Where do fake physics come from?
Einstein’s model of cosmology between physics and fake
Two days ago Peter Woit complained about fake physics . This topic isn’t new in physics   but together with the current situation of newspapers quite an alarm is going on.
Peter Woit (and established newspapers) will probably deny it, but the discussion on “post-truth” is actually not about fake but about their own broken monopoly on fakes.
In fundamental physics the established papers are in large part fake physics. Peter Woit himself is one of the big multipliers of fake in his blog.
— I think it’s about time to tell another truth about the origin of fake physics.
For good reasons the Nobel Prize awarded to Albert Einstein in 1921 was not for the general theory of relativity  but for Einstein’s discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect. — Not because relativity wouldn’t have been the bigger achievement in science (yes, it was doubted then by some) but because Einstein turned strangely already in 1917  his great theory (of 1915) into deceptive cosmological speculations. — Today sadly just the fake part (the cosmological part) of Einstein’s theory is the main application of his theory (with all its unsolvable inconsistencies).
It’s not just that Einstein’s legacy -the Standard Model of Cosmology- is wrong. The even bigger impact on today’s science and world view is how Einstein established the global filter bubble  that kept this wrong model alive for one hundred years now. Physics of the bubble universe were not an accidentally wrong scientific conclusion of the 1920s. It is intended long-term planned conspiracy, globally driven by motivations originated outside of science.
It’s strange to see in the 21st century how voodoo priests stoop over a crystal ball (over the mathematical model of the “bubble universe”), how they mouth conjuring “Gravity!” and then come up with: “It’s 68.3 percent.” — This is in no way different from “the answer is 42” (except it’s not funny). Don’t they feel it’s ridiculous like water-level reports for the Sahara? — Of course they do. But for them it’s much more important to secure their strategic positions, than to serve scientific truth.
The filter bubble of the bubble universe is not only maintained by ignorance and indoctrination but by strong political intentions.
In the following I list physics that are “fake” from the bubble universe’s point of view:
- “Gravity as a force” and “curvature of spacetime” are both valid models to describe the same reality. In both models a fact stays the same: You can bend light by gravity but you can’t retract light once emitted (or neutrinos once emitted) back to its source. Not even 100bn SMBH combined in one could do this Einstein voodoo. When a mathematical model of the universe says there can be a “big crunch” (retraction of light back to its source) the model is a wrong one.
Erwin Schrödinger’s paper (1950) on spacetime (PDF) backs Einstein’s theory of gravity and relativity. But it holds aloof from Einstein’s cosmological speculations.
- By semantic definition of the word a universe can’t “float” in a higher-level something (medium), or even collide there with something else. A universe includes everything (there isn’t “something else”, by definition). Nothing is outside. — Inevitably the higher-level medium would be the universe, not the bubble floating in it. Its evangelists don’t tell us what the floating bubble is. For sure a bubble is not a universe.
- “Universe” means there is no contradistinction between inside and outside. There is no “inside” and “outside” — in no dimension, by definition. “Outside” is no time, no space, no physics, no reasonableness. — In particular there can’t be a difference/ reference for the physical pseudo-quantity vacuum pressure (energy density) between “inside” and “outside”. The bubble evangelists try to conceal this nonsense by declaring it a “constant”. In fact there is no difference/ reference for vacuum pressure.
- The intention behind establishing a multiverse theory is a political one that actually targets the standard universe model. Einstein’s bubble universe proved on its own terms to be inconsistent. By taking the multiverse detour its evangelists try to maintain and justify the bubble itself and to make its perception popular (by depicting it on hundreds of glossy covers of science magazines). — In the end the “multiverse” is about undermining the term “universe” in the public perception in general to sabotage this way the analysis of Einstein’s notion of the universe. But to put it straight again: the universe is not a bubble.
- A universe synthesizes itself from something that ensures sense. A sense could also develop from dimensions and physical constants other than ours. But these other universes are not “behind” our universe, hidden in it, “far off” or something else. An other universe is for us simply not there. It is another universe. — The term “multiverse” is nonsense in itself (fake).
- The right academic approach is to observe first and then to find reasonings (e.g. an equation) for the observed phenomenon.
In the case of Einstein’s cosmological model there was inversely at first an admired set of mathematical equations (the field equations) and afterwards the question to what issues the equations could be applied further (additionally to the relations between celestial bodies). This perversion of the scientific principle led to Einstein’s wishful thinking in physics the world should be a sphere with a radius, just to fulfil a set of equations that are already in existence. By then there was no reason in cosmology to believe the world could have superficies. Because of an equation that changed overnight.
The field equations are a huge achievement in science. But to apply them to the universe as a whole (as a bubble) is nonsense (fake).
- Physics of the universe is in the end thinking the universe. The universe can’t exist in another way than being a thinkable universe. The universe becomes thinkable by differentiation, by stretching out in both, time and space. Both -time and space- are “inventions” of reasonableness, of sense (the anthropic principle) — to make universal coherences thinkable. The speed of light is there to separate cause from effect. Scaling of space (with its particle horizon) is there to prevent the world from being exposed to the limitless radiation of the limitless universe (to prevent the world from having a blazing white night sky). Scaling of space happens only in regions (voids) that are free of galaxies to prevent space from not being scaled at all (scaling everything would mean to scale nothing). The physical constants are as they are to afford our existence. etc.
In his early years Einstein did know that and gave the principle sense the priority in his theory of relativity. Sadly later on in his life he loved equations too much and did lose the philosophical sense behind it. — A bubble universe is not thinkable. Its idea is born out of formalism/ formulas and motivated by anti-occidental conspiracy.
I appreciate the current and disturbing fake news. They are eye-openers and the salt of journalism and science (at least as long as NYT and arXiv.org turn down papers like this one) . Fake physics help when I’m reading a paper to distinguish humans from the clique of dark voodoo priests.
“The universe itself can’t be an object of gravity within itself.
There is no gravity of the universe.” >> See my paper.
Is that fake physics? — Think twice.
 More comments on Peter Woit’s topic: Hacker News .. 2017–01
.. .. The Origin of Fake Physics, Claes Johnson (Stockholm) .. 2017–01
 Jim Baggott on Fairy Tale Physics .. 2013–06
.. .. Alexander Unzicker, The Higgs Fake .. 2013–10
.. .. Scientific Peer Review Is Broken .. 2014–12
.. .. The spreading of misinformation online .. 2016–01
 In my own paper Einstein’s Voodoo of the Bubble Universe .. 2015–04
I set the year 2006 as the beginning of fake physics (when the MIT had hired Max Tegmark for just this purpose).
 Eli Pariser coined the term Filter Bubble .. 2011–03
 Fake news hysteria just creates more uncertainty in what truth really is .. .. 2017–01
Originally published at www.hashsign.eu.