Truth (the complete facts) versus propaganda (selected facts used to enforce bigotry)

Truth (the complete facts) versus propaganda (selected facts used to enforce bigotry)

Nigel Cook quantum gravity the 1996 quantitative prediction of dark energy from a simple ENTIRELY FACT BASED calculation before its discovery in 1998 by perlmutter leading to his Nobel prize

It is now 20 years since 1996, when we proved using existing facts that we can predict dark energy:

  1. The mass of the universe can be estimated from observations of density and size.
  2. Newton’s second empirical law F = ma relates a force to mass and acceleration.
  3. The gravity cross-section is calculable from Feynman’s rules, by scaling an observed nuclear weak force cross-section to gravitation using the observed ratio of gravitational to Fermi (weak force) coupling.
  4. Applying simple Casimir geometry, facts 1-3 above predict dark energy from gravity!

What I’ve found however, from Physical Review Letters nonsense (here and here) as well as bigoted nonsense in Physics Forums and from physics friends, some with research PhD’s like Mario Rabinowitz, is that the above list of simple facts which predicted quantitatively a good, accurate estimate of dark energy in 1996, two years before observation, is hated.

It’s either falsely deemed “speculative” when it’s not, or it’s deemed to predict nothing, when it factually predicted a discovery in 1998 that won a Nobel prize for Perlmutter who observed evidence for dark energy in supernovae redshifts, or it’s simply hated for being “unorthodox”.

What we have in today’s “science” is an untruthful perversion of facts by propaganda, which deliberately censors out facts that would lead in new directions.  This is nothing “new”, we saw it in the way that people pandered to eugenicists like Charles Darwin’s cousin, Sir Francis Dalton, and also gas chamber pro-fascist eugenicist and Medical Nobel Laureate, Alexis Carrell.  Nobody ever opposed eugenics scientifically by simply pointing out that evolution requires diversity, e.g. diversity of ideas.  That’s why theoretical physics bigots have a field day now, turning it into groupthink socialism or a form of power-corrupt communism, a self-praising form of hatred towards all expressions of individual progress that don’t fit into a union or group that’s based on hatred towards innovators. Fact based theory is hated by everybody because there is no way to oppose it truthfully; all opposing the full facts (the truth) are wrong.  Everyone opposing the truth is wrong.  Of course, many of those nasty guys will have excuses to hand.  They don’t have time for such things, it’s somebody else’s responsibility, or whatever.

If instead of expressing ignorant hatred towards calculations they have not bothered to read, they spend just a small fraction of that wasted time on objective criticism and discussion, just imagine what progress could be made rapidly in quantum gravity!


One thought on “Truth (the complete facts) versus propaganda (selected facts used to enforce bigotry)

  1. I think I will add a clarification here concerning Dr Peter Woit’s criticisms of superstring theory. On 9 February 2016, Woit wrote at “I think it should be obvious there’s little point to me responding to Lubos’s ranting, his agenda is just to misinterpret and misrepresent what I have to say. … A perfectly defensible attitude towards this is that it’s a mistake, that theorists should should stick to thinking about things with some reasonable connection to experiment. A lot of people read my book as making that argument, but that’s not really what I think, and the talk was an attempt to explain why. I do think it is possible to make progress by trying to better understand the internal logic and mathematical structure of a theory, even without help from experiment telling one if one is on the right track. And if you try and do this, there’s a lot you could learn from mathematicians about how to make progress.”

    On 10 February 2016, he added: “I’m not advocating that physicists adopt mathematician’s standards of rigorous proof, just that, especially when they can’t make contact with experiment, they devote more attention to making clear what they understand and what they don’t. Sure, leap over steps and see what happens (little known fact: mathematicians do this too), but be aware that you’re doing it and make that clear to others. … my experience with string theory has been that the extreme difficulty in figuring out exactly where the subject is, what is understood and what isn’t, has not only made the public hype problem worse, but makes it difficult to make progress (with the progress needed sometimes just achieving clarity on what doesn’t work). … , I’m not arguing for applying full rigor to what is well understood. An example of what I have in mind is the question of whether the electroweak theory (chiral gauge theory) has a well-defined formulation outside of perturbation theory. Can you even in principle consistently do non-perturbative calculations? This appears to be irrelevant to contact with experiment, and the general assumption is that this is an uninteresting technical issue, but maybe there’s something to be learned there. For people to be motivated to work on it though, there has to be some perception that there is a problem there, and some idea of what would count as progress.”

    However, I disagree strongly with Dr Woit regarding superstring theory: Woit points out that the theory has failed to make progress in making checkable predictions. He refuses to condemn, or at least, dilutes his criticism of the arrogant elitist attitude problem in groupthink and he entirely ignores the fact that superstring theory could be disproved by coming up with an alternative, fully fact-based (non-speculative) theory of quantum gravity that predicts the full coupling G without requiring any contribution from spin-2 gravitons to cause gravity. This is a Casimir-like force relying on Standard Model like spin-1 quanta, a U(1) gauge theory of dark energy that pushes apples downwards due to the asymmetry introduced by the earth in the exchange of the spin-1 dark energy quanta with distant masses:

    Like Dr Motl, and the editorial consultants of PRL, Dr Woit just dismisses such unorthodox calculations as “nonsense” without even reading or checking! This is a problem I’ve had not only with people such as them, but also with “friends” in physics. At best, they will lie and say it is “interesting”, then change the subject and refuse any discussion. In reality, anything unorthodox is taboo, particularly if it claims to make vitally important predictions that have been confirmed!

    I regard this groupthink problem to show that everyone in physics is bigoted by silly indoctrination and scared to think!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s