BIG BANG COSMOLOGY VIEWS: The Popes in the Vatican and the Dalai Lama in Dharmasala

July 29, 2015

This is not a lofty discourse on Big Bang cosmology and the religions. I don’t know anything about such things.

Here is an issue about “processes”. What is the process by which a large organization takes a position on a large issue?

For the Catholic Church, the Pope is advised by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. This Academy repeatedly gave bum advice to the Pope of the time. These Popes then felt compelled to align their religious worldview with Big Bang (with some expressed angst), and in the process, to endorse Big Bang.

Big Bang Cosmology, Catholicism and Big Bang Cosmology, Pope Francis, Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Pius XII, Popes on Big Bang Cosmology, Vatican on Big Bang Cosmology, Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Catholic view of Big Bang

Big Bang Cosmology, Catholicism and Big Bang Cosmology, Pope Francis, Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Pius XII, Popes on Big Bang Cosmology, Vatican on Big Bang Cosmology, Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Catholic view of Big Bang

I was not able to find anything about the scientific advisory process for the Dalai Lama. He certainly does not have a formal office for this purpose. But western scientists visit his place and brief him on various matters.

So it seems astounding to me that the man would listen to the western establishment sahibs’ authoritative account of Big Bang as a fully accepted science, and think about it and assimilate it, and then say: Nah!

Here is the relevant article by the Dalai Lama, dated Jan-Feb, 2014.

Among people in important leadership position, he may be quite unique in displaying this degree of conviction in his own mental faculties, his training in logic, and his belief system.

I am bowled over!

Big Bang Cosmology, Buddhism and Big Bang Cosmology, His Holiness the Dalai Lama, Dalai Lama on Big Bang Cosmology, Buddhist view of Big Bang Cosmology

Big Bang Cosmology, Buddhism and Big Bang Cosmology, His Holiness the Dalai Lama, Dalai Lama on Big Bang Cosmology, Buddhist view of Big Bang cosmology

SETI: A failure of physics imagination

July 26, 2015

For context to the following diagram, please read my preceding post.

search for extraterrestrial intelligence, SETI, SETI institute, SETI director, Seth Shostak, Jill Tarter, SETI signal, SETI project, SETI message, SETI at home, Stephen Hawking SETI, Yuri Milner SETI, Yuri Milner breakthrough, breakthrough listen, breakthrough message

search for extraterrestrial intelligence, SETI, SETI institute, SETI director, Seth Shostak, Jill Tarter, SETI signal, SETI project, SETI message, SETI at home, Stephen Hawking SETI, Yuri Milner SETI, Yuri Milner breakthrough, breakthrough listen, breakthrough message

TYCOON PHYSICS

July 22, 2015


In recent years we have seen physics advance on two new fronts: Festival Physics and Tycoon Physics.

Regarding the latter, Stephen Hawking and Yuri Milner have been in the news recently. They want to put their combined might behind the SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) project. Hawking is providing the impetus and Yuri Borisovich is providing $100 million.

I found the following letter to the editor in today’s San Francisco Chronicle interesting:

Alien life

Regarding “Russian’s huge gift for alien research” (July 20): The Russian tycoon’s $100 million grant to search for alien signals is a perfect example of how glamorized “pop” science is vulgarizing the world of research. If we have learned anything from 55 years of searches for alien signals (a total failure to date), it’s that the likelihood aliens anywhere in our galaxy are expending the incredible amounts of energy needed to communicate across interstellar distances using electromagnetism-based signals (radio, laser beams, etc.) is vanishingly small. Assuming they exist at all and are willing to expend such energies, they have almost certainly switched to a far more futuristic, energy-efficient technique totally unknown to terrestrial physicists.

At a time when there are so many far more intriguing astrophysical mysteries to investigate, the fact that the distinguished Parkes Observatory is willing to devote “at least 25 percent” of its time to this silly project reminds me of Victorian scientists who attended seances in hopes of detecting ghosts.

John Davidson, San Francisco

OFF TOPIC: Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever and the climate doomsayers

July 8, 2015

Recently physics Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever has been in the news for his opposition to the climate change movement which holds that mankind is in immediate peril due to rapid adverse change in climate resulting from human activities. Giaever is being publicly derided.

I am no expert on climate change and I so I have no scientific opinion to offer.

But I consider myself THE leading expert today on two points Giaever states or implies:

1. An entire expert scientific establishment can be wrong.

2. NASA scientists are slanting data to favor the said movement.

On the first point, the world should understand that – generally speaking – it is entirely possible and it is happening today with increasing frequency. I have uncovered major instances in other scientific areas.

On the second point, the world should understand that it is both entirely possible and highly probable. I have uncovered an enormous amount of dirt in this regard in other scientific areas.

There is a third point Giaever seems to make. On this I claim no great expertise, but considerable hands on experience:

3. With a complex numerical simulation, you can very easily slant the outcome to suit yourself.

This is very true (What numerical modeler does not know this?!). I can tell you many stories from my bag of stories, but let me tell you just one.

Once two colleagues were describing a numerical modeling code. The first thing that struck me is that their cell sizes varied across their domain of calculation. This is because they constructed the cells with handy-dandy mathematical expressions. I pointed out that just where they needed extremely fine calculation is exactly where the cells are very large (and vice versa). They dismissed this point and went ahead and published the paper. It had strong conclusions. The paper was well received as a novelty.

I had forgotten all about that little casual conversation until a few years later when the paper had to be formally retracted. The reason you can guess.

With the climate models, you can play with numerous input numbers, staying within perfectly reasonable limits for each number. But you can still tweak the combination of these numbers to come up with a result that is slanted towards your desired end. You can play with physical parameters such specific heat. You can play with what thermal models you choose for the atmosphere, the ocean, the solid earth; what circulations you choose; solar-terrestrial relations and associated great complexities; scattering cross sections and opacities; and a host of other such things.

Suppose now that a committee of top flight experts makes all these decisions on all the myriad issues and eventually comes up with an official climate prediction. So what have we got? Something the Governments should rely on to make policy decisions? Absolutely not. What we got is one prediction from one committee. There is nothing final about it, nothing sewn up about it. Five international committees of experts working in isolation will present five different results.

With climate prediction models there are so many variables and parameters and model choices, and so much uncertainty of what else may develop that is not in the calculations, that this field is more akin to stock market prediction than, say, weather forecast.

Perhaps you begin to see what Ivar Giaever is on about. He may well be wrong – I cannot say. But is there any reason to publicly ridicule him for trying to voice commonsense issues that are being kept from the public? What is the actual motivation of people who are making him out to be a cuckoo?

Why is it necessary to teach the teeming masses Big Bang and String Theory with phenomenal urgency, but keep the strong subjective aspects of climate “science” under tight wraps?

LORD HAVE MERCY!

MAINAU DECLARATION 2015: A grotesque joke

July 6, 2015

The Mainau Declaration is presented first, with reference numbers added. My commentary follows.

Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change

We undersigned scientists, who have been awarded Nobel Prizes [1], have come to the shores of Lake Constance in southern Germany, to share insights with promising young researchers [2], who like us come from around the world. Nearly 60 years ago, here on Mainau, a similar gathering of Nobel Laureates in science issued a declaration of the dangers inherent in the newly found technology of nuclear weapons—a technology derived from advances in basic science. So far we have avoided nuclear war though the threat remains [3]. We believe that our world today faces another threat of comparable magnitude [4].

Successive generations of scientists have helped create a more and more prosperous world. This prosperity has come at the cost of a rapid rise in the consumption of the world’s resources. If left unchecked, our ever-increasing demand for food, water, and energy will eventually overwhelm the Earth’s ability to satisfy humanity’s needs, and will lead to wholesale human tragedy. Already, scientists who study Earth’s climate are observing the impact of human activity.

In response to the possibility of human-induced climate change, the United Nations established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to provide the world’s leaders a summary of the current state of relevant scientific knowledge. While by no means perfect, we believe that the efforts that have led to the current IPCC Fifth Assessment Report represent the best source of information regarding the present state of knowledge on climate change. We say this not as experts in the field of climate change, but rather as a diverse group of scientists [5] who have a deep respect for and understanding of the integrity of the scientific process [6].

Although there remains uncertainty as to the precise extent of climate change, the conclusions of the scientific community contained in the latest IPCC report are alarming, especially in the context of the identified risks of maintaining human prosperity in the face of greater than a 2°C rise in average global temperature. The report concludes that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the likely cause of the current global warming of the Earth. Predictions from the range of climate models indicate that this warming will very likely increase the Earth’s temperature over the coming century by more than 2°C above its pre-industrial level unless dramatic reductions are made in anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases over the coming decades.

Based on the IPCC assessment, the world must make rapid progress towards lowering current and future greenhouse gas emissions to minimize the substantial risks of climate change. We believe that the nations of the world must take the opportunity at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in December 2015 to take decisive action to limit future global emissions. This endeavor will require the cooperation of all nations, whether developed or developing, and must be sustained into the future in accord with updated scientific assessment.

COMMENTARY:

[1] “We undersigned scientists” are some 36 signatories from a pool of some 65 scientists who might have signed. For whatever reasons, some 30 scientists from the pool did not sign. One dissenter was jeered away and made to appear to be a senile fool.

[2] “promising young researchers” – in what way does this expression add to the context? Who are they trying to impress? Basically they are saying: We mature gliterati and these junior glitterati have come together to give you hoi polloi a little of our priceless wisdom.

[3] What did the Mainau declaration of 60 years ago have to do with the world avoiding nuclear war thus far? There is no evidence it had any effect. While an individual scientist can have an impact with powers that be because of his moral authority and sincerity, collective representations by the elite are pretty much useless. It is creating history for the sake of the signatories.

[4] “threat of comparable magnitude” of nuclear war and climate change? This is like saying the war on terror and the war on poverty have comparable magnitudes. This is meaningless.

[5] “diverse group of scientists” – five out of the 36 signatories were there to promote Big Bang. Three of these five were the movers behind this declaration. They are the ones who were in visible evidence. These five are under a dark cloud (because of the exposition that their Nobel discoveries were a combination of sham, scam and fraud.) This declaration is a stratagem to distract attention from that fact. If instead of climate change the burning issue today were chemical pollution of Earth’s aquifers, that is the cause this coterie would have jumped on. They just needed some global bandwagon to get on, and fete themselves out of the jam.

Speaking of climate, one of the three movers is a cigarette-smoking-man.

[6] “integrity of the scientific process” – these five are absolutely the last people on this periled planet to speak of integrity of the scientific process.

One of the movers told blatant scientific lies at Lindau Nobel 2012 to the “promising young researchers” then, and never retracted it. He and the organizers of Lindau Nobel made a decision to let his lie stand. To the organizers, saving his face was more important than saving science.

And these very organizers are now going to save the world?! They are doing the same thing here – using the Lindau Nobel platform and the climate change stratagem to rescue sham Nobel Laureates.

Indeed, what the Big Bang Nobel Gang is doing very efficiently and very rapidly is cheapening the long-traditioned institution of the Nobel Prize.

Because of all these reasons, the Mainau Declaration 2015 should be seen as a grotesque joke.

LORD HAVE MERCY!

LINDAU NOBEL LAUREATES MEETING 2015: Opium den?

July 4, 2015

The Lindau Nobel Meetings have ended. As far as I can tell, there was nothing done on the matter described in the following graphic. Physics’s Cigarette-smoking-man leaves his great big matzo ball hanging out there, while further swinging his cute butt on stage and pretending to be the grand rock-star inspirer to the world’s young.

These meetings have devolved to a dark platform for various parties to execute various agendas. A scamming physicist craving a narcissistic fix can go there and tell utter scientific lies, and then engage in great bravado over telling these lies. Then, pleasurably wasted, they lay back and luxuriate in some kind of trance. Then the organizers of the meeting spread these lies thick all over the world with the help of videos and such. Then they let these lies stand in perpetuity.

The other Big Bang scammers – Brian Schmidt, Saul Perlmutter, George Smoot and Robert Wilson – were also peddling their wares. They continue to peddle their totally fraudulent creation as established science.

Brian Schmidt, David Gross and George Smoot – in an attempt to shine even more limelight on themselves – cooked up this bizarre climate change manifesto! I don’t understand this. Serious people around the world are working their tail off to address this problem. Tough international negotiations are going on. There are powerful forces and counter-forces contending. How does it help anything for some intellectual elites to put their John Hancock on a piece of paper with beautiful words and invite the media for a photo shoot?

All this in the name of helping the select young talent find their path.

LORD HAVE MERCY!

DAVID GROSS LEAVES HIS MATZO BALL HANGING OUT THERE!

Lindau Nobel Laureates Meeting, Lindau Nobel Laureates Meeting 2015, Lindau Nobel Meeting, Lindau Nobel Meeting 2015, Nobel Prize Physics, David Gross Nobel Laureate, David Gross ucsb, David Gross Nobel Prize, Robert Laughlin Nobel Laureate

Lindau Nobel Laureates Meeting, Lindau Nobel Laureates Meeting 2015, Lindau Nobel Meeting, Lindau Nobel Meeting 2015, Nobel Prize Physics, David Gross Nobel Laureate, David Gross ucsb, David Gross Nobel Prize, Robert Laughlin Nobel Laureate

REGARDING DAVID GROSS

[Click to enlarge]
Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting, Lindau Nobel Lureate Meeting 2015, Lindau Nobel Meeting, Lindau Nobel Meeting 2015, David Gross, David Gross Nobel Prize, David Gross Nobel Laureate, David Gross ucsb, Asymptotic Freedom, David Gross bet

Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting, Lindau Nobel Lureate Meeting 2015, Lindau Nobel Meeting, Lindau Nobel Meeting 2015, David Gross, David Gross Nobel Prize, David Gross Nobel Laureate, David Gross ucsb, Asymptotic Freedom, David Gross bet

BIG BANG: Government-aided second and third order frauds…

July 2, 2015

Folks, the US Government is moving right along, vigorously pumping new money into Big Bang Cosmology. Your tax dollars at work.

A project to study the origins of the universe that is led, in part, by scientists at UC San Diego has won a $5 million grant from the National Science Foundation, the school announced Thursday.
The funding to support the Simons Array, which will consist of three powerful telescopes in Chile’s Atacama desert, will pay for three years of observation and data analysis of the Big Bang, along with graduate student stipends, undergraduate research scholarships, travel and other operational expenses, according to UCSD.

And there are other Big Bang scams in various stages of development (DESI, WFIRST…). The following is a second order fraud in the making. The idea here is that since there exists such a pristine, picture perfect blackbody spectrum in the sky, let us now look for the minutest imperfactions in that spectrum to detail the early history of Big Bang (like studying that beauty spot on the perfect face of Cindy Crawford).


COBE’s measurement 25 years ago is “still the best, the gold standard,” said Jim Peebles, a physicist at Princeton University.
But more sensitive measurements should undoubtedly reveal small deviations from the blackbody curve that COBE measured. That’s because anything that injected energy into the universe after it was a few months old should have distorted this spectrum somewhat, said Alan Kogut, a physicist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.
“There’s a whole lot of things you can learn” from such distortions, he said.

So these folks are taking their own first-order fraud to be a valid and established scientific fact, and are looking to build on it with more millions of your dollars. In effect, they have cooked up the second order fraud.

Here is a statement about how very minute distortion in that perfect blackbody spectrum they would be looking for. Remember, the more minute variations you are looking to measure, the more perfect the existing blackbody spectrum has to be.

PIXIE will compare the CMB to a full-aperture blackbody calibrator to measure spectral distortions with sensitivity μ < 10-8 for the chemical potential and y < 2 x 10-9 for Compton distortions. Sensitivity at these levels opens a new window to the early universe, probing physical processes ranging from Big Bang cosmology to dark matter decay/annihilation to the nature of the first stars responsible for reionization.

As I have told you many times in many ways in many levels of scientific detail for the last eight years, there is no blackbody in the sky in any approximation, and the actual CMB power in the sky is orders of magnitude smaller than the 2.7 K blackbody power in that spectral region. This fact is known most of all to the very people who are proposing these new ventures to be build on the selfsame blackbody.

They are defrauding the taxpayers. The same way dead people continue to receive social security checks monthly, Big Bang is continuing to receive its social security checks on a regular basis.

THE BIG BANG COSMOLOGY TOUTS: They really peddle their wares!

July 2, 2015

[Click to enlarge]
Big Bang Cosmology, Big Bang Theory, Big Bang Cosmology, Stephen Hawking, Stephen Hawking Big Bang Theory, Big Bang Theory science, Stephen Hawking scam, Steven Weinberg, Steven Weinberg Nobel, David Gross, David Gross Nobel, David Gross ucsb, Michael Turner, Michael Turner Chicago, Michael Turner Kavli Institute, Lawrence Krauss

Big Bang Cosmology, Big Bang Theory, Big Bang Cosmology, Stephen Hawking, Stephen Hawking Big Bang Theory, Big Bang Theory science, Stephen Hawking scam, Steven Weinberg, Steven Weinberg Nobel, David Gross, David Gross Nobel, David Gross ucsb, Michael Turner, Michael Turner Chicago, Michael Turner Kavli Institute, Lawrence Krauss

SAFEGUARDING HUMANITY IN THE HOMEPLACE, ON THE FINAL FRONTIER

June 24, 2015

[Click to enlarge]

Bibhas De, Bibhas De book, Big Bang Cosmology book, Big Bang Theory book, Big Bang Cosmology, Big Bang Cosmology fraud, scientific misconduct, science fraud, the great american fraud

Bibhas De, Bibhas De book, Big Bang Cosmology book, Big Bang Theory book, Big Bang Cosmology, Big Bang Cosmology fraud, scientific misconduct, science fraud, the great american fraud

A SNAPSHOT FOR LINDAU NOBEL 2015 ATTENDEES: David Gross

June 23, 2015

[Click to enlarge]
Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting, Lindau Nobel Lureate Meeting 2015, Lindau Nobel Meeting, Lindau Nobel Meeting 2015, David Gross, David Gross Nobel Prize, David Gross ucsb, Asymptotic Freedom, David Gross bet

Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting, Lindau Nobel Lureate Meeting 2015, Lindau Nobel Meeting, Lindau Nobel Meeting 2015, David Gross, David Gross Nobel Prize, David Gross ucsb, Asymptotic Freedom, David Gross bet


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.