Sunday, August 4, 2019

Big Bang Theory Takes Another Hit

Hubble Space Telescope

https://www.thenational.ae/uae/science/have-we-been-wrong-about-the-age-of-our-universe-all-along-1.894032
Until recently, such findings would have barely caused a stir, as the age of the cosmos was thought to have been revealed a decade ago by studies of the heat left over by the Big Bang.
By measuring the spread of that heat across the night sky, orbiting satellites had shown the primordial explosion must have taken place about 13.8 billion years ago, plus or minus a few tens of millions of years.
 [...]
In 2013, astronomers using the orbiting Hubble Space Telescope estimated Methuselah was about 14.5 billion years old, give or take about 800 million years. That’s hard to square with the latest estimates of the age of the universe.


It does not look good for our Big Bang theory, which is - as we might remember - a theory inspired by Abrahamic religion and brought up by the Catholic priest Georges Lemaître who wanted a scientific foundation to justify the need of creation. Before that the commonly accepted cosmological theory was a steady state universe with neither beginning nor end. 
The steady state theory did not deny the expansion of the universe, but assumed that the First Law of Thermodynamics (preservation of energy) could not apply to the universe, since it is infinite and therefore no closed system. Not the total energy is preserved, since it is infinite in an infinite universe, so that no finite amount of energy added or deducted could change this, but the amount of energy per volume of space measured over large distances is constant. So if space expands, energy (or matter) also have to increase at the same pace in order to keep the average density of energy constant. Instead of being created in a singular event (Big Bang) it was assumed that matter and energy are created constantly by the expansion of the universe due to quantum fluctuation of space itself.

The Big Bang theory changed this and gave the universe a beginning. In order to keep this mathematical model alive, which was not consistent with empiric measurements, new strange phenomena had to be introduced into the theory, among them Cosmic Inflation, a theory that is unable to provide any cause for it other than that it is needed for the equations to work, while it assumes the absurd concept of speeds faster than light. Other phenomena that had to be introduced in order to save the equations were dark matter and dark energy, of which neither was ever observed, while it would be responsible for the majority of mass in the universe. The Big Bang theory also set the age of the universe at 13.7 billion years, neglecting the fact that globular star clusters around our galaxy had almost the same age. Recently more and more galaxies have been discovered that must have been come to existence shortly after the Big Bang, which does not really fit into our understanding how galaxies are born.

And now we have a star that seems to be even older than the universe itself. 
Astrophysics should finally admit that we do not know how and if the universe began and if and how it was ever different from now. We do not even have a working theory for gravity, which would normally be the first step of developing a cosmological theory.

Besides all this we will even in the future have publications by stubborn astrophysicists that take the Big bang as a proven fact and build their weird speculative theories on top of it. 
Why can we not just start over, go back to what we really know and do research about things that we can know and that have an effect on us, so that we can experimentally measure them? Let us free science from religious beliefs and speculative theories (e.g. the entire branch of theoretical physics) and make it trustworthy and solid, as it once was.

Socrates once said: I neither know nor think that I know.
And this is one step ahead of all those scientists that think that they know, but actually do not know either.

Thursday, July 11, 2019

Back Holes II - Best Explanation So Far



Sorry, Black Holes Aren't Actually Black
[...] At the event horizon itself, space is moving at the speed of light. Which means, to someone infinitely far away, time at the event horizon no longer appears to pass.
When you observe something else fall into a black hole, you'd see that the light emitted from them would get fainter, redder, and their position would asymptote towards the event horizon. If you could continue to observe the faint photons they emitted, they'd appear to get stretched out in space and stretched out in time. They'd experience gravitational redshift, with the light emitted from them going from visible to infrared to microwave to radio frequencies.
And yet, it will never disappear entirely. There will always, infinitely far into the future, be light to observe from their fall into a black hole. Even though photons are quantized, there is no limit to how low their energy can be. With a large-enough telescope sensitive to long-enough wavelengths, you should always be able to see the light from anything that fell into a black hole. As someone falls in, their light never completely goes away.

Finally someone got the physics of Black Holes right. This is an article worth reading. 
I have pointed out so many times that time comes to a standstill at the event horizon of a Black Hole so that nothing can ever cross it, but hardly any scientist seems to understand it. Almost all articles about Black Holes mention a crossing of the event horizon, that matter reaches a point from which it cannot return anymore. General Relativity does not allow that. This point-of-no-return can never be reached. Nothing can disappear in a Black Hole during the existence of the universe. This removes entirely the information paradox that Stephen Hawking desperately tried to understand during his hole life. There is no paradox. Information never gets lost in a Black Hole.


Sunday, June 30, 2019

Right-Wing vs. Left-Wing


Right-Wing and Left-Wing have got a new meaning. In the past Left-Wing meant support of the lower class and Right-Wing support of the upper class.
Today Right-Wing means defending democracy, free speech and human rights; and Left-Wing means destroying all that.
So Far-Right means a freedom extremist, and Far-Left a totalitarian extremist.

What has remained the same is that the Right wants to preserve the status quo, while the Left wants to overthrow it. However if the status quo is already quite good for everyone, its overthrow will be bad for everyone.

Tuesday, June 18, 2019

No Big Bang?


https://dailygalaxy.com/2019/06/big-bang-vanishes-quantum-theory-describes-an-eternal-universe/

It seems we have an alternative theory for the universe without a Big Bang. This is similar to a post that I made some years ago about a new steady-state model of the universe.
Quantum fluctuation allows for a continuous creation of particles due to the expansion of the universe, because the vacuum energy needs to remain the same.
It is certainly too early to say, but we should consider the possibility that there is no need for a Big Bang. This would also explain why the universe is completely euclidean (i.e. "flat").

So once again Epicurus was right about the universe: It is infinite in space and time. There are logical reasons for it as Epicurus explained, because any finite model would lead to a logical self-contradiction.

Tuesday, April 16, 2019

The Fire of Notre Dame

The fire of Notre Dame today marks the end of France and probably of European civilization. Although it was just a church and therefore dedicated to religious superstition it is also the probably most important symbol of European culture after the decline of Rome.
The cathedral was built during the High Middle Ages and is probably the apex of medieval architecture. During the French Revolution it became the Temple of Reason and later the place where Napoleon was crowned Emperor effectively ending the Western Roman Empire and replacing it with modern Western society. The cathedral of Notre Dame was far more important to Europe than the World Trade Center ever was for America, since the latter one was a rather modern building.
Although the destruction of a symbol has no real effect, the Fire of Notre Dame comes to a point in history, where the French identity is completely replaced by North-African culture, the United Kingdom is ruled effectively by Saracen sharia law and has left the European Union, and Germany is collapsing under an unprecedented Saracen invasion since 2015.
Europe is broken. It has no will for survival anymore. The most powerful European nations have been lost to Saracen invaders. The national leaders are puppets of the Saracens. And the last decent Europeans feel ashamed for the degeneracy of their own homelands that makes them unworthy of being defended.
In the face of such a situation a symbolic event becomes significant. Its importance might be abstract, but historiography is something abstract. It needs key events to mark the end of an era. The Fire of Notre Dame is such a key event. 
Today we have seen the end of European culture in France. And considering the importance that France had for modern Europe, it might very well be the event that future historians will take to give a date to the end of European civilization as a whole.

Wednesday, April 10, 2019

The Photography of a Black Hole

First photography of the supermassive Black Hole in the center of M87

https://www.space.com/first-black-hole-photo-by-event-horizon-telescope.html
Black Holes have finally been dragged out of the shadows.
For the first time ever, humanity has photographed one of these elusive cosmic beasts, shining light on an exotic space-time realm that had long been beyond our ken. 
"We have seen what we thought was unseeable," Sheperd Doeleman, of Harvard University and the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said today (April 10) during a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.
I am not sure, what is supposed to have been proven by this picture?
It is a massive object and its center appears darker, but as I predicted for many years it is not black, but dark red due to the gravity-related redshift.
We know from General Relativity that time slows down in the proximity of a so called Black Hole until it comes to a complete standstill at the event horizon. From this follows that nothing can ever fall into a Black Hole, i.e. cross its event horizon, because all the time of the universe would not be enough for this to happen. This means no photon will ever reach the point of no return and disappear in it. Instead light escaping from the proximity of a Black Hole will be extremely redshifted all the way down to the lower end of the electromagnetic spectrum. And this is exactly what we see. The center of the alleged Black Hole is dark red.
Of course this effect is probably due to the low resolution of the picture, but if the resolution is too low to distinguish anything with certainty, then what are we supposed to see there?

Climatology as a Modern Version of Neo-Luddism


The popular anti-rationalist pseudo-science of »Climatology« and its demand of a reduction of CO2 emissions seems to be a revival of the 19th Century Luddite movement.
The Luddite were radical textile workers that protested against modern technology, especially mechanical stocking frames and had a mystical and probably fictional leader called »Ned Ludd«. The name »Luddite« became since then a trademark for everybody opposing modern technology. Another famous Luddite of the 20th century was the Unabomber Ted Kaczynski who wrote an interesting manifesto called »Industrial Society and its Future«.
Today we have another incarnation of this movement that manifests itself in the fight against Global Warming. It is directed against any form of actually totally harmless CO2 emission, which is a way to quantify the degree of industrialization. The more CO2 something emits, the more industrial it is considered and therefore attracts the wrath of the modern Luddites. Even a new charismatic leader of the Neo-Luddites has emerged in the person of the 16-years old Swedish girl Greta Thunberg and her »Fridays for Future« movement. The fact that a child with no expertise at all on the matter is leading this movement staging a school strike, the symbol of science and reason, shows its general aversion against any form of rationalism. It is hereby very unfortunate that even well established scientists have been corrupted to support the neo-Luddites with absurd theories about threats to the global climate by returning fossilized carbon into the natural cycle where it originally came from.
But we can see that this current phenomenon of climate hysteria is not unique in human history. It had its predecessors that sporadically re-emerge driven by a subconscious skepticism of humans against technological advancement, which they feel they are not prepared for. So the current climate hysteria is not a new kind of the collective madness that has spread in the western world, but part of human nature, which will hopefully be overcome like earlier incarnations of the Luddite movement.

Thursday, May 10, 2018

Segregation in School



The most important issue that humanity faces in our time of conflict and political polarization is finding a common ground. This common ground can only be reason and logic and has to reject the concept of opinions and beliefs, on which no common ground is possible.
Reason and logic are principles that are the same for everybody, no matter if man or woman, if White, Black, or Asian, no matter from which cultural background. Logic is so universal that it can serve even as common ground for non-human beings like higher animals, computers, artificial intelligence, and extraterrestrial civilizations, if we ever make contact with one.
The task of any school should be to create the foundation of this common ground, to instruct students in reason, logic, and empirical science. It is contrary to this task to teach opinions and belief systems in school or to segregate the students according to gender or race. School should teach us, what is consensus and agreeable for all intelligent beings. If it does not fulfill this task, it is not a true school that deserves this name.
Therefore girls’ and boys’ schools or race segregated schools are no schools at all; they are institutions of cultural indoctrination. And opinions and belief systems should have no business in any school.
Mathematics and scientific facts are universal and the same for any human being. They require essentially the same learning methods, which are based on memorizing information and learning the laws of logic and their application. There is now other way to learn a new language than memorizing the vocabulary, covering one column of a table and trying to reconstruct the other one from memory. This method has successfully been used by any human being, be it a girl or a boy or from whatever race.
Now the segregationists claim that there are natural differences between the sexes as well as between the races. Therefore different methods would be required to teach students effectively according to their gender/race.
But this argument is invalid, since individual differences among humans outweigh statistical differences between the sexes or ethnical groups. If different teaching methods are used, they have to apply to groups based on learning skills in general, not on gender or ethnicity. A boy may outperform any girl in his class, even if it has been confirmed that statistically girls do better in school than boys. It would be unreasonable to put this boy into a boy class with lower standards, just because he is a boy. The skills of a student have to be determined individually, not predetermined based on gender.
The consequences of gender segregated schools are known from our history. It is hardly the teaching methods that are different (The binomial theorem is taught in the exactly same way to boys and girls, just as vocabulary in foreign languages is.), but it is the curriculum. This curriculum is adjusted to the supposed gender specific roles that are later expected for men and women. The result is a society where certain professions are limited to one gender and where social life is split into two worlds, mostly to the disadvantage of women. This means that the society loses all the potential of nearly 50% of its population, which are forced into suboptimal career decisions. This is a completely utilitarian reason independent from any ideological goal of social justice. Gender segregated societies are inefficient, because they prevent people from optimal career decisions for their individual skills.
It furthermore destroys social cohesion by alienating the sexes from each other.
And last not least it diminishes quality of life, since heterosexual people feel naturally more attracted to the opposite gender and perceive a single-sex community as hardship, which is obvious in prisons, the military or monasteries.
If schools do not teach empirical science and the laws of logic equally to any being that is endowed with reason, then it would be better to have no schools at all, because they would be nothing but a tool of indoctrination and brainwashing.
Above anything else we are all intelligent beings, we have the ability to think and act reasonable. Differences based on gender and race are secondary. Logic and science are universal. They cannot be divided unequally among the sexes or ethnic groups.
There cannot be any compromise when it comes to abolishing segregation in schools.

Thursday, February 1, 2018

Modern Stoicism


Now Social Justice Warriors have also found their way into modern Stoicism. The article below is a typical example. Stoicism and the renewed interest in this philosophy apparently is too masculine to them, so they need to effeminate it.

http://donaldrobertson.name/2018/01/03/whats-the-difference-between-stoicism-and-stoicism/
Why it’s important to distinguish clearly between stoicism (small s) and Stoicism (capital S).
When it comes to mixing up the words Stoicism and stoicism, there are several problems.  Firstly, people often just equate it with mental toughness and so it’s not unusual for them to argue that people they revere as tough or self-disciplined are Stoic role models.  The UFC fighter Conor McGregor is a typical example people choose but there are many similar conversations on the Internet.  Now, it’s fair to say he may be someone tough and self-disciplined but he’s obviously very far removed from figures like Socrates [sic] and Marcus Aurelius, who were held up as examples of Stoicism in the ancient world.  He’s probably a better embodiment of stoicism than Stoicism.  He arguably doesn’t embody the Stoic virtues of wisdom and justice, or natural affection toward others and ethical cosmopolitanism [sic], in quite the way that Marcus Aurelius does. 
The word stoic also implies to many people some kind of suppression or concealment of unpleasant feelings: the stiff upper-lip notion.  Boys don’t cry, etc.  That’s particularly problematic, though, because it’s well-known from large volumes of modern research in the field of psychotherapy that the suppression of negative feelings can be quite harmful. 
And the author of this article, Donald Robertson is even farther removed from philosophy than any UFC fighter could possibly be.
First of all Socrates was no Stoic. Since all we know about him was written by Plato, the founder of the Academy, he is probably closer related to this philosophical school.
It is then true that there are two known occasions where Stoic philosophers called themselves cosmopolitans, but it was never meant to be a Stoic virtue. The degenerate modern concept of "diversity" did not exist in antiquity, and "justice" did certainly not mean "social justice" as the author wants to make us believe.
Affection is a passion and therefore the antithesis of Stoicism.
And the reference to "boys" in the article is the last proof of its feminist agenda, if we would still need one.
The actual virtues of Stoicism were wisdom (sophia), courage (andreia, conveniently omitted in the article as too masculine), justice (dikaiosyne, in the meaning as described in Plato's Politeia), and temperance (sophrosyne), all of them deducted from the one principle virtue, which is living according to the logos, the natural laws of reason and logic that bind the world together.

Apart from the aforementioned misrepresentations of Stoic philosophy, it  is a common misconception that a modern Stoic has to follow the writings of M. Aurelius and Epictetus literally in order to deserve the capital S. This would be an argumentum ad verecundiam (argument from authority) Stoicism is a philosophy, not a religious revelation.
Along with our advance in science  philosophy necessarily has to advance too. Stoic physics in the time of Zeno and Chrysippus for example was based on the 5 elements (earth, water, air, fire, aether), but today we have a better understanding of nature. Therefore the theoretical background of Stoic philosophy has to change too.
Even Roman Stoicism, which today is almost exclusively quoted as example of Stoic philosophy, was very different from Greek Stoicism, which is today mostly ignored. In the same way modern Stoicism needs to be different.
What always remains the same however is Stoic practice, what the article calls "stoic" with lower case s. This attitude of apatheia (the stiff upper lip) is what remained the same throughout the centuries. It is the true core of Stoicism, because this has always been the trademark of Stoicism. Not obsolete beliefs in the pneuma, the aether, and determinism is what Stoicism is about, but the rejection of passions and emotions and the dedication to the logos, which is reason and logic.
This is what Stoic virtue (arete) is about. This is in no way different from the meaning of lower case stoic only that it also includes the mathematical discipline of logic, which remains valid since the time of Chrysippus.
Stoicism is not psychotherapy (The author of the article above however is a psychotherapist.) or a feel-good New Age movement where anything goes. Stoicism is strict self-discipline and effort to the degree of asceticism, but it is also very rewarding for those who master it and reach ataraxia. Because after all philosophy should be the path to eudaimonia.

Thursday, December 7, 2017

The Unfalsifiable Big Bang Creation Myth

https://www.usnews.com/news/news/articles/2017-12-06/colossal-distant-black-hole-holds-surprises-about-early-universe

Colossal Distant Black Hole Holds Surprises About Early Universe



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The oldest and most distant black hole ever observed -- a celestial brute 800 million times more massive than the sun -- is providing scientists some surprises about the nature of the universe when, on a cosmic scale, it was a mere toddler.
Astronomers on Wednesday said the black hole, residing at the center of a highly luminous celestial object called a quasar, is located about 13.1 billion light years away from Earth. The quasar's light detected by the researchers dates back to about 690 million years after the Big Bang that created the universe, when the cosmos was only 5 percent of its present age.
[...]
"This object provides us with a measurement of the time at which the universe first became illuminated with starlight," said another of the researchers, physics professor Robert Simcoe of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research.
Finding such a large black hole existing so early in the universe's history surprised the researchers. Its very existence at that point in time challenges current notions about the formation and growth of such objects, they said.
"The universe is full of surprises," Bañados said.
Yes, the universe is full of surprises, especially if you use a wrong model to explain it.

This is just another in an endless series of examples where modern cosmology simply ignores observations when they do not fit into the Big Bang theory.
The Big Bang theory has proven to be completely useless, because it did not make a single prediction that was later confirmed by an observation. All predictions were wrong and needed to be fixe by introducing new variables into the theory, like cosmic inflation, i.e. space expansion faster than light, dark matter, dark energy etc.
Now again they found a remote object, a so called quasar which is interpreted as an early galaxy with a very active super-massive black hole in its center. If the Big Bang time scale was correct that quasar should already have existed at a time when the universe started to become transparent. Before it is supposed to have been a compact cloud of matter too dense for light passing through. These are conditions that would never allow a galaxy or a quasar to exist or to have formed. And still we have just discovered one.
If cosmology was a science, the Big Bang theory would now be discarded and a new theory would need to be developed. However the Big Bang creation myth seems to be unfalsifiable. No matter what is observed, they do not give this theory up, but come up with new explanations just to keep this theory. Falsifiability is the principle criterion that the philosopher Car Popper developed as test for a scientific theory. The Big Bang theory fails this test. It will never be falsified, no matter what is observed or measured.
The universe was found to be completely flat and Euclidic to a error margin of 1%, while the Big Bang theory is only compatible with a curved universe with a finite size. It did not change anything. Globular clusters and galaxies were found that were just as old or even older than the supposed age of the universe. It changed nothing. Now they found a quasar that cannot have existed at such an early stage of the universe. Again it does not change anything. the creationists will still not give up their beloved Big Bang, the moment of creation.
This has nothing to do with science anymore. This has become to be about faith, the firm belief that the world must have had a beginning. But this assumption has utterly been proven false. The universe has no beginning. We have no model yet to explain its overall superstructure, but we know for sure that it did not start at any particular time. This is what our observations tell us.

Unfortunately we have to live with the sad reality that during the decades to come our cosmologists will continue to be puzzled by every new discovery that contradicts the model of a Big Bang. We will see them readjusting the theory, adding more variables ,invisible forces and mysterious stuff. And at the end the priests will tell us that such a precisely fine-tuned universe needs a god as only possible explanation and quote the Big Bang theory as proof of his existence.