizenship is inherited by the parents. Citizen is who has parents of the corresponding nationality. An example of a nation with ius  sanguinis is former Germany.
Nation states, which are ethnically rather heterogenous or have a constant influx of immigrants have their citizenship usually based on ius solis (right of soil). This means citizenship is automatically acquired by being born in the national territory. An example of a nation with ius solis are the United States of America.


Exceptions to ius sanguinis and ius solis were usually possible under special circumstances, and a person could acquire another citizenship by the process of naturalization, when he had proved his loyalty to the nation. Usually continuous residency in a nation for a period of many years or sometimes military service for this nation was accepted as sufficient proof of loyalty, so that the new citizenship could be granted. There were different regulations regarding dual citizenship, with some nations permitting such a status and others not.


The nationalization of new citizens undermined the strict sense of ius sanguinis or ius solis. But even then the nation maintained a unity based on common values, language and solidarity system. The new citizen became part of the host culture, which he adopted as his own and contributed to the common fund of the welfare system. Ethnical differences were expected to disappear due to intermarriage with the host population.


This was the definition of the nation state that prevailed until the second half of the 20th century and which has finally ceased to exist with the refugee crisis of 2015.


The common definition of a nation state has so far been based on at least one of the following points:
  • Territorial borders
  • Ethnic community
  • Linguistic community
  • Community of common values
  • Community of solidarity

End of the European Nation State

Since the second half of the 20th century the European nation states have systematically been abolished by populist far-left governments. With the refugee crisis of 2015 most of the European nation states have ceased to exist. There is no logically consistent definition of a nation state anymore. Citizenship is instead determined arbitrarily on a case to case basis without a generally applicable rule. Neither residency nor culture, language, solidarity contributions or ethnicity can definltimately determine citizenship.
Most European nation states have lost their territorial integrity, since they have to share their territory with significant proportions of foreign nationals. As a result most Europeans cannot call any nation their own. Ius solis is effectively abolished, since citizenship is granted independent from the place of birth and not necessary anymore to live permanently in a certain country. Therefore the territorial definition of a nation state does not apply anymore.
The European nation states are not ethnically homogenous anymore. Many non-Europeans hold European passports, so that the possession of European citizenship allows no conclusion regarding the ethnicity of the person. This means ius sanguinis is effectively abolished too. Therefore the ethnic definition of a nation does not apply anymore either.
Many non-Europeans hold European passports while only having rudimentary knowledge of the language of their host country. In the cities of large urban areas Arabic and Turkish is more often heard in daily life than the native language. International corporations use English as primary internal language. So language does not reflect national borders anymore. The linguistic definition of a nation state had always had serious flaws, but meanwhile it has become meaningless.
A major part of the European population is Mohammedan, and “Mohammed” has become the most common name given to newborn babies in several European nations. Mohammedanism does not share any values with European traditions, and the ultimate loyalty of every Mohammedan is with Islam not with his nation state. Nevertheless Mohammedanism is not considered an obstacle for acquiring a European nationality effectively nullifying the cultural definition of the nation state.
Many people in Europe are supported by the welfare system of their nation state without ever having made a significant contribution to the common fund. It is therefore not a community of solidarity, but a class system with some people belonging to the recipient class and others belonging to the donor class. Entitlement to social welfare does not have an earlier contribution to the system as prerequisite. The vast majority of immigrants never contribute to the system but are supported by it right after being admitted to the European host country. The definition of a nation state as a community of solidarity is therefore not fulfilled, since there is no in-group that protects its interests as community against an out-group.

Post-Nation-State World

In Europe two different concepts preceded the concept of the nation that was established by the Roman Empire: the tribe among the barbarians and the city state (polis) in the more civilized part of Europe.
Neither of these two concepts will return after the idea of the nation state has been abandoned. Instead we see other concepts developing.

Globalization

Western politicians currently try to sell the idea of a globalized world without national borders as the evolving political system of a post-nation-state world. This would de facto mean the abolishment of the autonomy of the provinces of the Empire, which would at the same time expand over the whole globe. However this vision is a far cry from reality. Only the elite benefits from globalization, while the normal people still experience the same restrictions of movement at the national borders. Visa regulations, import and export restrictions and residence permits continue to limit their possibilities to the borders of the former nation states, which have become nothing more but administrative units that they have been assigned to.  Free movement and economic opportunities across the borders are only available to the wealthy, while it becomes more and more restricted for the vast majority due to increasingly stringent visa, residence, banking and taxation laws.
So the dream of a globalized world instead of a world of nation states has become a failed concept, which is limited to the virtual world of the Internet.


Mohammedan Concept of Nation

An alternative concept of nation is meanwhile propagated and quite successfully established by Mohammedanism. It rejects the territorial state returns to the pre-Westphalian concept of the state of personal loyalties (Personenverbandsstaat). Citizenship is determined independent from the national territory where a person resides but by his personal loyalty, in this case to the Mohammedan umma, as they call their nation.
The Mohammedan concept in principle distinguishes between three classes of people, quite similar to the Roman Empire.
  1. The Muslim (civis) - a person that enjoys full citizenship in the umma.
  2. The Dhimmi (peregrinus) - a foreigner living within the zone of influence of the umma and is subject to its laws without political participation.
  3. The Kafir (barbarus) - a foreigner not part of the Mohammedan world.
This concept of nation and citizenship has turned out to be quite successful in the post-nation-state world. Mohammedans have their own laws (sharia), their own language (Arabic), their own conventions of civil registry (Arabic names, polygamy laws, burial procedures), their own customs and culture (dress code, beards, diet rules), their own calendar, their own consulates (mosques), their own public offices (imams, muezzins etc.) and their own central government (caliph), independent from the territorial borders, in which they reside.
This seems to be the future path of the definition of a state in the post-nation-state world.


A European Answer to the Fall of the Nation State

The original European answer to the fall of the nation state was the idea of globalization. As has been explained above this concept has not worked out successfully or the vast majority of the people. They are restricted to a political entity that has lost its original meaning and has become a mere administrative unit of an international community that is only real for a tiny upper class minority and in the virtual world of the Internet. This answer is therefore not a viable option.
The Mohammedan concept however has successfully established itself in the post-nation-state world. Europeans have to adapt to this new situation and need to develop a similar concept of nation based on the same principles. A system of territorial states and states of personal loyalties cannot parallely coexist. It is either the one or the other. The former is dying, the latter emerging. Europeans have to accept this fact. They have to correct their concept of nation following the Mohammedan example. Of course it must have a European, not an Arab design.


Future European nations need to be states of personal loyalties (Personenverbandsstaaten) and not that much territorial states (Territorialstaaten). They need to reflect ethnic and cultural reality and not just serve an administrative purpose.
Reality is that a German is a German, no matter if he lives in the administrative district called Federal Republic of Germany, Republic of France, United States of America or Republic of Argentina, while a Turk or Arab will never be a German, whether he holds a passport of the administrative district called Federal Republic of Germany or not.
The same is true for a Celt who will always be a Celt, no matter if he resides in Scotland, France, Australia or the Caribbean, while a French passport will not make a black African or an Arab a Celt.
Nation is based on ethnicity and culture. It cannot be arbitrarily acquired. Like with Mohammedanism ethnicity is not an absolute requirement. Even non-Arabs can join the umma. Therefore a European definition of nation does not need to be more stringent in this regard either. But nationality should require a complete immersion into the host culture. This would include a name change and the joining of the whole family, as well as the use of the new language in daily life. The nation is part of one’s identity. Changing the nation means getting a new identity. A change would therefore be a rare exception. Commonly the nation is inherited from the parents and never changed.

European Nations

The old nation states are dead. Terms like Italian, French or British have become meaningless. They only describe administrative assignations. A French can as well be a Celt or Frank as an Arab or Bantu. Even when French still were homogeneously European, they were already a mixed population consisting of Gauls (Celts), Normans (Vikings), Romans and Franks (Germans) often having retained particular phenotypical features and cultural habits of their original nation. Cultural borders often divided established nation states. Germany for example has maintained the division along the former border of the Roman Empire, one part being predominantly Catholic while the other being predominantly Protestant, one part having a wine culture while the other having a beer culture, one population being predominantly dark-haired the other rather fair-haired. So on a cultural basis South-West Germany was rather related to France than the rest of Germany. In Italy the former borders of the Lombard kingdom that ruled the North and the Roman part in the South have also remained visible in the population that appears quite distinct in the North and South of Italy.


The nationalities that emerged during the Middle Ages cannot serve as designations for European nations anymore for more than one reason.
First of all these names are already taken by the modern administrative units of Europe that do not describe nationality. It already creates confusion, when an Arab terrorist is called a “French citizen” in the news creating a distorted picture of the mentioned incident. The term “French” does not describe the nationality of a person anymore. It would therefore be misleading to call a European nation as “French” under the new definition.
Another reason for these modern names being unsuitable for a European nation is that that they have emerged in a time when the oriental cult of Christianity had already destroyed the original European culture. These names are therefore associated with oriental Christian rather than European culture.
It is therefore necessary to return to the names that were in use during pre-Christian antiquity.


According to these rules we can therefore identify the following culturally and ethnically distinct European nations today:
  • Celtic Nation
  • Germanic Nation
  • Roman/Latin Nation
  • Slavic Nation
  • Greek/Hellenic Nation
  • Finnic/Ugric Nation
The new national communities need to be based on these groups or even smaller subunits, each defined by its own distinct culture and religion. To which of these nation one belongs is not determined by the territorial state or administrative unit that he was born in. A European French is not automatically a Celt or Gaul. He could be a Frank (German) or Roman. He has to find out his nation according to his family history, his cultural affinity or his physical appearance.
If the European people want to survive the ongoing islamic invasion, the original European nations have to assess their identity. Otherwise Europe will within one or two generations become just another part of the Arab world; and what Europe once was will be forgotten as insignificant pre-islamic history, just as it happened with so many other civilizations before in other parts of the world.
Those Europeans who are not willing to rediscover their original nation are doomed to become either Dhimmi or Muslim in the new islamic European continent.


For the centuries to come the European nations have to accept that they cannot claim a particular territory for themselves. The situation today has in many ways become like the diaspora of the Jewish people during the past centuries - a people without a home, its remnants spread all over the world. Europeans therefore need to adopt the same survival strategies as the Jewish people did. Not territorial borders but only the cultural and religious community can hold them together. Loyalty to these nations must supercede any loyalty to the administrative district where they live. It is the only way how the European nations will be able to see the 22nd century. With effect of the year 2015 the age of the territorial states is over; the states of personal loyalties have returned.

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.