Physical phenomena, competing models, and evil.

Over at Starts with a Bang, Ethan Siegel expressed exasperation that Nature and New Scientist are paying attention to (and lending too much credibility to) an astronomical theory Ethan views as a non-starter, Modified Netwonian Dynamics (or MOND):

[W]hy is Nature making a big deal out of a paper like this? Why are magazines like New Scientist declaring that there are cracks in dark matter theories?

Because someone (my guess is HongSheng Zhao, one of the authors of this paper who's fond of press releases and modifying gravity) is pimping this piece of evidence like it tells us something. Guess what? Galaxy rotation curves are the only thing MOND has ever been good for! MOND is lousy for everything else, and dark matter -- which is good for everything else -- is good for this too!

So thanks to a number of people for bringing these to my attention, because the record needs to be set straight. Dark matter: still fine. MOND: still horribly insufficient. Now, maybe we can get the editors and referees of journals like this to not only do quality control on the data, but also on the reasonableness of the conclusions drawn.

In a comment on that post, Steinn took issue with Ethan's characterization of MOND:

Ethan - this is not a creationism debate.

Hong Sheng is a top dynamicist and he knows perfectly well what the issues are. The whole point of science at this level is to test models and propose falsifiable alternatives.

MOND may be wrong, but it is not evil.

Cold Dark Matter is a likelier hypothesis, by far, but it has some serious problems in detail, and the underlying microphysics is essentially unknown and plagued with poorly motivated speculation.

MOND has always approached the issue from a different perspective: that you start with What You See Is What You Get, and then look for minimal modifications to account for the discrepancies. It is a phenomenological model, and makes little attempt to be a fundamental theory of anything. Observers tend to like it because it gives direct comparison with data and is rapidly testable.

I think Leslie Sage knew what he was doing when he published this paper.

In a subsequent post, Ethan responded to Steinn:

Yes, Steinn, it is evil to present MOND as though it is a viable alternative to dark matter.

It is evil to spread information about science based only on some tiny fraction of the available data, especially when the entire data set overwhelmingly favors dark matter and crushes MOND so as to render it untenable. It isn't evil in the same way that creationism is evil, but it is evil in the same way that pushing the steady-state-model over the Big Bang is evil.

It's a lie based on an unfair, incomplete argument. It's a discredited theory attacking the most valid model we have at -- arguably -- its only weak point. Or, to use a favorite term of mine, it is willfully ignorant to claim that MOND is reasonable in any sort of way as an alternative to dark matter. It's possibly worse than that, because it's selectively willful ignorance in this case.

And then I look at the effect it has. It undermines public understanding of dark matter, gravity, and the Universe, by presenting an unfeasible alternative as though it's perfectly valid. And it isn't perfectly valid. It isn't even close. It has nothing to do with how good their results as scientists are; it has everything to do with the invalid, untrue, knowledge-undermining conclusions that the public receives.

And yes, I find that incredibly evil. Do you?

I have no strong views on MOND or Cold Dark Matter, but given that my professional focus includes the methodology of science and issues of ethics in science, I find this back and forth really interesting.

Ethan is saying that it is evil to present as a viable alternative to a reasonably successful model a competitor that:

  • does worse as far as predicting or explaining the majority of the data
  • focuses on only the fraction of the available data where the successful model runs into trouble
  • misleads the public about its strengths and weaknesses compared to the successful model

Steinn responds by claiming that the scientific attention being paid to MOND is indicative that science is working the way it's supposed to work. Scientists are supposed to test models, whether against data we already have or new data coming in. (There may be other tests, too, that consider things like internal consistency, fit with other models, and such.) Scientists are also supposed to propose falsifiable alternatives to the models they've been using. As Steinn writes in a follow-up post:

Scientists must test models - that does not mean celebrating their successes, it means finding where they fails.

Among other things, this means is that judging which of two competing hypotheses is likelier is a different matter from working out the problems in each of the hypotheses. The latter assessment will include things like:

  • the hypotheses' fit with the available data
  • how well the hypotheses explain the data (and, in the places where they don't give good explanations, where we encounter the bad predictions or hand-waving)
  • where data that we don't have and haven't yet figured out how to get (like the relevant underlying microphysics) might support or undermine a given hypothesis
  • the plausibility or iffiness of the premises grounding each model (and whether there are direct or indirect ways to expose any of these premises to empirical testing)

Now, if you have a model that's working pretty well right now, you might wonder why you'd bother messing around with an alternative model. One good reason is that exploring alternative models may help you find ways to make your best model even better. Considering the places where your best model has the hardest time accounting for the phenomena is important. Considering other models that approach those tough spots differently may give you better insight to the phenomena.

And here, it's worth underlining the point that scientists are looking for models that are useful. Models abstract away details from the phenomena they are modeling to simplify them and make them tractable. This abstracting away of details usually leaves us with a simpler picture of at least some of the crucial entities and interactions. This makes it easier for us to understand the phenomena, but it doesn't mean that what we've abstracted away is unimportant -- as it may well be if we're interested in understanding other features of the phenomena.

One of the things this means is that multiple models may help us grasp more of the whole thing than any single model could. This would mean that pursuing more models is likely to be more useful than only working with the single model that seems to be the best of the available options (assuming there's some set of criteria that would let us objectively rank all the competing models). As Steinn points out, this is hardly news to physicists, especially given that two wildly successful theories, general relativity and quantum field theory, are inconsistent with each other and cannot both be true. Taking both of these models of reality seriously hardly ever results in claims that you're being evil.

So, as long as the scientists looking at competing models like Cold Dark Matter and MOND are being as objective as they can about the strengths and weaknesses about each model, I don't think we ought to count the pursuit of either as evil.

Still, I feel the pull of Ethan's worry once we consider what's going on beyond the community of physicists and how the news of MOND is filtering to the broader community. (I don't know how much of the publicity about MOND or about criticism of Cold Dark Matter is actually making its way to non-scientists, but let's assume there is some penetration here.)

To the extent that members of the public who are not practicing astrophysicists might be paying attention to the battle between Cold Dark Matter and MOND, there may be reason to worry if that public doesn't understand the difference between models (which scientists view as worth exploring and using) and scientific theories that aim to tell a literally true story about the world. Without understanding this difference, the non-scientist might conclude that renewed interest in MOND could only mean that evidence has come to light to overturn Cold Dark Matter once and for all (or at least that MOND explains new empirical evidence at least as well as Cold Dark Matter does).

If a segment the public is paying attention to recent work on MOND and Cold Dark Matter, this seems like an opportunity for the scientists working on these models to talk to them about scientific methodology. In particular, they might explain why pursuing a less likely hypothesis might be fruitful and how such exploration might ass add to our understanding of the phenomena over what we could get from the most likely hypothesis alone. Indeed, this is also a great opportunity for physicists to communicate to the public about how it is that scientists can reasonably work with competing (and even contradictory) theories without having their heads explode.

When the public is watching on the sidelines of a scientific dispute, it strikes me as more ethical to give the public the necessary context to help them see what is -- and what is not -- at stake in the dispute. I'm not sure that failing to provide this context is evil, but it is an opportunity missed.


More like this

Earlier this week, I wrote about an article that appeared in Nature, New Scientist and other places. The article -- and especially the popular writeups -- talked about a problem with dark matter and how MOND (MOdified Newtonian Dynamics) solves those problems. And I'm livid about it. Another…
"There is no use trying; one can't believe impossible things." "I dare say you haven't had much practice. When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." This week, a short, innocuous little astrophysics…
I woke up yesterday, made myself a cup of coffee and sat down with the New York Times, and a left over piece of corn bread from Thanksgiving. It was a beautiful morning and I was at peace. Then I read this (I will try to be polite) by Paul Davies. Apparently scientists operate on faith. Faith that…
Ilona of True Grit has replied to my response to her comments left on my blog. This time she is replying on her blog. This is her second reply to me, and I think two things are becoming clear and they are the two reasons why I think she fails to make compelling arguments. First, she has a very…

This May 11, 2010 update is re-edited and includes a slightly expanded section on UFOs and Extraterrestrial Life in order to counter the bizarre lies of Stephen Hawking & Co. and exposes âdark matterâ and âdark energyâ as totally fraudulent.

Materialist Analysis of Theoretical Astrophysics

The Capitalist Dictatorship Falsifies Basic Science!
Michio Kaku, Wendy Freedman, Dennis Overbye, Nicholas
Wade, Brian Greene, etc. Are Exposed as Liars!

Today basic medicine, science including climatology, astrophysics and even both Einsteinâs Special Theory and General Theory of Relativity are brazenly and routinely falsified at the direction of genuinely Fascist elements for political/religious reasons. These scientifically fabricated and bizarre distortions are mixed in with some actual science and are passed off as âthe new scienceâ in exhaustive falsifications lasting for hours on NOVA, FRONTLINE, National Geographic Channel, CUNY TV, the âDiscovery Channelâ and even the so-called âHistory Channel.â There is also a simultaneous attempt to generate panic based on falsely claimed imminent threats from space from rogue asteroids to Stephen Hawkingâs alarmist claim of future invasions by inevitably hostile space aliens. See section on UFOs and Extraterrestrial Life. In addition, the above-mentioned so-called âcosmologistsâ publish an endless stream of books, videos and magazine and newspaper articles to try to popularize this fiction and pass it off as good coin. Not to mention the new textbooks! The media, including the science media is simply a privatized arm of the U.S. âintelligence agency,â an actual army of legions of professional liars in every area of politics and every academic discipline and includes even so-called âcomediansâ working in service to the capitalist dictatorship of millionaires and billionaires. The U.S. media is very similar to Blackwater, Dyncorp, Custer Battles and Triple Canopy, etc. the armed military contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, except that the media has always been privatized. Can you say Total Brainwash of the youth? Not to mention the adult population!

There is also a maximal attempt to confuse the masses in order to keep them susceptible to the constant stream of lies originating from NASA and the U.S. government, which have threatened to ram through a revisit of the Moon and have even tried to pump up support for a Mars mission! (?) There is no possibility that a manned trip to Mars would ever return. Rocketry is a primitive form of space travel and there is no acknowledged attempt of efforts to develop the nuclear powered electromagnetic anti-gravity engine used by so-called UFOs, which are documented to have visited the Earth for Millennia. Moon and Mars trips obviously make no sense except to keep NASA and its suppliers in business and are one more pretext to divert money from social spending and to boost U.S. patriotism. Under public pressure the Obama Regime has supposedly cancelled the Moon and Mars ventures and but states that it will privatize the role of NASA going even further than Bush in privatization schemes for the U.S. government. (See below.) The widespread academic opposition to these wide-scale falsifications of science and money wasting ventures is never given equal time! We demand and will take some time to refute the U.S.-led capitalist dictatorshipâs lies.

The Capitalist Dictatorshipâs Attempt to Falsify the
Age of the Universe to Help Provide False Belief in âgodâ

The capitalists have tried to falsify the actual age of the Universe and the infinite cycle of a Big Bang followed by a Big Crunch, meaning a closed rather than an open Universe, because the reality of a closed Universe does not fit with the religious brainwash of a single creation and belief in a supernatural fictitious âgod.â (The statecraft of capitalismâs alliance with religion and belief in âgodâ and other superstition is exposed further below.) The reality is that the process of contraction of the Universe began soon after the Big Bang, which began the process of expansion. The process of contraction began with the first condensations of gas after the Big Bang. At first the process of expansion was dominant, but the processes of expansion and contraction exist simultaneously from shortly after the Big Bang until finally the process of contraction becomes dominant and all galactic matter is finally drawn into Supermassive Black Holes, which today form the centers of all spiral galaxies and elliptical galaxies in the process of becoming spiral galaxies. These Supermassive Black Holes, which are growing larger continuously, finally link up all existing matter of the Universe at one spot, one huge super-maximal Black Hole known as the Singularity in the Big Crunch, at which time critical mass in the true and ultimate sense is reached for another Big Bang Cycle and the beginning of another Universe.

Ninety-five Percent of Matter in the Universe Exists in the Form of Energy According
To Einsteinâs Formula E=mc2! Black Holes Completely Reverse that Relationship and
Solve the Equation for Mass: M=E/c2 thus Supplying the so-called âMissing Massâ!

The critical mass density required for the Big Crunch to occur is 1 x 10 to the negative 29th of a gram per cubic centimeter (approximately 5 hydrogen atoms per cubic meter), according to the calculation from the General Theory of Relativity, which predicted Black Holes. Neutrinos are now known to have mass which may be sufficient to supply the supposed âmissing mass.â (See below.) But probably even more significant is the recent paper in Science (November 21, 2008) which shows that 95% of matter in the Universe exists in the form of energy according to Einsteinâs formula E=mc2. This relationship would reverse in a Black Hole and the so-called âmissing massâ would gradually appear as the contraction of the Universe allowed the energy-mass relationship to shift so that in a practical and real sense Einsteinâs formula would be solved for mass: m=E/c2. Though the authors of the paper fail to draw this conclusion that is the inescapable significance of those papers. See below. The fact that the expansion and contraction of the Universe occur simultaneously is one more example of the Law of Unity of Opposites, the Second Law of and Historical Materialism and the correctness of the scientific philosophy of Dialectical and Historical Materialism, as opposed to the false philosophies of idealism and metaphysics, which are the only philosophies permitted to be seriously taught in U.S. colleges and universities, and which form the underlying basis for all phony âcosmologicalâ theory! See further below!

Black Holes Have Mass and a Size, Which
Can Be Calculated, and Rotate on an Axis!

In addition, in the Big Crunch matter most certainly does NOT collapse to âa single point less than the size of a single molecule,â a totally ridiculous assertion by the so-called âstring theoristsâ (see below) designed to try to discredit the Theory of the Big Bang/Big Crunch Cycle of the Universe. Black Holes are formed exclusively of condensed nuclear material; protons and neutrons (composed of quarks) and electrons (composed of leptons) devoid of their orbits and all motion, all collapsed together. The end point of all matter in the Big Crunch is a Single Black Hole, the so-called âSingularity.â All Black Holes have the same mass density, which is said to be infinite, and which vary only in actual mass depending on how many stars and how much nuclear material they contain. The only difference is the difference in mass, which is constantly increasing as matter changes from its energy form when entering a Black Hole. See above cited article in Nature, November 21, 2008. Note that while some of the information provided below may appear to be somewhat technical it is necessary for any subsequent challenges which might be made of this dialectical and historical materialist analysis. An educated reader should be able to understand most of it and follow for the most part the explanations, which have in turn vast political implications. A few key references are provided and the reader can research the area independently.

Black Holes have mass and size just as neutron stars (pulsars) also have mass!! All Black Holes, both Stellar Black Holes and Supermassive Black Holes (the result of combination of millions of solar masses) which form the center of evolving elliptical galaxies and all spiral galaxies, also rotate extremely rapidly just like neutron stars, some of which are estimated to be only 8 to 20 miles in diameter, and rotate in 1.4 milliseconds to 30 seconds! All stars rotate on a central axis to some degree due to the angular momentum of gas approaching the center of the proto-star prior to the ignition of hydrogen fusion. In other words the gravitational collapse of gas in star formation is not uniform just as its opposite, an explosion such as the Big Bang is not uniform. When the radius of the star is reduced drastically in stellar collapse the angular momentum remains the same but the momentum of inertia is sharply reduced. The standard example is that of a figure skater spinning with outstretched arms who speeds up by pulling in his/her arms. Black Holes are formed from the collapse of the largest Blue Giant stars 5 to 20 or more solar masses. Neutron stars are formed from the explosion of stars with 1.35 to 2.1 solar masses in a Type II, Type Ib or Type Ic supernova explosion. The rapid rotation of Supermassive Black Holes is in fact the reason Spiral Galaxies exist in the flattened disk form they do with spiral armsâbecause of the huge gravitational force exerted by the rapid rotation of Supermassive Black Holes which form their galactic centers! As the rotating Supermassive Black Hole in the galactic center gradually increases in size through accumulation/accretion of more stellar material and gas, the elliptical galaxy, which is in the process of becoming a spiral galaxy, first flattens due to the rapid rotation of the Supermassive Black Hole in its center. It should also be noted that as would be expected there exist a high number of stellar black holes in the galactic center drawn by their strong gravitational fields on their way to join the central Supermassive Black Hole. According to observations of the Chandra X-Ray Telescope released in a July 16, 2005 report there are 10,000 stellar black holes along with numerous neutron stars orbiting the Supermassive Black Hole in the center of our own Milky Way Galaxy, officially designated Sagittarius A (SGR A)! The Supermassive Black Hole at the center of the Milky Way Galaxy has a mass of 3.7 million solar masses, while a Supermassive Black Hole in the constellation Virgo 50 million light years distant contains a Supermassive Black Hole with the mass of 3 billion solar masses!

The spiral arms comprised of outlying stars are formed by the combination of the gravitational force coming from the rapidly rotating galactic center and the relative gravitational attraction of one outlying star to another based on their actual distances from one another. As the outlying stars approach neighboring stars due to gravity this leaves other areas where stars are much less concentrated giving rise to the appearance of usually 2 major spiral arms originating from each end of the central bar often found in the galactic center, as well as several minor spiral arms, all of which are actually in the process of being gradually drawn inexorably toward the galactic center. The gravitational force of the Black Hole, the mass of which is steadily increasing, gradually overcomes the outward centripetal force caused by its rapid rotation.

Central bars form after the Supermassive Black Hole in the center of a large spiral galaxy reaches a certain size and are therefore found more prevalently in more massive galaxies where the required mass is reached sooner. Central bars form when stellar orbits in a spiral galaxy become unstable and deviate from a circular path. The tiny elongations in the stars' orbits grow and become locked into place, forming a bar. The bar becomes even stronger as it locks more and more of these elongated orbits into place. Eventually a high fraction of the stars in the galaxy's inner region join the bar. The galactic center thus attracts both gas and stars. This concentration of gas at the center of spiral galaxies does result in the formation of new stars but does not represent the primary or original source of star formation, which occurs in the beginning of formation of galaxies from gravitational condensation and collapse of primordial gas clouds. The central bars draw a large amount of gas towards the galactic center, fueling this new star formation, building central bulges of stars, and feeding the Supermassive central black hole. The formation of a bar may be one of the last stages in the evolution of a spiral galaxy prior to its eventual total collapse entirely into its central Supermassive Black Hole.

Information Overload by NASA and U.S. Government Propagandists is used to Distract
Focus Away from the Significance and Central Role Black Holes Play in the Process
Of Contraction of the Universe which Finally Becomes Dominant in the Big Crunch!

In the interest of accuracy and it is also important to mention that this information is being misused by NASA and other U.S. government propagandists to try to distract from and obscure the significance of black holes and the central role black holes play in the process of contraction of the Universe, which ultimately becomes dominant over the simultaneous process of expansion. First, it is a fact that matter generally enters a black hole through a combination of both gravitation and magnetism. Matter in the accretion disk, which spins around the black hole, can only enter the black hole after it loses its angular momentum. The inertia of the material in the accretion disk keeps it spiraling in a disk rather than falling straight into the black hole. The inertia in turn is due to the mass of the material in the disc and the gravitational field caused by the extremely rapid rotation of the black hole itself. An accretion disc is a rotating disk of gas, dust and other matter that may form around any of a variety of stars or other massive objects from protostars to white dwarfs to neutron stars to stellar black holes and Supermassive Black Holes and even quasars (see below). While the accretion disc of a young star or protostar usually contains dust which later consolidates or accretes to form planets and other objects, the accretion disk of a black hole, which may also contain stars, feeds matter directly into the black hole.

According to a report in the July 22, 2006 Nature, and another 2008 paper by F. Casse Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 50 124020 (9pp) confirming the 1973 theory of Starobinsky and Churilov, the spinning gas in an accretion disc generates its own magnetic field which powers a wind of charged particles directed away from the black hole. The wind of charged particles transfers angular momentum from the inner regions of the disk outward in a twin jet phenomenon perpendicular to the plane of the accretion disk allowing angular momentum to be conserved, meaning to remain balanced or constant. This transfer of angular momentum outward slows down the spinning gas near the center, allowing gravitation to draw matter into the black hole. The magnetic field also causes turbulence and friction to build up within the disk. The friction heats up the gas to millions of degrees, causing it to glow brilliantly in the ultraviolet and X-ray bands. In Supermassive Black Holes large jets of plasma flow away from the accretion disc perpendicular to its center at almost the speed of light. These jets of plasma travel outward along the magnetic field lines which are twisted by the rotating accretion disk. It should be noted that the material which flows outward in the jets represents only a tiny amount of material extracted from the accretion disk. (Plasma, which is found in the accretion disk closest to the black hole, is a partially ionized gas, where a certain proportion of electrons are free, not being bound to atoms or molecules, unlike the gas form of matter. This permits electrical conduction of magnetic fields. Plasma is considered the fourth state of matter in addition to solid, gas and liquid.

Redshift Measurement of Quasars puts
The Age of the Universe at 28 Billion Years!

The process where matter enters a black hole from its accretion disk may be greatly expanded during the formation of quasars where a Supermassive Black Hole at a galactic Center accretes a huge amount of matter in the order of billions of stars. When two black holes combine or a stellar black hole enters a Supermassive Black Hole in a galactic center the process causes the emission of radio waves and even visible light. When hundreds of millions to billions of stars and enormous amounts of gas first combine to create a Supermassive Black Hole in the center of a galaxy the energy released is exponentially increased and is known as a quasar. In a quasar this radiation is emitted across the entire spectrum almost equally, from X-rays to the far-infrared with a peak in the ultraviolet-optical bands, with some quasars also being strong sources of radio emission and of gamma-rays. Quasars are the most visibly luminous objects in the Universe and are also the strongest energy source in the Universe. A quasar is simply an accelerated process of formation of a Supermassive Black Hole in an early galaxy. The release of gravitational energy by matter falling towards a massive black hole in the formation of a quasar is the only process known that can produce such high power continuously, energy far greater than the fusion process which powers stars. Quasars easily outshine their host galaxies. (The light we see is from the huge superheated accretion disk, which is greatly enlarged due to the high density of matter in such galaxies. Stellar explosions such as Supernovas and gamma-ray bursts can create the same level of energy, but only for a few minutes. Gamma ray bursts are generated by hypernova, which are simply very large supernova, the collapse of a stars with masses 100 to 200 times that of the sun. Contrary to the lies designed to create confusion, which appear on the National Geographic so-called Discovery Channel âHow the Universe Worksâ programs, not all early galaxies possessed enough mass to produce a quasar. There is no evidence for example, that the Milky Way Galaxy, as claimed by Micho Kaku & Co. was a quasar! The Supermassive Black Hole at its center is far too small! And the mass extinction on Earth 440-450 million years ago was undoubtedly NOT caused by a gamma ray burst form a hypernova, but from the continental drift of a large landmass (Gondwana) into the south polar region causing a global temperature drop, glaciation and lowering of sea level which destroyed 60% of habitats around the continental shelves at a time when all life was confined to the seas and oceans. Evidence documenting this was found in deposits in the Sahara Desert.

All observed quasar spectra have red shifts between 0.06 and 6.5. Applying Hubble's law to these red shifts, it can be shown that they are between 780 million and 28 billion light-years away, a measurement which is NOT due to gravitational lensing, although this has been reported for some extremely bright quasars. This is proof that the Universe itself is at least 28 billion years old! So the most recent âestimatesâ of the Hubble Constant and the actual age of the Universe by NASA, Wendy Freedman and company and the media (a privatized arm of the U.S. âintelligence communityâ) are obviously TOTALLY FALSE! (See below.) The process of quasar formation occurred regularly in the early Universe in the formation of galaxies with huge densely concentrated gas and stars. It should be obvious that the first galaxies to form in the Universe generally contained the highest volume and concentration of gas, which in turn created the highest concentration and densities of stars. The Supermassive Black Holes at the center of those early galaxies became quasars. Galaxies without such high densities of matter develop more along the lines of our own Milky Way Galaxy and Andromeda, for example. Formation of galaxies is still occurring but generally they do not become quasars because the volume and density of gas is insufficient. An exception is 3C 273 in the constellation Virgo which is only 33 light years away with a luminosity equal to 2 trillion times that of our sun or about 100 times the total light of the Milky Way. Their discovery by Maarten Schmidt in 1967 was early strong evidence against the totally discredited steady state theory of Fred Hoyle, and in favor of the Big Bang Theory. Blazers, incidentally are the same as quasars but have their perpendicular jets in direct alignment with our galaxy, while quasars have their jets pointed away in another direction.

As part of the escalating campaign of Big Lies, in March 2009 NASA made the totally disingenuous statement on a National Geographic Channel so-called âNaked Scienceâ show that âwhile black holes are associated with galaxies we (who we?) do not yet know what that relationship is!â (!) The motive for that feigned ignorance/Big Lie is to try to obscure the documented reality that the matter of all galaxies is entering black holes as part of the ongoing contraction of the Universe, which begins shortly after the Big Bang and takes places simultaneously with the process of expansion and finally becomes dominant. As explained herein expansion of the Universe has slowed down enormously since the Big Bang and will be overtaken by the process of contraction until all mass in the Universe has again entered the final Black Hole, the so-called final Singularity in the Big Crunch. At that point there will be another Big Bang and another Universe will begin. In addition, NASA and other government propagandists have attempted to overemphasize the accretion disk/jet phenomenon and the huge energy produced as matter enters a black hole or quasar, almost to make it appear that black holes and quasars are âexpellingâ matter as much as drawing it in, virtually standing black holes on their head and falsely ascribing all sorts of âobservationsâ to black holes, in order to divert focus from the primary role of black holes as the mechanism or engine of contraction of the Universe and the beginning of the Big Crunch!

One example is the false claim by the fraudster, James Geach, hyped in the July 7, 2009 New York Times by the determined âintelligence communityâ propagandist Dennis Overbye, that black holes fueled so-called Lyman alpha âblobs,â glowing clouds of gas in the early universe. But that lie was immediately refuted with the obvious explanation that cold gas streaming into a protogalaxy would heat up and glow from the gravitational energy alone! (See: âLyman Alpha Blobs as an Observational Signature of Cold Accretion Streams into Galaxiesâ by Mark Dijkstra and Abraham Loeb, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, June 5, 2009.) These fraudulent NASA/U.S. government propagandists hope that most viewers know absolutely nothing and will believe virtually anything that they are told by someone claiming to be a âscientistâ or âprofessorâ and that most people will not do their own research, or will remain at least confused and vulnerable to their next bizarre fantastical claim. That is why the information which appears here should be forwarded by email and networked in every possible way nationally and internationally in order to counter the U.S. capitalist dictatorshipâs Big Lies. The objective of the capitalist dictatorship is to render the population more susceptible to their lies in every area including politics and economics, which also have little to no basis in reality. The capitalist dictatorship now resorts to the come on of ânaked scienceâ in order to try to sex-up their Big Lie propaganda in theoretical astrophysics, while simultaneously presenting some truthful âNaked Scienceâ reports in other areas and in other National Geographic programs in order to help their Big Lies blend in.

In response to the heavy push on the so-called âHistory Channel,â etc. it should be noted that the Theory of the Big Bang was first proposed by Georges-Henri Lemaître, who had both a PhD in physics and was an ordained priest. Lemaître studied at the University of Leuven, the University of Cambridge, Harvard and MIT. The little read report was first published in 1927 in the Annales de la Société Scientifique de Bruxelles (Annals of the Scientific Society of Brussels) and later in Nature: G. Lemaître, The Beginning of the World from the Point of View of Quantum Theory, Natureâ 127 (1931), n. 3210, pp. 706. Lemaître called it âthe hypothesis of Primeval Atomâ and also referred to it as "the Cosmic Egg exploding at the moment of the creation," with the word âcreationâ obviously reflecting his religious bias. As explained above the Universe did not originate from a single point less than the size of a single molecule as falsely proposed by the string theorists, who now are pushing Lemaître. As explained above the end point of all matter in the Big Crunch is a Single Black Hole, the so-called âSingularity.â As mentioned all Black Holes have the same mass density, which is said to be infinite, and which vary only in actual mass depending on how many stars and how much nuclear material they contain. The only difference is the difference in mass, which is constantly increasing as matter changes from its energy form when entering a Black Hole according to E=M/c2, Einsteinâs formula from the Special Theory solved for mass. See cited article in Nature, November 21, 2008. The Singularity contains the combined mass of all nuclear material from all stars and gas in the Universe. The designation: âBig Bang Theoryâ first derived from a derogatory reference to the theory of an expanding Universe by Fred Hoyle on the BBC on March 1949 over 20 years after it was first proposed. The truth as explained above and herein is that the processes of expansion and contraction of the Universe coexist from shortly after the Big Bang until finally the process of contraction becomes dominant and there is a Big Crunch followed by another Big Bang and formation of another Universe.

It is a fact that Lemaître applied Albert Einsteinâs Theory of General Relativity to Cosmology, but was NOT a spearhead of religion supposedly leading physics as Lemaître is presently falsely being portrayed on the so-called âHistory Channel.â Lemaître also preceded Edwin Hubble in deriving what became known as Hubbleâs Law and even calculated the Hubble Constant but was not able to prove the linear relation which Hubble did in 1929. Lemaître has rarely been given the credit he is due for first proposing the Big Bang Theory for 3 reasons: 1.) The theory of an expanding Universe was opposed at the time he first proposed it by Einstein and others, 2.) For political-religious reasons explained herein the capitalist dictatorship has always opposed the Big Bang Theory because the natural logic of a Big Bang implies a Big Crunch and a cyclic nature of the Universe rather than a single creation which leaves the most room for âa creatorâ and 3.) U.S. nationalism/jingoism, where the U.S. capitalist dictatorship always prefers that whenever possible credit be given to an American. Edwin Hubble was an American lawyer. Although Lemaître had received numerous Belgian and international scientific honors only recently have the capitalists been pushing Lemaître in order to focus on the fact that he was a priest and that his theory speaks of a moment of âcreation.â The so-called âHistory Channelâ focuses on this language in an attempt to inject the sophisticated form of creationism/intelligent design also espoused by Francis Collins, Obamaâs new choice for head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). See below.

The Hubble Constant is a calculation of the speed at which the Universe is expanding and is crucial in calculating the age of the Universe. Four methods have been used to estimate the Hubble Constant and age of the Universe. The most recent method employed by Allan Sandage, et al measures: 1.) the distances to Type 1a Supernovae explosions in distant galaxies and then 2.) confirms those measurements by comparing the relative luminosities of Cepheid variable stars as so-called âstandard candles,â while Wendy Freedmanâs NASA team uses Cepheid Variable stars alone, which is a lot less accurate. Freedmanâs method especially is an easy method in which to either err or to deliberately falsify results as she and her NASA team have clearly done. (See below.) The typical errors in calculating the Hubble Constant include: 1.) âthe universal, yet unjustified Period-Luminosity relation of Cepheid (variable stars), 2.) neglect of selection bias in magnitude-limited samples or 3.) the errors which are inherent to the adopted models, which cause most values of the Hubble Constant and corresponding estimates of the age of the Universe to be incorrect as explained in detail in the most comprehensive review which has yet been published, which also includes the Sandage teamâs most recent calculation of the Hubble Constant to date of 62.3 +orâ1.3, which is based on measurements to 279 galaxies: âThe expansion field: the value of the Hubble Constant,â by G.A Tammann, A. Sandage and B. Reindl, Astron Astrophys Rev (2008), 8 July 2008, 15:289-331, DOI 10.1007/s00159-800-9912-y.

This value of the Hubble Constant corresponds to an age of the Universe of approximately 13.7 billion years, which should be sufficient to permit the Big Crunch. However even this method of calculation of the Hubble Constant, which as exhaustively explained and documented by Allan Sandage et al, is fraught with potential errors cited above, which Sandage takes account of and systematically avoids. As mentioned above Wendy Freedman and Co. on the other hand use only Cepheid variable stars in their âcalculationsâ and deliberately include faulty (fraudulent) data in their calculations as explained to this writer personally by Allan Sandage, therefore making Freedman & Co.âs method of determination of the Hubble Constant even easier to falsify. Such data is systematically excluded by Sandage, et al., as explained above. In response to the withering but suppressed critique by Sandage et al, known primarily only to other astrophysicists who follow these matters, Freedman has published a slew of pathetic papers addressing such topics as âcorrection of errors involving optical extragalactic background light (EBL), sampling-induced errors, magnitude errors, and random and optimal sampling,â etc. where she always comes up with ridiculously high (fraudulent) values for the Hubble Constant. Fraudulent data was necessary for Freedman & Co. to reinvent the entirely fictitious so-called âdark energy,â Einsteinâs âCosmological Constant,â (âMy greatest blunder!â See below), which is declared to be âthe opposite of gravityâ and which has no scientific explanation whatsoever, but is falsely proffered as âthe reasonâ the capitalist dictatorship and its media (and textbook) propagandists now falsely state that the expansion of the Universe has unexplainably âspeeded up,â a âfindingâ which violates all previous findings not to mention all known rules of physics including the General Theory of Relativity! In other words this finding is totally invented, totally fabricated, a Big Lie to end all Big Lies! All designed to achieve political-religious-propagandistic objectives. See below. Legitimate opposing viewpoints are simply ignored and in practice not permitted to be heard! How jolly!

Regarding the most recent results given above for the Hubble Constant, this writer would still prefer to accept Sandageâs previous calculation of 55 +or-5, which has been repeatedly established in papers from 1975, 1982, 1986, 1990 and 1995, although it may certainly be possible that the 62.3 +or-1.3 value is the most accurate and it is certainly can be argued that 55 +or-5 is not that far removed from the new figure. The reason for this caution is that Allan Sandage is now 82 years old and although he is 100% intellectually intact and in control of all of his faculties his name is listed second in the above paper indicating that he himself may not have collected the data used in the calculation giving 62.3 +or-1.3 for the Hubble Constant. This writer has not spoken or corresponded with the other members of his team, as this writer has, with Allan Sandage. Sandagesâs team also often includes A. Saha who was not included in the above paper, so this writer can not rule out alteration of the raw data to give a falsely high Hubble Constant by certain personnel who might be bribed by the NASA forces in charge of the Key Project, which was set up determined to achieve a certain result come hell or high water. This issue is important enough to the capitalist dictatorship so that they would leave no stone unturned to tweek the results in their direction for reasons explained further below. In addition, we are reminded that the Redshift of some quasars actually puts the age of the Universe at 28 billion years! See above.

The U.S. so-called âintelligence communityâ organized the so-called âKey Projectâ in order to cover up the cyclic nature of the Universe from Big Bang to Big Crunch. The Hubble Space Telescope (HST) was built primarily for the âKey Project.â This is an important point. The capitalist dictatorship chose Wendy Freedman to lead the project rather than the obvious choice, Allan Sandage, the legendary, most preeminent and world-renowned astrophysicist as well as the number one authority on the Hubble Constant along with his internationally renowned group of astrophysicist colleagues. See above. The reason was that Sandageâs studies up to that point had shown the Universe to be âbetween 14 and 18 billion years old, depending on what is assumed about the mass of the Universe.â This corresponds to a Hubble Constant, which he and colleagues had repeatedly calculated to be 55 +or-5 as cited above. An older age and smaller Hubble Constant, of course, would mean that the Universe contained easily enough matter to permit the Big Crunch, which is the key point the capitalist propagandists want to discredit because that would rule out a single creation and make the existence of a god, for which there is no scientific evidence whatsoever, even more unlikely! This is the actual statecraft behind the âKey Project.â See further below.

Freedmanâs initial claim that the Universe was only 8 billion years old was obviously fraudulent, as have been all of her subsequent âestimations.â All of Freedmanâs estimations of the age of the Universe and the Hubble Constant have been designed to try to fraudulently invalidate (!) the Big Bang, the Big Crunch especially and the cyclic nature of the Universe in particular. The preposterous claim of an 8 billion year age is a direct attack on the Big Bang, which has been verified worldwide. In her initial unrestrained enthusiasm to falsify and misinterpret her own data (see above) Freedman forgot about the 1.) Red shift discovered by Edwin Hubble (see below) and 2.) the detection of the cosmic microwave background radiation, which is the residual effect of the Big Bang both of which exist as irrefutable evidence for the Big Bang origin of the Universe! In January 2003 Freedman was made the Director of the Carnegie Observatories located in Pasadena, California where Allan Sandage works thereby placing her above him as a maneuver to make her fraudulent estimates of the Hubble Constant appear more authoritative in the public eye!

Note that even AFTER the 1965 discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation by Penzias and Wilson and its confirmation by the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite in 1989 that its measurement produced a curve precisely matching a Planck curve, which most scientists have accepted as proof that the radiation is indeed from the beginning of the universe, the capitalist dictatorship has still made efforts to continue to try to deny the existence of the Big Bang, even publishing books with 466 pages (!) attacking the Big Bang such as the 1991 rubbish: âThe Big Bang Never Happenedâ (!) by the totally discredited Eric Lerner. Anyone using simple inductive reasoning would immediately begin to smell a rat! Since the capitalist dictatorship and its media have not been able to refute the Big Bang they have now focused all their efforts in trying to refute the Big Crunch. The capitalist dictatorship has a long history of political meddling and sabotage in virtually all fields of scientific and medical research and a history of using scientific advances against the masses in order to control them and also to reduce the population according to their own perceived needs, e.g. from Bio-warfare to Bio-fuels (through enforced starvation, falsely portrayed as seeking âenergy independenceâ and âclean energy.â).

NASA Propagandists Have Now Concocted the Fraudulent âtheory of the
Big Ripâ In Order to Try to Counter the Reality of the Big Crunch and
The Information which Appears Here now Found All Over the Internet!

NASA in a new propaganda blitz using their standard Big Lie technique in order to try to refute the information, which appears here and all over the Internet, has pushed back hard with the totally discredited claims on the National Geographic Channel beginning in March 2009 that 1.) âdark matterâ forms a supposed âfilamentous superstructureâ of the universe from the very beginning of the Big Bang until the present 2.) the fictitious âdark energyâ will supposedly eventually âbecome so strongâ that it will overcome all 4 primary forces including the strong force, which holds quarks and gluons together to form protons, neutrons and other particles, so that that the entire Universe will then supposedly âfly apart ripping apart galaxies, stars, planets and eventually every speck of matter in a fantastical end to timeâ in what the fraudulent propagandist Robert Caldwell describes as âthe Big Rip.â This is also known as the theory of the flat universe. There is no âfilamentous superstructure of the universe held together by dark matter.â And phantasmagorical images of galactic superclusters do NOT prove the existence of a âfilamentous superstructureâ and are simply a photographic effect due to the enormous luminosity of such dense accumulations of stars. As mentioned above the great wall of galaxies is not due to a âdark matter superstructure but is simply due to the irregularities in the Big Bang explosion, which was not uniform as in any explosion. Such brainwash already appears in the astrophysics textbooks of the capitalist dictatorship! We recommend that it be exposed as a Big Lie whenever and wherever it is encountered.

The capitalist cosmologists/propagandists have demonstrated that they can not coherently reply to any of the arguments advanced in this Materialist Analysis of Theoretical Astrophysics except through contrived, feigned ignorance, information overload and MORE totally outrageous, bizarre Big Lies, which require a religious-like faith (in dark energy and dark matter, for example) to actually believe themâtheir overall objective in the first place as explained here. So do not be intimidated by the doctoral degrees which they award themselves or the exalted positions held by these above-mentioned frauds in order to try to legitimize their lies and to try to control and monopolize this field as they try to do with all others. These false propagandists/âcosmologistsâ keep up a truly relentless barrage of lies in the major media and even physics journals and on TV with a never ending stream of phantasmagoric images blending and cascading one into another to try to help prove their Big Lies, for example, the existence of âdark matter,â which they laughably claim is so dominant that it forms the âsuperstructure of the universeâ but which they supposedly have only been able to detect as âtwo tiny pulses of heat deposited over the course of two years...â New York Times, December 18, 2009, a frankly pathetic false âfindingâ which the article admits is âno proofâ but âtantalizingâ (?) an adjective carefully chosen to try to make it appear as if everyone were are all rooting to try to prove their Big Lie. The reality is that there is no âdark matter.â Claims on the National Geographic Discovery Channel and elsewhere in April-May 2010 that âgravitational lensing and cosmological expansion ratesâ have âconfirmedâ its existence are totally fabricated! Gravity, not dark matter, is responsible for ALL gravitational lensing and that is where it gets its name. And there is NO âlarge halo of unseen matter (an oxymoron!) extending beyond the visible stars.â But according to Michio Kaku & Co., âDark matter is in a struggle with dark energy and dark energy wins in the end in the Big Rip!â Not a WORD about gravity! And according to Michio Kaku eventually stars will all simply âblink out and the universe will be darkâ¦again!? The age of stars will be over!â Kaku just makes it up in a jumble as he goes along. Anything for his cause! See below.

It can also be predicted that the capitalist dictatorship will take over the science, if they have not already done so, of the new Large Hadron Collider, the worldâs largest and highest energy particle accelerator in Geneva, Switzerland, when it finally goes on line in order to try to continue to concoct the existence of âdark matterâ and âdark energyâ as well as the âHiggs Boson,â the so-called âgod particle,â which is reputed to be the particle which may impart mass to all other particles after the Big Bang. The Higgs Boson is a hypothetical massive scalar elementary particle predicted to exist by the Standard Model in particle physics. At present there are no known elementary scalar particles in nature. There are numerous Higgsless models, which do not depend on the Higgs Boson or Higgs Field. The top contender presently is the Three-Site Higgsless model. Whether or not the Higgs Boson exists or does not exist, its importance has been completely overstated in any case, in order that in the event of its discovery the media may falsely claim to have âprovedâ the existence of âgod!â In any case, the Higgs Boson has absolutely nothing to do with âgodâ and no reputable physicist has ever made such a claim. The capitalist dictatorship is desperate and reeeediculous! So do not be intimidated by their Big Lies.

Through brazen false arguments and bizarre false analogies these phony âcosmologistsâ who control the airways and media, have even attempted to up the ante and generate maximum confusion by trying to brainwash people into believing that the laws of physics and theoretical astrophysics, such as the Laws of Quantum Mechanics, the Special Theory of Relativity and General Theory of Relativity, etc. are ânot immutableâ and are in a process of âconstant evolutionâ supposedly like species of animals in Charles Darwinâs âThe Evolution of Species.â The laws of physical science are thus directly compared to the evolution of species of animals! Einstein therefore supposedly only has âtemporary relevanceâ giving virtually every kind of science fiction a basis in âreality.â (See: âBeyond Einstein,â Discover Magazine, April 2010). Einstein is also falsely quoted as believing in god: âlearning to read the laws of physics is like reading the mind of god.â See comprehensive section on Einstein.

The author of the Discover Magazine article moreover disingenuously announces: âphysicists should not spin any theories that require the existence of things such as multiverses, that cannot be disproved.â This carefully contrived statement implies that because âmultiverses,â etc. supposedly cannot be disproved these fraudsters do not have to actually PROVE any piece of science fiction currently being passed of as âscience.â They imply that is the duty of genuine theoretical physicists to disprove every false theory used to bombard the public domain by the misnamed, so-called âintelligence communityâ led by heavily hyped characters such as Michio Kaku. The Materialist Analysis of Theoretical Astrophysics disproves their primary concoctions and it is a rule of the Court that a witness caught in one lie in testimony does not merit any further credibility by the Jury. This is especially true in science where it is clear that, above all else, Kaku, & Co., are straining at the leash to inject confusion into basic physics and are forced to tell many lies in order to try to achieve their objectives. Their motives to create confusion are explained above. The title of the Discover Magazine article was incidentally borrowed from the title of a 1987 book by âintelligence communityâ fraudster, Michio Kaku, wherein Kaku tried to popularize so-called âString Theory,â concocted in the effort to supplant Quantum Mechanics. See below. It should be noted that Kaku, who hides his specious, bogus so-called âBeyond Einstein science,â behind a phony slick, unctuous presentation, is equally at home passing off science fiction e.g. âparallel universes, time warps, time travel and the tenth dimensionâ as science as he is relentlessly fabricating false theories designed to compete with and supplant the natural laws of physics and to confuse as many people as possible behind a mantle of genuinely false knowledge. Based on ONE non-cyclic Big Bang, âString Theoryâ is thus a back door to Creationism!

There is no such thing as âDark Energyâ and the Universe has not suddenly increased its rate of expansion as falsely claimed by these frauds, as supposed âproof of its existence.â Just the opposite! The rate of expansion of the Universe has continued to slow since the Big Bang! All previous observations have indicated that is the case! While the Red Shifts of the most distant galaxies do indicate they are receding much more rapidly than closer galaxies this is because their light originated closer to the time of the Big Bang when the expansion rate was greater, but that is not the situation today. It should therefore be noted that although we may be able to receive light from galaxies which started its journey virtually at the beginning of the Universe, that light does not portray the reality at this point in time of that galaxy which was the source of that light. The reality is that today most of the Universe is undoubtedly relatively uniform in its development today except where there are huge clouds of gas from super novae explosions and where there are huge accumulations of matter such as the Great Wall of galaxies, the latter of which formed due to the irregularities which occurred in the Big Bang just as in any other explosion. In other words the light from our own galaxy, the Milky Way, would appear to an observer from the most distant galaxies to be receding at the same rate that their light is receding from our own galaxy! This should be a no-brainer but is rarely if ever mentioned. The only viewpoint which is ever mentioned is from the Earth as if it were the center of creation. Which it is not!

The Universe is not open! Just like the Earth itself the spatial curvature of the Universe is NOT flat! It is closed. In reality there are no âmultiple universes,â which âpop out of Black Holesâ or by any other explanation. The reason for this is that although in a Black Hole mass is infinite (see above), Critical Mass does not exist! Critical Mass is attained only in the Singularity, when all matter in the Universe comes together in one spot in the Big Crunch. The point when Critical Mass is reached is the point when a Big Bang occurs! See above. This is why the Large Hadron Collider cannot reproduce either the Big Bang or even a Black Hole. The reason for this is that even a Black Hole can form only when a Blue Giant star of sufficient mass collapses. This can not occur in the Large Hadron Collidor no matter how high the energies attained or how âlargeâ the collidor itself may be claimed to be!!

Stephen Hawkingâs claimed existence of âexploding miniature Black Holes,â which âpermit particles to leak out âin a quantum processâ (!), eventually causing Black Holes to âEVAPORATEâ (!), due to pretentiously designated and entirely fictitious so-called: âHawking Evaporationâ or to âfinally explode entirelyâ is based on fraudulent âString Theoryâ related mathematics and is complete and total nonsense. Though such claims are totally absurd and ridiculous, they are nevertheless given a heavy media push on websites which permit NO COMMENT and on the highly discredited âNaked Scienceâ National Geographic (Discovery) Channel, e.g., even stating with NO PROOF WHATSOEVER and with no legitimate counter-arguments ever permitted, the totally bizarre claim that âString Theoryâ is âthe best explanation of the origin of the Universe,â which it most certainly is not! Hawking and âString Theoristsâ absurdly state: âthe Big Bang occurred when gravity weakenedâ (!) because âafter the Big Bang gravity supposedly entered the 7 to 9 extra dimensions and was weakened.â Such rubbish! (!) Finally, after presenting one concoction after another for almost an hour falsely trumped up as âscience,â the April 20, 2010 âNaked Scienceâ program (which is to be repeated!), in a pathetic attempt to try to save face and try to keep some semblance of credibility among the growing majority of those who see through their lies, concludes with the obvious but unexpected disclaimer: âThere is only one catch! There is no proof for any of this!â Right! Since then there have been no more disclaimers as they relentlessly push their Big Lies!

There is also no âtime travelâ either in a practical sense despite the phenomena of time dilation described in Einsteinâs Special Theory and gravitational time dilation described in Einsteinâs General Theory, which was actually confirmed in the Pound-Rebka experiment. And there are no âwormholes.â These fraudsters intone Einsteinâs name by falsely claiming that there are two âvalid solutionsâ to the General Theory of Relativity which contain âwormholes.â This is a Big Lie! The solutions are NOT actually valid! The first type falsely postulated, the âSchwarzchild wormhole,â which they also falsely designate with the label âEinstein-Rosen bridges (!?),â depends on a Black Hole, which has no charge and no angular momentum! But ALL Black Holes rotate and thus have angular momentum! (See above.) The second type, the so-called âtraversable wormholes,â would require the existence of âexotic (non-baryonic) matter,â which does NOT exist and which itself would violate energy conditions specified in the General Theory and would require changing space-time topology and would require regions of negative energy, which also do not actually exist in the known Universe. At best this is all mathematical imaginings of those who want to be âthe next Einstein.â Einstein himself realized that his later mathematical attempts to formulate a Grand Unified Theory were simply incorrect and were not leading in the right direction. In addition, there are no âstrings.â âString Theoryâ is a mathematical attempt to try to refute, compete with and supplant, NOT EXPLAIN, the Theory of Quantum Mechanics, the foundations of particle physics which were established during the first half of the twentieth century by Max Planck, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Albert Einstein, etc.! See below for the most likely ready solution to the Grand Unified Theory.

Recent Findings Document that the Mass of the Universe
Increases as Matter Enters a Black Hole and the Final Singularity!
This Finding Totally Refutes Infinite Expansion of the Universe
And âString Theory!â The Fact That Neutrinos Have Mass Also
Provides Further Basis For the Big Crunch!â

The false claim that there is supposedly insufficient matter in the Universe to permit the Big Crunch to take place is entirely refuted by 2 discoveries. Perhaps even more significant than the work on neutrinos discussed below is the most recent paper published on November 21, 2008 in Science. More than 99% of the visible mass of the Universe is made up of protons and neutrons. Recent calculations of the mass of the nucleus found that matter, which is composed of protons and neutrons, which are in turn are composed of quarks held together with gluons by the strong force, normally exists as 95% energy, according to the formula from Einsteinâs Special Theory of Relativity: E=mc2! This provides further confirmation for the Big Crunch. Why? The reason, not drawn as a conclusion by the authors of the paper, is that in a Black Hole and moreover in the final Black Hole, the âSingularity,â that relationship would be 100% reversed, with all matter existing in the form of mass: m=E/c2. The mass of the Universe would therefore increase according to these findings as matter enters a Black Hole as energy shifts to its mass equivalent! (Science, Vol. 322, 5905:1198-1199 and 1124-1127) Obviously this is the precise opposite of what occurs in a nuclear explosion where matter is converted entirely to energy according to the equation E=mc2. On the other hand such tidbit reports as âExcess Particles From Space may Hint at Dark Matter,â (Science, Vol. 322, 5905:1173) are only red herrings meant to titillate, to keep attention diverted away from focusing on key findings of genuine significance. There is no such thing as âdark matter.â

The discovery that neutrinos have mass also provides a further basis for the Big Crunch. This fact was first reported on July 1, 1998 by a collaboration of 120 U.S. and Japanese physicists at the Neutrino 98 meeting in Takayama, Japan and submitted to Physical Review Letters. (By Super-Kamiokande Collaboration (Y. Fukuda et al.) Phys.Rev.Lett.81:1562-1567,1998.) Neutrinos have sufficient weight to allow the Big Crunch! The experiment measured the differences in mass of the three types of neutrinos to be 0.1 eV or greater. The group reported that the simplest interpretation of the solar and atmospheric results is that the heaviest neutrino has a mass of 0.1 eV. However, they reported that since oscillations between the 3 types of neutrinos depend only on the differences in mass it is possible that the masses of all three neutrinos are fully 1 eV or greater, but that it is the mass differences which are much smaller. (They allow for the âpossibility.â How nice! They know that the majority of physicists do not simply automatically accept the interpretation which is first proffered.)

This makes the most sense and is of course suppressed for political reasons. (See below.) If the mass of the neutrino is 1 eV that would mean that neutrinos account for more mass in the Universe than all of the protons and neutrons put together easily supplying the supposed âmissing matterâ necessary for the Big Crunch. As mentioned the critical mass density required for the Big Crunch to occur is 1 x 10 to the negative 29th of a gram per cubic centimeter (approximately 5 hydrogen atoms per cubic meter), according to the calculation from the General Theory of Relativity. In addition, the fact that neutrinos have mass also provides the basis for the Grand Unified Theory which links the gravitational force described in the General Theory of Relativity with the strong and the weak forces and electromagnetism described in the Theory of Quantum Mechanics. Einstein struggled and failed to formulate this theory, but it has already been shown that at high enough energies electromagnetism and the weak force are the same force known as the electroweak force. It is theorized that if energies are increased even further and neutrinos acquire mass, which has now been fully documented, all the known forces will reduce to the same force thus providing the basis for the Grand Unified Theory. This high energy level existed only during the very early expansion of the Universe known as the Planck Epoch, which existed up to 10 to the negative 43rd seconds after the Big Bang, where the four fundamental forces â electromagnetism, weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force and gravitation â all had the same strength. After that point the energy level decreased and gravity separated from the other 3 fundamental forces and with the condensation of matter into the elementary particles (quarks, leptons, and gauge bosons) formed the so-called Standard Model of todayâs Universe. These facts, while available, are de-emphasized by the capitalist dictatorship propaganda machine with the false claim that âno oneânot even Einsteinâhas been able formulate the Grand Unified Theory,â in order to try to open the door to fraudulent âstring theory.â The 1998 report that neutrinos have mass was blipped in the media and then neutrino research was de-funded worldwide and thereafter suppressed for a period of time. Wonder why?? It is time to employ some inductive reasoning, which is in fact scientific reasoning. (Note: in order to understand the relationship of the 4 primary forces which exist in the universe: the typical field strength of the strong nuclear force is 100 times the strength of the electromagnetic force, approximately 10 x13 times as great as that of the weak nuclear force, and about 10 x38 times that of gravitation.)

The Big Crunch will arrive on schedule and another Universe will begin! Einstein once said that a theory of the Universe should be both simple and elegant. Hawking sounds like a total jerk when he states that the Big Crunch is âtoo neatâ and he prefers the âBig Rip.â Whaaa? See below. Einstein would definitely be rolling over in his grave if he were made aware of todayâs totally contrived âscienceâ especially the attempt by these fakers to re-introduce his fudge factor, the so-called âcosmological constant,â which Einstein invented/fabricated to allow for a static solution to his equations and a static Universe, which he was later forced to admit was false after the discovery of the Redshift by Edwin Hubble, which occurs when light or any type of electromagnetic radiation from distant galaxies shifts toward longer wavelengths, the less energetic part of the spectrum, due to the Doppler effect, thus indicating that those galaxies are moving away from our galaxy, the Milky Way (and vice versa) and that the Universe is (still) expanding (while it is also simultaneously contracting on another level as explained). (The Redshift in light from receding galaxies is proportional to their distance from Earth. That is Hubbleâs Law.)

The false assumption of a static Universe had prevented Einstein from predicting that the Universe was expanding. Einstein admitted that the âcosmological constantâ was his âbiggest blunder.â (In December 1930 Einstein went to Cal Tech on a visiting professorship where he worked with Edwin Hubble and reportedly also apologized for his error.) In 1998 the U.S. so-called âintelligence community,â directed their fleet of fake âcosmologistsâ and some opportunist and duped astrophysicists to try to pass off Einsteinâs fraudulent cosmological constant as the entirely fictitious and admittedly totally unexplained so-called âdark energy,â (!) AKA âquintessence, â which is supposedly responsible for a claimed âspeeding up of the rate of expansion of the Universe,â which is NOT in fact actually occurring. This rubbish, as mentioned, has even been forced into advanced textbooks in astrophysics as supposed good coin. The reason for these wholesale falsifications of astrophysics is due to the capitalistsâ desperation to establish a false basis to claim that the Universe supposedly had a single creation and that it will expand infinitely rather than collapse once again in the Big Crunch completing another cycle in an infinite number. The U.S. governmentsâ fictitious position is deliberately designed to try to allow for the existence of a âgodâ as âthe creator.â

The reason that the capitalists have formed an alliance with religion is that the capitalists depend on religion, belief in god and the supernatural as important weapons of deception directed against the masses! This also helps explain the appearance of fraudulent so-called âstring theoryâ which postulates multiple Universes, eleven dimensions, rather than the 4 dimensions which actually do measurably exist. Stephen Hawking the ego-tripping, media-hyped âcosmologistâ has also postulated supposed âwormholes from one Universe to anotherâ as well as supposed âwormholesâ from one end of our Universe to the other to permit time travel âfaster than the speed of lightâ (both of which are completely refuted by Heisenbergâs Uncertainty Principle. While Hawking retreated on being so reminded, Heisenberg is brazenly ignored by others who are professional police-agent propagandists fully committed to such Big Lies of confusion such as the New York Timesâ despicable Dennis Overbye and Nicholas Wade (Oy!), Brian Greene and the WBAI/CUNY huckster Michio Kaku, who claims to be an expert on everything allowing him to cover up inter alia the documented fact that AIDS is Biowarfare by the U.S. Government Against Blacks and Gays primarily. Assuming the mantle of false authority, Kaku also tries to confuse his trusting, credulous, duped and even fawning listeners (including CCNY students!) on innumerable other issues. Kaku appears regularly on the BBC and elsewhere to push the new âscientificâ fiction while commenting on astronomical events or physics research, the latter of which is largely controlled by the falsely labeled U.S. âintelligence community.â See below.

A Further Note on Michio Kaku:

It is a rule of statecraft that a government control and operate its own âopposition.â In the United States, the center of world capitalism-imperialism, the capitalist dictatorship controls the leadership of all supposed âleft,â âsocialistâ or âCommunistâ political groups and parties. In addition, the capitalists also control the leaderships of all conspiracy groups and single-issue groups where the solutions are always based on the number one Big Lie of capitalism, i.e. that capitalism can be reformed, which it cannot. Single-issue groups represent divide (and conquer) of various political issues/problems most of which are created or perpetuated by capitalism, none of which are properly connected and linked to the need for a Socialist Revolution in the United States. Kaku began his political career by being placed at the front of the single-issue Anti-Nuclear Movement. Kaku began his work in the âintelligence communityâ in the early 1960âs just out of high school as a mathematical whiz kid, by becoming a protégé of Edward Teller as the âfather of the Hydrogen Bombâ and the Neutron Bomb, the latter which is designed to kill people primarily while leaving propertyâprivate propertyâintact, the ultimate capitalist weapon.

A person or group is defined politically by what the person or group says and what it does not say and by what the person or group does and does not do. Unlike Stephen Hawking Kakuâs words and actions clearly identify him

By William H. Depperman (not verified) on 10 May 2010 #permalink

This is not the first time I have seen bloggers here playing the "denialism card" Claiming that a competing scientific theory is evil is, by definition evil. In science the competing theory that is closest to the truth will win out, eventually. There is no place for suggesting that the theory that competes with your favorite theory is evil and therefore should not be published. And the worry that it is spilling into the public conscience is silly. Nobody is trying to push Cold Dark Matter out of the classroom and replace it with MOND! Get over yourselves.

I agree with Ethan that trying to use a publicity campaign to prop up an untenable theory is pretty unfair. Anyone who understands the details knows where both theories stand. But in a setting where you have to leave some details out (like public outreach), a theory like MOND can seem far more plausible than it actually is. Plus, everybody loves an underdog.

I actually hadn't given this much thought until I read your post, and I'm not sure. Have to give it more thought. I did see an interesting construction in the post, though:

"...such exploration might ass to our understanding" - typo or Freudian slip?

I've been following this discussion without comment, but one part of the story has been left out: There is an element within the Creationist/Anti-science camp that makes a big deal out of rejecting General Relativity. (If you're curious, google "Conservapedia Gravity Einstein" or similar. I'm not linking to it.)

To what extent does "science by press release" about MOND provide ammunition for anti-science activists? I'm not saying that the misuse of MOND by Creationists means that MOND is evil, but it does complicate the situation. It's a bit like the way horizontal gene transfer has been hijacked by the "Darwin Was Wrong!" crowd.

I am a simple-minded guy and find my analogies close to home: I work in the pharma industry. If I presented data about how my company's drug was really good at treating disease A while not being up front about adverse effect B, there would be a public outcry. So to me, the problem isn't quite what Ethan said (presenting MOND as a viable theory), but rather the problem is presenting MOND as a viable theory without explicit acknowledgment of MOND's major failings. If the pro-MOND paper had exhibited transparency about all the evidence, presented a balanced evaluation, and still said "MOND is viable" then the reader could decide: no harm, no foul. But, as the pharma industry is slowly learning, presenting only the favorable evidence in a publication is a no-no.

These views are my own, and don't reflect the opinions of my employer. My company does not make any drug product based on MOND or dark matter, so I have no conflict of interest.

To the extent that members of the public who are not practicing astrophysicists might be paying attention to the battle between Cold Dark Matter and MOND, there may be reason to worry if that public doesn't understand the difference between models (which scientists view as worth exploring and using) and scientific theories that aim to tell a literally true story about the world. Without understanding this difference, the non-scientist might conclude that renewed interest in MOND could only mean that evidence has come to light to overturn Cold Dark Matter once and for all (or at least that MOND explains new empirical evidence at least as well as Cold Dark Matter does).

I wonder how well the participants in the threads you link to -- many of them, presumably, practicing scientists -- understand this difference. I see a lot of talk of `truth' and MOND as an `alternative' to dark matter; that kind of language makes sense when you're engaged in the search for The One True Theory, but not when you're engaged in the construction of various models, each representing its own little part of the world.

Maybe the distinction between theories and models is just a philosopher's distinction -- something too esoteric to expect practicing physicists to know about and respect. But it does seem like a switch from theory-talk to model-talk would improve the discussion of dark matter and MOND immensely.

Given that Nature cares more about being interesting than being correct, this paper is not at all surprising. Of course the constancy of central surface densities is not new: see
Freeman, K. C. 1970, ApJ, 160, 811. "On the disks of Spiral and S0 Galaxies" which states that the B central surface brightness = 21.65 +/- 0.3 mag/sq.sec. This is exactly equivalent to the constancy of the luminous matter surface density claimed by the letter to Nature.

Also typical of Nature papers is that this old work is not cited, because if you cite old work then your paper is not sufficiently NEW! and IMPROVED! and won't get published by Nature.

@Ned Wright: Here is a quote from the Nature paper you are referring to, a quote which totally contradicts your post. "Neither does this result mean that the baryonic surface density of galaxies is constant, a misconception that used to be known as Freemanâs law. Because the central surface density of baryons actually varies by about four orders of magnitudes within the range of luminosities spanned in this study, our finding implies that the larger core radii r0 of larger and more luminous galaxies compensate precisely for their larger baryonic surface densities to keep the same mean baryonic surface density within r0."

The paper is not long, it's just a matter of reading it before posting comments ;)