Modern cosmology is a corruption of astronomy and physics. Cosmology uses and abuses data collected by astronomers by applying this data to the fairy tale creation myths invented by academic physicists.
No one can know the universe in its totality. Anyone who claims to know the universe in its totality is either a prophet enjoying privileged communication with gods or a charlatan or an old fashioned shaman.
***
Mapping the Heavens, From the Preface (p.ix)
1. Our map of the cosmos has altered dramatically in the past hundred years.
2. In 1914, our own galaxy, the Milky Way, constituted the entire universe—alone, stagnant, and small.
3. Cosmological research still relied fundamentally on classical conceptions of gravity developed in the seventeenth century.
4. Modern physics and the triumphs of general relativity have shifted humanity’s entire comprehension of space and time.
5. Now we see the universe as a dynamic place, expanding at an accelerating rate, whose principal mysterious constituents, dark matter and dark energy, are unseen.
6. The remainder, all the elements in the periodic table, the matter that constitutes stars and us, contributes a mere 4 percent of the total inventory of the universe.
7. We have confirmed the existence of planets orbiting other stars.
8. We question the existence of other universes.
9. This is remarkable scientific progress.
***
From the above we understand that Ms. Natarajan uses the words “cosmos” and “universe” as synonyms and she exploits the oldest cosmological wordplay, namely, conflating universe as a whole and the cosmos which is nothing more than a truncation of the whole.
Let’s look in more detail at what Ms. Natarajan wrote in the first page of the book.
She likes the word cosmos but she uses it without a clear and unique definition. A field study becomes a science when the practitioners agree on a clear definition of what they study. For instance, the cell is the fundamental unit of study of biology and it is well defined.
Cosmologists study an entity called “cosmos” but they never defined it uniquely and clearly.
When Ms. Natarajan writes “our map of the cosmos has altered dramatically in the past hundred years,” here the word cosmos can mean “the universe as a whole” or “the observable universe” or a closed system defined by cosmologists. We don’t know which and Ms. Natarajan is happy with this ambiguity.
The word cosmos can mean the universe as a whole in one sentence and can mean part of the universe in another sentence. But it can also be a superposition of two meanings at the same time in the same sentence. This is the most important proof that cosmology is not a science because its fundamental concepts are undefined, “mysterious”, “enigmatic” and “defy a single definition.” A field where what is studied is a piece of sophistry cannot be said to be a science.
***
Ms. Natarajan writes that “in 1924 our own galaxy ... constituted the entire universe...”
No. Our own galaxy did not constitute the entire universe, some people defined our galaxy as the entire universe.
Who are these people?
They are the cosmologists, a professional priestly class who traditionally owned the subject of astronomy, cosmology and cosmogony.
Cosmologists have a problem. They are paid to discover the deepest secrets of the universe as a whole but they are aware that they do not know the universe as a whole and they never will. So what do they do? They define a cosmos and then they define this cosmos as the entire universe. This is the oldest trick in the business of cosmology. We may call this trick the Cosmological Hoax.
The Cosmological Hoax
The universe as a whole is only as complicated as can be known by the current tools of cosmologists. This knowable closed system is called a cosmos.
Corollary: The boundary of the universe as a whole is always the same as the boundary of the cosmos. Therefore cosmos is the the universe as a whole.
Ms. Natarajan too is using the Cosmological Hoax. But she does not say explicitly, “let me define a cosmos and then let me define my cosmos as the entire universe.” No. She does this secretly and implicitly. Since this is the oldest tradition in cosmology, no one can question her false reasoning. No cosmologist will question you for using the Cosmological Hoax.
We are not even aware that she is defining her cosmos as the universe.
As I said, Ms. Natarajan too defines her cosmos as the Totality, the Whole, the Universe as a Whole.
Let me try to explain how the Cosmological Hoax is actually applied.
First, the cosmologist must criticize her predecessors for defining a small cosmos as the entire universe. Basically, the cosmologist accuses his predecessor for applying the Cosmological Hoax. How could these cosmologists believe that our galaxy can be the entire universe?
Ms. Natarajan doesn’t say it but we call such a reasoning to be anthropocentric because you assume that the boundaries of the entire universe cannot be bigger than what is revealed by the resolution of the current observational tools of humans. Every generation of cosmologists falls into this trap of anthropocentric reasoning. But they fall into it willingly. They perpetuate it. Because this is how they turn the observed universe into the universe as a whole. This is their tradition.
More generally, this is called “cosmos building”. This is what the priestly cosmologists who owned the cosmology have been doing ever since they started to look at the sky trying to understand and explain the motions they saw.
***
Modern cosmologists, including Ms. Natarajan, use the word cosmos as a synonym for universe but cosmos has a meaning of its own, distinct from the word “universe”. It’s important to clarify this.
Cosmos means an orderly and harmonious closed system defined by the cosmologists: cosmos is a truncation of the whole. Cosmos is defined in such a way that it is known in its entirety by the current observational and analytical tools of the cosmos makers. Cosmos is not the whole. Cosmos is a truncation of the whole.
Cosmos is not the whole because as humans we cannot know the Whole and we will never know the Whole. For the simplest reason that we can never know if what we defined as the Whole is the Whole. We may have simply reached the observational limit of our tools. The next generation of telescopes with higher resolution may reveal new parts of the universe. Furthermore, the Whole cannot be known in its entirety because it has infinite details.
A cosmologist, usually a physicist, is a professional who does not have the honesty to admit that he cannot know the whole.
On the contrary, the cosmologist defines a cosmos and then defines his cosmos as the entire universe, everything that exists, the Whole, the absolute Whole, the Totality.
He does this so skillfully with rhetorical sophistry and verbal trickery that you will never notice that he is defining his small cosmos as everything that exists.
But he still does not know the whole. Because he can never know if the sample of his observations are representative sample of the Whole.
***
How big is the new cosmos defined by the modern cosmologist?
The new cosmos is as big as that can be defined by the observational and analytical tools available to this cosmologist. Remember that cosmos is defined as a closed system knowable as a whole.
Once again we notice that the modern cosmologist defined the boundaries of the universe as a whole to be the same as the boundaries of the cosmos he defined.
So, Ms. Natarajan continues the cosmological tradition and defines a cosmos and then defines her cosmos as the entire universe.
But, it may be unfair to blame Ms. Natarajan for cosmos building as we’ve been explaining. Because she is not actually doing this. The cosmos as the universe as a whole had been created and formalized and registered in textbooks and made official by beautiful NASA graphics showing the photoshop history of the universe from the Big Bang to today long before Ms. Natarajan was born. Ms. Natarajan learned this fairy tale and creation myth in school and decided to sell it to the public as science. That’s what she is doing.
Her analytical tool du jour is General Relativity and her observational limits are defined by the resolution of the modern telescopes.
But no matter how big her cosmos is, it’s still not the entire universe.
***
So, after ridiculing his predecessors for being naive for defining a small part of the universe as the universe as a whole, the cosmologist explicitly states how much bigger the universe has become as revealed by his stronger telescopes. Then before you know it, he defines this new and larger cosmos as the universe as a whole.
***
Ms. Natarajan says that the universe is expanding. How can she know if the universe as a whole is expanding since she does not, and cannot know, the universe as a whole?
This idea of expanding universe originated with Edwin Hubble’s observation of 24 galaxies. From the observation of the motions of 24 galaxies the priests of cosmology deduced that the universe as a whole was expanding. This is either a prophesy, a divine revelation or charlatanism.
We know that 24 galaxies are not a representative sample of the universe as a whole because in order to know if your sample is representative you need to know the number of galaxies in the entire universe but you don’t know the total number of galaxies in the entire universe and you never will. You don’t even know if the universe is made of galaxies only.
So extrapolating from a pathetically non-representative sample to everything that exists and then selling this reckless extrapolation as a “remarkable scientific progress” is nothing other than a hoax.
***
Choose your own adjective to describe modern cosmology: 1. An elaborate scientific hoax, 2. Divine revelation, 3. Priestly miracle, 4. Creation myth, 5. Charlatanism.
Cosmology is not science we are sure of that. Cosmology is a corruption of astronomy and physics.
Notes:
— “Modern physics and the triumphs of general relativity have shifted humanity’s entire comprehension of space and time.”
General Relativity lives in spacetime. Every prediction General Relativity makes is for spacetime. But no General Relativity experiment or observation is done in spacetime. All are done in space and time existing as separate entities.
From this observation we deduce that the fundamental “triumph” of General Relativity, the spacetime, is a preternatural concept that exists only in the physical fairy tales invented by physicists.
— “Now we see the universe as a dynamic place...”
Classical conceptions of gravity i.e., Newtonian gravity, was dynamic too. The interpretation of Hubble’s observations as the expanding universe does not require any General Relativistic ideas.
— “...contributes a mere 4 percent of the total inventory of the universe.”
Here too Ms. Natarajan claims to have priestly or prophetic knowledge about the universe as a whole. I say that her knowledge must be priestly or prophetic or a revelation from the gods because no human being —cosmologist or not— can know the totality. But Ms. Natarajan claims to know the "total inventory of the universe" otherwise he cannot know its 4 percent. So she observes in the observable universe and projects to the universe as a whole. But if we ask Ms Natarajan, no doubt, she will be the first to admit that there is a part of the universe from where no light reaches us and therefore will always remain unknown to us. How can she claim to know the totality of the universe while at the same time admitting that she only knows a small part of the universe?
— “We have confirmed the existence of planets orbiting other stars.”
Great. This is astronomy, not cosmology. The existence of other planetary systems is deduced by using “classical conceptions of gravity developed in the 17th century” not “the triumphs of General Relativity.”
— “We question the existence of other universes.”
I have an article about absurdity of claiming the existence of other universes. This is nothing more than a rhetorical deception used by cosmologists or a play on meanings of the word universe.
If Ms. Natarajan uses the word universe in its proper sense of “universe as a whole” his claim to assert existence of other universes makes no sense. Because, surprise, surprise, “universe as a whole” means “universe as a whole.” Universe as a whole is all inclusive therefore supposed universes will be included in the universe as a whole.
As an example, suppose A is the class of living cats. This class includes all cats. Suppose B is another class of all cats. Suppose C is another class of cats. But this is absurd. Then, D = A+B+C becomes the class of all cats. Calling A, B, or C “the class of all cats” is absurd. It is more than absurd it doubletalk. It is rhetorical deception. There is only one universal class. All other universal classes are invented by professional hoaxers called cosmologists.
No comments:
Post a Comment