The hoax called "cosmology"

On these lecture notes, Section 7.3 is called “Our Universe”. What does “Our Universe” mean? Do you have a definition of the word “universe”? No, you don’t, you use it without defining it. Cosmologists study an undefined entity called “universe”. They refuse to define what the word “universe” means. For this reason alone cosmology cannot be considered a science.

I counted 33 instances of the word “universe” and none of it is defined. From the context I gather that you use the word “universe” to mean both a “cosmos” and “the universe as a whole”. “Cosmos” and “universe as a whole” are not synonyms. Physicists do not care to ackowledge the difference between a cosmos and the universe as a whole. On the contrary, they love to conflate the two because cosmology is based on this deliberate confusion.

We have no way of knowing what a physicist means when he uses the word “universe.” And they like it that way. 

Imagine a medical doctor using the words “flue”, “covid” and “allergy” as synonyms. Can he trust him?

A cosmos is a harmonious system defined by physicists. Example: Friedman-Robertson-Walker cosmos.

Cosmos is defined to be understandable by the mathematical tools currently used by physicists. Cosmos is not the universe as a whole. But physicists, the modern scholastic Doctors of Philosophy, define a cosmos and then, with a sleight of hand, define their cosmos as the universe as a whole. This secret assumption makes cosmology a hoax.

Physicists use the words “cosmos”, “universe”, “observable universe” and “universe as a whole” interchangeably. These words are synonymes in physics:

cosmos == universe == observable universe == universe as a whole

So, for a physicist, the observable universe is the universe as a whole.

Cosmologists always assume implicitly that the observable universe is the whole universe. This is the oldest trick in cosmology.

The undeniable truth is that physicists do not know the universe as a whole because no information reach us from beyond the observable universe. 

The Undeniable Truth that No One Can Deny Even the Most Arrogant Physicist:

The Undeniable Truth #1:

No information come to us from beyond the observable universe.

There is only one conclusion any rational person can draw from the Undeniable Truth #1:

Undeniable Conclusion #1:

We don’t know the universe as a whole and never will.

But physicists working in the field of cosmology are not bound by the Aristotelian logic or by any kind of logic. Physicists are professional sophists who must conform observations to the official physics doctrine.

When confronted with the Undeniable Truth #1, how will a cosmologist reason? 

A cosmologist must pretend to study the universe as a whole, otherwise all his authority will disappear. His job is to pretend to reveal the unknowable secrets of the universe as a whole to the rest of us who do not have his alleged supernatural powers.

The cosmologist desperately wants the observable universe to be the whole universe, but he knows that it is not, so what does he do? He creates multiple wholes(!). 

The word “universe” means “the whole”, therefore, the word universe does not have a plural because “multiple wholes” is sophistry and does not make sense. But the cosmologist writes the word universe as “universes”. Cosmologist reasons, “we don’t see beyond the observable universe, therefore there must a multiplicity of universes(!).”

The sophist who calls himself “cosmologist” is studying a cosmos that he defined himself. He is not studying the universe as a whole.

Physicists enjoy a government enforced monopoly on cosmological topics and they feel free to corrupt scientific reasoning to practice the cosmological hoax.

Why? Because academic physicists doing cosmology are scholastic Doctors of Philosophy and their only goal is to move up in the academic ladder by revealing the unknowable secrets of the universe.

The Undeniable Truth #1 proves that we don’t know the universe as a whole and we will never know the universe as a whole. If you are aware of this fact and you still claim to know the universe as a whole by sophistical casuistry and casuistical sophistry then you will be called a charlatan and a hoaxster.

Anyone who claims to know the universe as a whole while knowing that he cannot know the universe as a whole because no information comes to us from beyond the observable universe is a charlatan and a hoaxster in the same class of confidence men as the sellers of the Brooklyn Bridge. Pretending to know something you don’t know is charlatanism.

General Relativity is not exempt from this rule. Einstein did not know the universe as a whole and he knew he did not know the universe as a whole but went ahead and computed the radius of the universe anyway. Einstein the charlatan computed the radius of the whole universe. Einstein used the authority of mathematics to hide his charlatanism.

Edwin Hubble observed 19 galaxies and concluded all galaxies in the universe as a whole were receding from us. This is charlatanism. Not only charlatanism but a farce.

* * *

Your status as a teacher is different. You just teach legal doctrine of physics. “Doctor” means somebody who is licensed to teach the doctrine to new initiates. This is what you are doing. You are not making a new discovery. You just teach absurd fairy tales and creation myths cloaked in the language of mathematics as science. 

You are only guilty of using mathematics as false witness. But in physics this is not a crime, it is a feature.

Multiverse

Soap bubble universes!

Ethan Siegel writes about "Multiverse", an absurd and meaningless word invented by physicists. Multiverse is short for "Multiple Universes".

But the word universe does not have a plural. Let me give you an example: You know that the sentence "there is only one Gods," is a grammatical error because you state that there is only one God but you write God in plural form as Gods. If there is only one God, the word God cannot have a plural.

The same is true for the word universe. The word universe cannot have a plural because there can only be one whole. It's a grammatical error to write "there are multiple wholes." There is only one whole. The following definition is true:

The Universe = The Whole = The Totality

The Multiverse (Multiple Universes) hypothesis is not a physics concept; it is a grammatical error.

Ethan Siegel first pretends to sound scientific before pushing his absurd notions:

Sure, you might say it's inherently unscientific to say something entirely outside our observable Universe must exist.

That's right. Something which is outside the knowable universe is unknowable. And in science an unknowable is unknowable. But not in physics. Because a physicist is someone who claims to know what he defined as unknowable. The word "charlatan" perfectly defines anyone who claims to know what he admitted he does not know.

Then, Ethan Siegel abandons his brief foray into scientific thinking and justifies his Multiverse by saying "but we know the rules. And they tell us that [a Multiverse must exist.]
...........................

The exact quote from the article:

Sure, you might say it's inherently unscientific to say something entirely outside our observable Universe must exist. But we know the rules. And this is what they tell us.

.........................

My comments:

1. Multiverse is not a physics problem, it's a linguistic problem. It's grammatical error.

2. You first define the word "universe" as "everything that exists" then you say that "there is something else outside of everything that exists."

3. You now defined the word universe as "not everything that exists" because you are saying that there is something outside of "everything that exists."

4. This way you equated "universe" and its opposite "not-universe" to be the same thing. (Nothing can be itself and not-itself at the same time. I know that physicists proudly disregard this fundamental rule of logic. For a physicist, it is perfectly logical to assume that there is something outside of everything that exists.)

5. What you are doing is not science. It's not even physics. It is rhetorical sophistry and linguistic sleight of hand. You are corrupting words by defining them multiple times.

6. You corrupted the good old word "universe" and made it meaningless and unusable.

7. If you find yourself talking about something existing outside of what you defined as the totality, you must stop immediately and reconsider your definition of the totality. If there is something outside of your totality, then your totality ain't no totality.

8. To say, as you do, that the totality is not the totality, is not even sophistry; it's more vile and disgusting than sophistry.

8. It's not even doubletalk; even doubletalk has some respectability; yours is outright fraud.

9. And the fact that you try to couch your fraud and abuse of language with scientific sounding mumbojumbo puts you in the realm of religious dogmatists.

10. No. Not even that.

11. You act more like a shaman.

12. But not even that.

13. Shamans never pretended to be scientists.

14. You screw science.

15. You screw the language.

16. You screw logic.

17. And you want us to believe that this stinky garbage you are selling as Multiverse is science. (The word universe does not have a plural. You cannot have multiple wholes. But "Multiverse" is short for "Multiple Universes", therefore, Multiverse is absurd by definition.)

18. I realize that it is impossible for you, and physicists in general, to understand and admit that the word "whole" includes the whole. It's a grammatical error to say "multiple wholes." It's a grammatical error to say "multiple universes." You cannot build a physical theory over a grammatical error.

19. There is nothing outside the whole. There is nothing not included in the totality. This is by definition.

20. If there is something outside the whole then what you previously called the whole was not the whole.

21. When you understand this fact, and admit that the whole is the whole and the whole is not the part, go ahead and correct your article accordingly.

Notes:

--- The referenced article by Ethan Siegel: This Is Why The Multiverse Must Exist. Twitter link.