Wall Street Journal Guest Lawrence Krauss Deeply Confused About Astronomy

The NASA folks need their money! So it’s time to tap dance out another song of hope and promises for a deeply disoriented and poorly-informed public.

Have a glance at Dr. Krauss’s mini-essay on Dark Matter and let me know if you find anything that you can hold in your hand:

Dark Matter and Other Magic Unicorns.

No, no, it’s really called:

A Dark Matter Breakthrough?
New evidence of the invisible matter that could make up 90% of the universe.

But, well. Read it and let me know if you see the flying ponies.

Here is my comment, left at the WSJ website:

Oh, the pain, the pain.

How much money has been spent to date on Georges Lemaitre’s neo-Christian pseudo-scientific jaunt into astrophysics (otherwise known as “The Big Bang”)? Yes, it was a Belgian Roman Catholic priest who combined the very (very) little known about outer space, with the very, very well traveled tale of creation ex-nihilo (“first there was nothing, then, Poof! Bang! There was Everything”). And gave us: The Big Bang. A hardly subtle slight rejiggering of Genesis.

And we’ve been stuck with that for some 80 years.

And because the ‘theory’ of the exploding cosmic egg has worked so, so, sooo poorly to explain or otherwise divine the spread and morphology of fiery, electrified matter in the universe, “physicists” (in quotes, because it’s all ‘theoretical’) have had to invent, and invent (and invent) means and methods and devices by which matter and objects and all things celestial could possibly BE as they actually ARE.

Let’s make it plain: What is invisible, and cannot be seen, measured, or located, does not exist, in all practical senses. Black holes, dark matter, and a “host of new elementary particles” are a fiction created by a very vain and churlish scientific set, who fear, like the Dickens, a debate on the well-known and well-documented “Crisis in Cosmology.”

An example of clever fiction writing, for your amusement:

“The actual result? Two pulses were detected over the course of almost a year that might have been due to dark matter, CDMS announced on Dec. 17. However, there is a 25% chance that the pulses were actually caused by background radioactivity in and around the detector.”

Could be!

And another:

“Meanwhile, in the completely separate field of elementary particle physics, my colleagues and I had concluded that in order to understand what we see, it is quite likely that a host of new elementary particles may exist at a scale beyond what accelerators at the time could detect. This is one of the reasons there is such excitement about the new Large Hadron Collider in Geneva, Switzerland. Last month, it finally began to produce collisions, and it might eventually directly produce these new particles. ”

Ah yes, the excitement. The eight billion dollar hole in the ground, which “might” eventually produce “these new particles.”

But, do you hear the record skip? This is the magician at work. “What new particles?” You should be asking. None are in evidence. They are non-existent, except in Mr. Krauss’s esteemed mind, and of course, they are necessary to keep his esteemed bank account, as well as that of NASA, operating in the black. (Not “black hole” black, but “cha-ching” black).

But enough of my terrible attitude, I’m sure you’re saying. What do I know, anyway? I’m just an observer to this galactic mess. But there are those who would love a chance to argue and debate the nature of this very, did I mention, ‘electrified’ (that’s ionized) universe. Folks like Anthony Peratt, and Don Scott, who’ve contributed to the working model and concept of the plasmic universe.

Did you know that using electrified plasma, in a lab, these folks have been able to reproduce all manner of interstellar phenomena? Auroras, magnetospheric bubbles around spheres – even the shape and movement of entire galaxies?

No, you probably haven’t heard it. Because their rightful allotment of funding is disappearing down Lawrence Krauss’s (and NASA’s) research ‘black hole.’

Please discover some testable astronomy by searching the files at these pages:
http://www.holoscience.com/
http://members.cox.net/dascott3/index.htm

Kind regards,

Liam Scheff

Liam

7 Comments

  1. Mr. Krauss Responds! And I respond in turn…

    * Lawrence Krauss replied:

    I periodically have been checking in to see what discussion my article provoked, and your response motivated me to write.. I have read a number of openly iignorant responses, a bunch of irrelevant political responses but yours concerned me because it has the aura of knowledge, but contains little. There is objective reality to science, and the big bang really happened. We actually try and learn more about the world. Your statement “What is invisible, and cannot be seen, measured, or located, does not exist,..” represents the antithesis of scientific progress. Atoms couldn’t been seen, measured or located, other galaxies couldn’t be seen, measured or located… that was, until they could.

    LMK

    o Liam Scheff wrote:

    Mr. Krauss,

    So nice of you to give the impression of responding. You seem to be lost in ad hominems, though. A sub-specialty perhaps? You greeted some writers in with the note:

    “don’t know what planet a few of you are from..”

    I will vouch for these internet users and offer that they are from “Earth.”

    You addressed me with:

    “I have read a number of openly iignorant [sic] responses, a bunch of irrelevant political responses but yours concerned me because it has the aura of knowledge, but contains little.”

    Well, thank you. I’m pleased you were struck by the fact that I presented information that confused you.

    Now, given your claimed expertise, I would like you to give any evidence that you’ve ever seen or heard, read or witnessed, anything that gives reproducible, factual, evidential proof or even ‘damned fine evidence’ to the idea that we can claim, with any real certainty, that Father Georges LeMaitre’s “Cosmic Egg” (Your ‘Big Bang’) is in any way provable, true, or otherwise salient.

    As far as comparing atoms to black holes. Well, the ancient Greeks postulated atoms – or subparticles – from the fabric of life. It was self-evident to the philosophical mind, that given the ever nested-hierarchies of material visible to the naked eye alone, that forming the smallest particle or form we could make out, would be a host of smaller forms we could not quite make out.

    That is, one can see the tree, and the branches, and leaves, and cells, and infer a continuation of the process. One can even mold glass into hemispheres, and cause the surface of one’s own skin to reveal valleys and gorges unavailable to the naked eye – and yet, present, and visible, once given the slightest provocation to understanding.

    Call it a ‘fractal’ universe, in that sense – ever-repeating, ever-nested, ever-more minute forms swirling in hierarchical nests…

    So, where, where, oh where in the world is there anything even slightly resembling this invisible, all-powerful, all-consuming (though light and matter ejecting), super-massive (or perhaps atom-small), never-seen (though always inferred – or implied – in a pinch) “black hole?”

    The Black Hole, as a concept, has been so sorely abused as to be a point of ridicule. It has been given the blessing of Gene Roddenberry – which is to say, because of televised science fiction, more people believe in black holes today, than believed in Unicorns in 600 AD.

    And yet, no one has ever seen, nor will see, nor will feel, nor will observe a “black hole,” because they do not exist. Except in the much abusing field of theoretical physics, which seeks to explain the grand and massive movement of stellar bodies and ‘gases’ (ionized currents of plasma, in reality), which defy and defy and defy the gravity-only, dead-end, Einsteinian universe.

    (I think, had Einstein lived to the modern era, he would be your biggest critic. He had a habit of telling the truth, and of trashing his own results, when they proved untenable).

    But, enough name-calling, Mr. Krauss. You are writing in the Wall Street Journal, with an eye, surely, of drawing more money into your search for Georges Lemaitre’s theory. I am asking a simple and fair question:

    Please move your invisible, un-viewable experimental physics over, just enough, so that those working in plasma physics, who Can and Do cause predictable, reproducible galaxial phenomena to be produced in the laboratory… please do give them even a 10% allotment of the windfall that ‘theoretical physics’ has been granted, so that they may show us the way to a future, not ruled by theory, but by actuality.

    And if you do respond, please keep to the material. Present one study, any one study, that gives non-falsified evidence that we human beings can indeed measure a ‘beginning of time,’ and please make sure this number hasn’t been altered 30 times for political reasons, and been begrudgingly reached by ‘consensus agreement.’

    kind regards,

    Liam Scheff

  2. This is like asking the IRS to prove you owe them income taxes. If you go in to a court of law, charged with jay-walking, a judge can open a legal text, flip to a page, point to the law written in the book that jay-walking is indeed illegal. But the IRS cannot. There is no law, written in any similar text that a judge can point to and say, here it is, in black and white, you owe income tax. And the IRS and judge, as though in collusion, will dismiss this as irrelevant because “EVERYONE KNOWS” we have to pay our taxes.

    Obviously those who believe in Big Bangs and likely also the Big Squish, are working from the point of view that everyone believes it, therefore it must be true. No proof needed. It is called Dogma, and it is the source of anti-science.

    Being able to test the validity of something is at the core of science. But what we are presented with today is not science, it is speculation. You could certainly equate it with Faith. It is very convenient to base theories on that which you cannot prove exists. That every odd reading must be a black hole or super string or caused by dark matter. It’s the invisible-man-in-the-sky-theory. He who created everything and watches us all, but doesn’t show himself, yet he intervenes on a whim, but never directly, and it’s all His will, except when it’s not, and He loves us all and we’re His children, except he let’s us die horrible deaths, and He wants peace on earth, yet doesn’t stop wars, and apparently wants us to fight wars in his name, which we are told are just, as is the opposing side which is fighting for the same or a different man-living-in-the-sky, even though there is only one of these man-living-in-the-sky entities, though there used to be lots and lots of them until we all agreed there was only one, but we all don’t agree on which one, but we’re willing to fight if you just give us some money, to prove our man-in-the-sky is the real one.

    Such theories seem to be lacking in provable qualities. And they all seem to have two things in common. They all change dramatically with time, with complete over-writing of the original theory (Which was Dogma at one point, completely proven and believed by all) for a new theory which is based on new ideas, rarely proven, but which cost so much to obtain and therein lies the second thing they have in common. A need for money. Dogma always requires money to remain Dogma. Truth needs no support.

    It is said that only lies need courts to defend them. Lies also seem to be very expensive at times as well.

    I have never been against the pursuit of science. I am against the pursuit of Dogma disguised as science.

  3. And the beat goes on…
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704304504574610113807816216.html#articleTabs=comments#comment759413

    * Lawrence Krauss replied:

    blah blah blah…

    since you are such a pompous person I will respond briefly.

    Evidence for big bang:
    1. correct prediction of light element abundance of 10 orders of mag. from helium to lithium
    2. prediction of existence of microwave background with observed temperature
    3. prediction of the age of the universe in agreement with stellar and galactic evolution ages
    4. consistency with general relativity, measured to 1 part in 1000
    5. prediction of observed hubble expansion
    6. prediction of large scale structure growth and magnitude and slope of primordial power spectrum
    7. prediction that supernovae lifetime are dilated at high redshift in exact agreement with observation.
    etc etc..

    if you are going to pontificate.. pick a subject you know something about.

    o Liam Scheff replied:

    Mr. Krauss, esteemed Astronomer and contributor to the Wall Street Journal writes:

    “blah blah blah…

    since you are such a pompous person I will respond briefly. ”

    Is that ‘scientist talk’ for “you are frightening me with the possibility that people will very soon begin to wonder if everything they’ve been sold about Astronomy is… so much quasi-religious bunk?”

    If not, it is extremely rude, and unbecoming of a man with such academic freedom and power. Tsk, tsk.

    I will review all of your assertions. I did, however, ask for “ONE study, any one study, that gives non-falsified evidence that we human beings can indeed measure a ‘beginning of time,’ and please make sure this number hasn’t been altered 30 times for political reasons, and been begrudgingly reached by ‘consensus agreement.'”

    You have provided no one, non-contradicted, non-falsified study that allows us all to understand that you have successfully located the ‘beginning of time.’

    I await, patiently, your submission of a paper satisfying these criteria.

    In the meantime, let’s take a look at your #3:

    “3. prediction of the age of the universe in agreement with stellar and galactic evolution ages”

    So, what is the ‘age of the universe? And how was it ‘predicted?’ And now that it has been “predicted” is it now considered a “fact?” Or, a “prediction?”

    Likewise, what are the ages, respectively, of stars, and galaxies – and to which stars and galaxies do you refer (“stellar and galactic evolution ages,” you wrote), all of them? And how were those ‘predicted,’ or arrived at?

    And are the “facts” or “predictions?”

    Is there a giant clock somewhere in the milky way, which gives an unambiguous reading as to its origin and birth? Can anyone see it, or is it coded in a language only those who believe the “predictions” can decipher?

    Would you be kind enough to allow the poor lay people funding your work to hold just a bit of that magic fairy dust in the hands? Do tell us, how it may be read…

    What you did not answer, what you avoided answering, goes to the weakness in your response – the massive difference in interpretation of the ‘predicted age of the universe,’ and the work that was required (and is still required) to bring that ‘predicted age’ into some sort of television-friendly ‘consensus-agreed’ figure, so that the watchers of Nova will feel that they’re holding onto something ‘real’ at the end of another vacuous program about invisible, super-massive black holes…

    Let’s also have a look at #4:

    “4. consistency with general relativity, measured to 1 part in 1000”

    What is consistent with general relativity? Would you have us guess (or be too cowed to guess, given your evident expertise with the cosmologists lingo)? So, do tell.

    Do you mean, ‘Expansion?’ Is Expansion, indeed, consistent? Was Edwin Hubble’s early prediction on Red Shift true? Or, was his later re-consideration more accurate?

    Better yet, is Halton Arp correct? Is Redshift now falsified – ie, not a true measure of distance – and distance, or movement ‘away’ from a presumed ‘galactic center’, well, not really ‘distance’ at all, but something else entirely?

    Why don’t redshift and blue shift work, as they’re supposed to, Mr. Krauss?

    How about your #6:

    “6. prediction of large scale structure growth and magnitude and slope of primordial power spectrum”

    Prediction of large-scale structure growth? Are you, Mr. Krauss, enjoying a Christmas libation?

    What in Big Bang theory predicted the large scale structures that have terrified and baffled astronomers to the point, that they had to go out and invent “11-dimensional space” and “string theory” as a means to somehow shore up their humiliation and embarrassment?

    Well… I think we’ve gotten off to a good start. I’m hoping you will soon provide that single paper, that does answer that irksome “beginning of all time” question. We can see that you fudged around the lines on the others. But do get back on the Halton Arp issue. And also, let me know, where, in “11-dimensional space” I can find parking downtown on a snowy day like today..

    Kidding, kidding of course. But, to the real question: In your esteemed view, is “string theory” now real, or is it a “prediction?” Or is it , to quote Dickens, “deader than a doornail?”

  4. Bingo! Glad you nailed him down on the prediction versus fact concept. It’s all just theories and ever-changing theories to be sure. And I too love that we now have eleven dimensions, soon to change to some other number to make every one of their new ideas “work”. They will alter that square peg as much as they need to in order to fit a round hole, and then they will predict it wasn’t a round hole to begin with, but may be something else entirely, probably invisible and difficult to describe.

    Red Shift wasn’t as accurate as predicted. But still relied upon as pure truth.

    Carbon dating has proved to be inaccurate, but still relied upon to give a “guess” as to actual dates.

    That background radiation that was evenly distributed everywhere in the universe wasn’t quite as evenly distributed as previously determined. Or guessed. Or hoped.

    If you are relying on what you think are correct distances to determine size and shape of objects far away, and it turns out your measuring tools are wrong, it seems evident everything you based on those measurements has to be wrong as well.

    Warped space is also a problem. Usually when something is warped, it doesn’t provide a clear picture. Fun house mirrors are one example. So how do we know that what we look at in space isn’t warped and different than how it seems to appear?

    And expansion was earlier contraction. Then expansion again. Then both. You cannot determine the age of the universe accurately until you know, accurately, whether the universe has always been expanding or contracting in a predictable manner. If the universe expanded after the Big Bang for “a while” and then at some point contracted, for “a while”, you wouldn’t know it. It would be impossible to know that. And therefore, impossible to gauge the age of the universe based on expansion. Because if you say the universe may be doing both expanding and contracting, based on principles of dark energy, or any other guess-work science, age becomes impossible to determine. But you can always guess.

    Also, the old descriptions of the Big Bang don’t appear to include the new stuff, like dark matter, dark energy, super strings, etc. If you cannot see or measure most of this new stuff, how does it work in to your old models explaining the Big Bang? And if it didn’t work in to your old models, or wasn’t included originally, it seems awfully convenient that all these new things were able to fit perfectly and support perfectly, your old theory without there having been some “cooking of the books” to make it continue to work.

    This all reminds me of an episode of Star Trek Next Generation where some primitives see Captain Picard and start to form a religion based on him and have to argue amongst themselves as to what would please their new God. They keep changing their minds on what the truth is. What Picard wants. What will make him happy. And even when faced with Picard in person telling them what the truth is, they are unable to immediately change their beliefs and theories and ideas about him. They formed a false premise and then cooked the books in such a way that when errors were made and beliefs seemed to not always be correct, all they had to do was come up with any new plausible guesswork to explain what was wrong, to keep the theory of The Picard alive.

    I am not sure scientists today can see the difference between theory and fact. The two have been so blurred that both are considered close enough to the same thing that it doesn’t matter to them. The term “Provable Theory” is a prime example. In courts we are supports to be guilty until proven innocent. But in science, many theories seem to be proven until they are unproven. Many of Einsteins theories were readily accepted as fact, long before they were proven. Scientists worked on the premise that they were correct, even when there was no proof they were correct. Stephen Hawking had all sorts of theories about Black Holes, and scientists operated on the assumption they were probably right. Then Hawking changed his mind and the science changed with him. And today, the definition of “Proven” seems to be different in science than what it is outside of science. Guesses, theories, notions, beliefs, are taken as fact until they are found to be wrong, but even then, not discarded, but altered so they fit in with what was originally sought after. We call this a self-fulfilling prophecy. Scientists today will find what they are looking for, because they cannot accept any longer the idea of being wrong. Only temporarily wrong. Any wrong conclusion will just be changed and altered to provide the answer they were originally looking for. And there is no real peer-review any longer, because in religion, everyone agrees on core beliefs. That those core beliefs cannot be wrong. And therefore beliefs become facts.

    This is why Mr. Krauss can throw around words like prediction, and have it sound like the words proven and fact. He can no longer see the difference.

    I was watching a Colts versus Jaguars football game recently. While talking to my friend on the phone, I said Peyton Manning was about to throw an interception. All my knowledge of his stats and the Colts stats told me this would happen, eventually, and I believed it. I believed the stats. The stats were truth. So my belief was based on truth. He didn’t throw an interception immediately. I said “about to”. And eventually he did. Thus proving me right. Later I knew, based on stats, that the Colts were due to intercept the ball. I didn’t say when, just that it would happen. And I waited and waited and eventually the Jags quarterback threw one. I was right. My theory was proven. The game was predicted by me. Maybe not every play, but all the facts I had about previous performances told me what would happen. I even predicted that on a key drive, some Colts player would get a stupid penalty keeping a Jaguars drive alive. It happened. I proved it because I predicted it would happen. Not when it would happen, just that it would happen. And eventually it did. My beliefs were proven to be truth to me. I readily accepted any circumstances that showed my beliefs to be truth. And were the Colts to have fumbled the ball instead of throwing an interception, I would have changed my original belief to fit that situation, saying instead that what I really, really, really meant was that the statistics, my core beliefs, showed me that the Colts would turn over the ball. So maybe it wasn’t an interception, but so what, I had predicted, in hindsight, what would happen. And every week I ritually delude myself in to believing I can predict the games. Pure science! Or at last Pure Science in today’s definition of Pure Science.

    • It’s interesting to see yet another battle between science and it’s err… opposite. It would be nice to be informed of the work that this opposite has achieved in order to debunk Einstein, Newton, Feynman and Faraday. This would be a start in trying to grapple with the principles of reality that Krauss is conforming to… Good luck!!!

  5. Liam 2009: “This is the magician at work. The eight billion dollar hole in the ground [the LHC], which “might” eventually produce “these new particles” … What new particles?” You should be asking. None are in evidence. They are non-existent, except in Mr. Krauss’s esteemed mind”.

    Lawrence Krauss 2009: “Your statement “What is invisible, and cannot be seen, measured, or located, does not exist,..” represents the antithesis of scientific progress. Atoms couldn’t been seen, measured or located, other galaxies couldn’t be seen, measured or located… that was, until they could”.

    2013: Higgs Boson discovered.

    • Greta, you’re as cute as your name. Is this really important to you? You should be taking some CBD oil, it might help calm you down.

      There is no Higgs Boson or “God particle.” That’s the religion of big bangers talking.

      Every year, they ‘cure’ someone of “hiv” by giving them some massive volume of drugs, or a bone marrow transplant. The next year, they retract the statement and say that they ‘just need more funding’ to make it stick.

      One day, the fine print might appeal to you.

      “Despite the excitement of that discovery, the scientists at CERN were hesitant to say that they had made a definitive discovery. Instead, they described the particle as a “Higgs-like boson” – even after their findings were accepted in peer-reviewed publications. That’s because there were still more tests to be run in order to confirm what had been found.” – the mainstream.

      How do you “confirm” that you “find” a “particle” which is the creator of the universe??

      Here’s another point of view from someone you’ll libel because you don’t agree:

      “The “God Particle” or Higgs boson was invented by Peter Higgs to explain why other particles exhibit mass. He starts with assuming the existence of a particle that has only mass and no other characteristics, such as charge. So the Higgs particle is like no other in our experience, since all normal matter is composed of electric charges that respond to electromagnetic influences. (Dark matter falls into the same category.) However, we observe that the mass of a charged subatomic particle is altered by the application of electromagnetic forces. At its simplest (and Nature is economical in our experience) it indicates that mass is related to the storage of energy within a system of electric charges inside the particle. That’s what E = mc2 is telling us. So how can a massive particle be constructed without electric charge? It shows the problem inherent in leaving physics to mathematicians — there is a disconnect between mathematical concepts and reality.”

      You’re welcome, by the way. Not that you thanked me, or were remotely polite. Or asked a question. But, you’re satisfied this week that ‘science’ has ‘discovered’ what it was paying itself to ‘find’ for 40 years. Big surprise.

      Let’s review: ‘science’ believes in a ‘big bang,’ which happened by accident, when nothing exploded.

      The christians believe in a ‘big bang’ which happened on purpose when Yahweh was lonely and needed a project.

      The connecting point? Georges Lemaitres, the Roman Catholic priest-cum-mathematician, who invented “l’oeuf cosmique’ – the cosmic egg, laid by ‘dieu,’ which became the universe.

      This notion was rejected for being a clear violation of all physics (like a God particle). But then, the Judeo-Christian need for a beginning, middle and end got to people, and they said: WELL… maybe … we could re-jigger it with some math.

      And the improbability drive was born.

      Have a good day believing in things that don’t exist. I’ll take my chances with the electric universe – which is observable, testable, and even reproducible on both micro and macroscopic levels with electricity.

      “But it is the search for the “God Particle” to explain gravity that reveals the irrationality of the enterprise. The equation of gravity with “God” comes from the belief that gravity controls the universe. It is no more than that — a belief. Plasma cosmology shows the belief is mistaken. It is an Electric Universe, not a gravitational universe. Clearly, the scientists involved in the LHC experiment have no real idea of what they are doing. We are told by one of the participants with a fatuous grin, “science is what you do when you don’t know what you are doing.” The LHC is a mammoth engineering and technological undertaking that I predict will serve in future as a monument to human lunacy.”

      LINK

      Cheers.

      Fun reading: LINK

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *