Wednesday, May 19, 2010

How Einstein Shot Physics in the Foot, Part II

Part I, II

Abstract

In Part I, I wrote that physicists do not know why the decay of subatomic particles is probabilistic. I wrote that the reason for their ignorance is that the entire physics community has been indoctrinated with Einstein's physics. It is like wearing blinders. I also accused quantum computing researchers of being quacks because they base their "science" on ignorance and the bogus concept of state superposition. Below, I defend the thesis that nature is forced to use probability because, contrary to the claims of Einstein's cheerleaders, time does not exist.

Hidden Principle

In a classical or deterministic universe, one would expect every neutron to decay at the end of a precise temporal interval. That is to say, the lifetimes of all neutrons in the universe should always be exactly the same. The principle of the conservation of energy dictates that the precise duration of the neutron's lifetime depends on the energies involved in the decay process. So why are neutrons observed to decay at various intervals? Obviously, the universe is not deterministic. But why? And how can the principle of energy conservation hold true in a non-deterministic universe? One thing is certain: some hidden principle is preventing nature from either calculating the precise timing of decay processes or from triggering the decays at their correct times as demanded by conservation laws. What could that be?

A Thorn on the Side

It turns out that the answer has been staring the physics community in the face for quite a long time but they can't see it because they are all wearing their Einstein blinders. I am talking about something called non-temporality. I have already explained elsewhere why there can be no such thing as a time dimension. The gist of it is that a physical time dimension would make motion impossible. Therefore, since nature cannot sense or measure something that does not exist, the exact timing of decay processes is effectively prohibited.

Nontemporality is a serious problem, a painful thorn on the side of modern physics that will not go away. For one, the principle of the conservation of energy will be seriously violated unless the decay of every particle occurs precisely on time. Second, it reveals that Einstein physics has gravely handicapped our understanding of nature. Physicists are stuck between a rock and a hard place, so to speak.

Probability and Nonspatiality to the Rescue

Fortunately for nature, it so happens that it is permitted to violate the conservation of energy but the violation must be corrected at the earliest opportunity. What is borrowed must eventually be paid back in full. In fact, there can be no motion or change in the universe unless there are violations that must be corrected.

The only way that nature can conserve energy in the long run, among all the neutrons in the universe, is to decay a percentage of the neutrons at random at every instant. The exact percentage is proportional to the degree of energy violation in a neutron, which is determined by the energies involved in the decay process. In order for that to happen, the number of neutrons in the universe must be finite. Why finite? Because obtaining a given percentage of an infinite number is impossible. Strike another blow against all the crackpot physicists and mathematicians who stupidly believe in infinity and teach others to do the same.

The above begs the question: why must nature pick a percentage of neutrons at random? Why not use a non-random method? The reason is that any non-random method would be biased one way or another and would lead to further energy violations and a lopsided universe.

Another question that comes to mind is, how can nature select from a group of particles that are dispersed in all the far-flung corners of the universe? The reason has to do with something I have written about recently, nonspatiality. Like time, space (distance) is an illusion of perception. The universe is one.

Conclusion

As can be seen above, the probabilistic nature of the universe is due to nontemporality. And it certainly has nothing to do with nor does it require the superposition of quantum states or the participation of an observer. Particles decay whether or not they are being observed in order to obey the conservation laws of nature. Nature's mechanism of particle decay consists of randomly selecting, at every discrete instant (yes, the universe is discrete), a number of particles for decay in order to conserve energy in the long run. Superposition is no more credible than the flat earth hypothesis. What imbecile came up with that idea anyway? That's what I would like to know.

There can only be one conclusion. If it had not been for Einstein and his followers, we would have understood the mechanism of particle decay ages ago. Einstein shot physics in the foot. Big time. And this is only the tip of the iceberg. In the weeks and months ahead, I will present other examples of Einstein's negative influence on scientific progress.

See Also:

Why Space (Distance) Is an Illusion
Why Einstein's Physics Is Crap
How To Falsify Einstein's Physics, For Dummies
Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics
Nothing Can Move in Spacetime
Physics: The Problem with Motion

How Einstein Shot Physics in the Foot, Part I

Part I, II

Abstract

The fallacies of Einstein's physics are so blatant that one is at a loss to explain why it has lasted for so long. The Einstein era has been a catastrophe for science because, for close to a century, many of our best scientific minds have been preoccupied with what amounts to a wild goose chase. In this article, I present a specific example of the kind of deep damage that can result from the scientific community's irrational infatuation with Einstein's physics.

Neutron Decay, Bullshit Fabrication and Mass Hypnosis

One of the most intriguing findings of quantum physics in the last century is the peculiar way in which subatomic particles decay. For example, consider the neutron, an unstable particle that is known to slowly decay into other particles. While it is impossible to determine exactly when an individual neutron will decay, it so happens that, if you observe a certain number of neutrons in the lab, you will notice that half will decay within approximately 886 seconds, a little less than 15 minutes. Of the remaining half, half of them with decay during the next 886-second interval, and so on. Amazingly, it does not matter how far apart the neutrons are.

What is even more amazing is that nobody in the physics community seems to know why this happens. It gets even worse. In spite of their admitted cluelessness as to why particle decay is probabilistic, quantum physicists have no qualms about coming up with enough voodoo nonsense to make your head spin. My favorite is the famous Schroedinger's cat, the one where a particle is both decayed and not-decayed at the same time (cat is both dead and alive), but only when nobody is looking. This crap is called superposition and is the basis of an entire quack "science" called Quantum Computing.

As you can see, relativists cannot claim a monopoly on bullshit production. All physicists love to engage in this favorite pastime. It is an old tradition. Still, it is a little unsettling from my perspective because I cannot figure out exactly how they've been able to get away with such blatant crackpottery. It's almost as if some great but unseen power somehow managed to mass-hypnotize an entire group of otherwise intelligent people and turned them into babbling fools, jumping up and down and foaming at the mouth.

So why is it that, in all those years since the discovery of the probabilistic nature of particle decay, nobody in the physics community has ventured an explanation? The answer is that their worldview prevents them from seeing things as they are. The near total acceptance of Einstein's physics has blinded researchers to certain aspects of nature that explain all sorts of phenomena including the probabilistic nature of particle decay. I will explain what I mean in Part II.

See Also:

Why Space (Distance) Is an Illusion
Why Einstein's Physics Is Crap
How To Falsify Einstein's Physics, For Dummies
Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics
Nothing Can Move in Spacetime
Physics: The Problem with Motion

Sunday, May 16, 2010

Why Einstein's Physics Is Crap, Part III (repost)

[My recent three-part article on the crappiness of Einstein's physics pissed off a lot of people. So I am reposting it. I will add a follow-up article to illustrate with an example how detrimental Einstein's physics has been to our understanding of nature.]

Part I, II, III

Abstract

In Part II, I said that Einstein's physics is crap because it calls for the existence of continuity, a pseudoscientific concept. I argued that continuous structures lead to an infinite regress. This is so obvious that it boggles the mind that physicists can be so stupid. In this post I explain why the incessant mantra in the relativist community that there is only relative motion and position in the universe is so easy to refute that even children will understand it.

The Crackpottery of Relativity

We have all been taught by relativists that there is no such thing as absolute motion or position or that every motion and position in the universe are relative. This unsubstantiated belief, which I will call relativity for simplicity's sake, has been around for centuries, even before the advent of Albert Einstein and his spacetime theories. It was not until early in the twentieth century, however, that relativity became in vogue. Nowadays most physicists consider the concept of absolute motion to be no more credible than the flat earth. I originally wrote three proofs to show that relativity is bogus. I have since decided that it's an overkill. One proof is enough.

Amazingly Simple Proof That Relativity Is Bogus

If all positions are relative, then we have a self-referential system in which every position is ultimately relative to itself. Since every position is relative to every other position, the system is self-referential. That's it. As simple as that. Since relativists like to talk in terms of frames of reference, you can replace 'position' above with 'frame of reference', if you wish. Relativity amounts to saying things like, "you are as tall as you are" or "this sound is as loud as itself" or "pick yourself up by your own bootstraps." Of course this is silly but this is the sort of silliness we have to believe in if we accept relativity.

The Nasty Little Truth

The nasty little truth turns out to be the exact opposite of what we have been taught to believe. The only type of motion or position in the universe is absolute. The relative is abstract and dependent on the absolute. Relativity is part of what I have been calling chicken feather voodoo physics, because if we subscribe to it, we have to believe that things happen as if by magic.

The Relativist's Objection

Relativists will immediately retort that if it cannot be measured or observed, it does not exist. Never mind for now that physics is bloated with concepts and models (time dimension, spacetime, curled up dimensions, etc...) that are impossible to test empirically.

First of all, it is a misconception that we measure the relative directly. We perceive only absolute sensations (such as photons impinging on the light detectors in the retina) and we may interpret them as meaning that object A is moving relative to body B. Sure, it's a logical and sensible interpretation but it is an indirect one nonetheless. It must be inferred.

Second, a truth that can be deduced logically is just as valid as a truth that can be experienced first hand. Is it not more beneficial to know the fundamental truth of absolute motion than it is to bury one's head in the sand and act as if it did not exist? Which is better, ignorance or knowledge? And who knows what new insights will come out of it?

Absolute Space?

Does this mean that one should believe in an absolute space or reference frame à la Newton? Absolutely not. In the physical universe there exist only particles, their properties and their interactions. Since all properties are intrinsic to particles, they are therefore absolute (independent) by virtue of being intrinsic. Besides, the absolute does not need to be relative to a reference frame. That is the definition of the relative. Absolute means independent. In an upcoming article, I will explain why space (distance) is a perceptual illusion (Edit: See Why Space (Distance Is an Illusion).

Conclusion

It should be obvious that Einstein's physics is not physics at all. It is just a bunch of equations for predicting the motion of particles. As such, like Newtonian physics before it, it explains nothing. It is no better in this regard than Ptolemaic epicycles. That would not be such a bad thing but what really turned Einstein's physics into total crap is all the bullshit claims that relativists (including Einstein) have made and continue to make on its behalf. Using a mathematical formula for the prediction of motion in order to conjure up voodoo crap like wormholes, black holes, big bangs and time travel is the ultimate form of crackpottery.

What is truly amazing about Einstein's physics is the ease with which it can be demolished. The crackpottery is blatant and in your face. So why did it last so long and why is it still a scientific theory? I can only think of two reasons. First, physicists are, for the most part, a bunch of gutless cowards and ass kissers who go along with the flow for fear of being ostracized. Second, somehow the physics community has managed to convince the average lay person into believing that he or she is too stupid to understand physics. This is not unlike the way the priests and wizards of old used to bullshit the people. I think it's time for the public to wake up and realize that it has been duped. I think it is time for the public to rise up and demand to know why their money is being spent on pseudoscientific crap. It's time to fire the crackpots and the pretenders.

Next: How Einstein Shot Physics in the Foot

See Also:

Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics
Nothing Can Move in Spacetime
Physics: The Problem with Motion
Sitting on a Mountain of Crap, Wasting Time
Why Space (Distance) Is an Illusion
Why Gravitational Waves Are Nonsense

Friday, May 14, 2010

Why Einstein's Physics Is Crap, Part II (repost)

[My recent three-part article on the crappiness of Einstein's physics pissed off a lot of people. So I am reposting it. I will add a follow-up article to illustrate with an example how detrimental Einstein's physics has been to our understanding of nature.]

Part I, II, III

Abstract

In Part I, I wrote that the requirement of a time dimension in Einstein's physics is absurd because a time dimension makes motion impossible. In this post, I will argue that the universe is necessarily discrete. Therefore, the use of continuous structures in Einstein's physics is pure crackpottery.

Why Is the Universe Discrete?

The short answer is that a continuous universe (the opposite of a discrete universe) leads to an infinite regress. Why? Because continuity implies infinite divisibility, as simple as that. The last time I said this (see Sitting on a Mountain of Crap, Wasting Time), some anonymous coward from Stanford University (you know who you are) replied that I did not know what continuity meant and that it had nothing to do with infinite divisibility. I rejected his comment for both its stupidity and its cowardice. The fact is that a continuous surface is infinitely smooth by definition. An infinitely smooth surface consists of an infinite number of infinitely small areas or mini-surfaces. It does not take a genius to conclude that this crap leads to an infinite regress. So why do physicists insist on acting as if continuity were a possibility? The answer is that most physicists are gutless ass kissers who must go along with the mainstream for fear of losing their jobs or their source of funding. Some of them will even argue with a straight face that there is nothing wrong with infinity. They are wrong, of course, since it is easy to show that infinity is illogical because it leads to the conclusion that something can be both infinitely small and infinitely big at the same time. I think the physics community may be suffering from a case of collective madness or stupidity or both.

Einstein and Continuity

It is worth noting that, not long before his death, Albert Einstein (Mr. Continuity himself) wrote to a friend, "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." (From: "Subtle is the Lord" by Abraham Pais.)

I would not say that all of modern physics is falsified by the fact that continuous structures are illogical but I would say that a huge portion of it is. For one, a discrete universe is necessarily an absolute universe because all motion is necessarily restricted to a fixed and discrete grid. Having said that, there are much simpler and irrefutable arguments against the stupid notion that only relative motion and position exist in nature. Indeed, the exact opposite is the truth. This will be the subject of my next post.

[By the way, is it any wonder that I insist that modern physics is built on a mountain of crap? The bullshit is so deep and so pervasive, it truly boggles the mind.]

See Also:

Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics
Nothing Can Move in Spacetime
Why Gravitational Waves Are Nonsense

Thursday, May 13, 2010

Why Einstein's Physics Is Crap, Part I (repost)

[My recent three-part article on the crappiness of Einstein's physics pissed off a lot of people. I think that's cool. So I am reposting it over the next three days. I will add a follow-up article to illustrate how detrimental Einstein's physics has been to our understanding of nature.]

Part I, II, III

Abstract

Relativists love to point to experiments that confirm the predictions of Einstein's special and general relativity theories as evidence for the correctness of Einstein's physics. They love to talk about the beauty and simplicity of the math but there is a lot of ugliness underneath that is kept hidden. In this article, I will argue that there are several fundamental aspects of Einstein's physics that are not just false, but are conceptual disasters that have retarded progress in physics by at least a century. I am talking about the notion of a time dimension, the belief in continuous structures and the often repeated but utterly absurd mantra that absolute motion and position do not exist. These things alone are proof that, as I wrote in my previous article, modern physics is resting on a mountain of crap.

The Physics Community Can Kiss My Ass

The idea that there is a time dimension along which we are moving in one direction or another is so stupid and so detrimental to our understanding of nature that I place it on a par with the flat earth hypothesis. I cringe every time I think about it. At the same time, as a result of a century of relativist indoctrination, it is so entrenched in the public's psyche that I sometimes despair of ever seeing it debunked in my lifetime. But I can always try.

There are a handful of people in the physics community who understand that the time dimension concept is crap but they don't make much noise about it because of the political climate surrounding relativity. Criticizing Einstein's physics is like criticizing Alan Turing in computer science. It is guaranteed to bring a quick end to one's physics career. Luckily for me, I have no such fear. The physics community does not put food on my table and even if they did, I would still tell them to kiss my ass.

Why Is There No Time Dimension?

The short answer is that a time dimension would make motion impossible because a changing time coordinate is self-referential. The slightly longer answer is that motion in time assumes a velocity in time which would have to be given as v = dt/dt, which is nonsensical. It is that simple, folks. In other words, things like spacetime trajectories, geodesics, objects moving along their world-lines in spacetime are all hogwash. Nothing moves in spacetime, period. Don't let die-hard relativists pull a wool over your eyes with bullshit non-explanations of why there is motion in spacetime. It's all crap. This simple truth reveals famous physicists like Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking (Mr. Black Hole), Michio Kaku (the crackpot on TV), Kip Thorne (Mr. Wormhole), Brian Greene (Mr. String Theory) and others for what they are, a bunch of spacetime crackpots.

The Time Dilation Crap

I am accusing relativists of being a bunch of crackpots and of teaching their crackpottery to generations of students. I am accusing them of putting an effective monkey wrench in the works that prevents the progress of science. Why? Because if there is a time dimension as they claim, there can be no motion. Since motion is observed, there can be no time dimension which means that they are false teachers. The time dimension mindset condemns researchers to chasing after red herrings and prevents them from seeing nature as it is.

Many relativists will, of course, go into an apoplectic fit of rage at my accusations but I don't care. As a rebel, I find it amusing. Some will inevitably retort that time dilation is proof that time can change or that it is a form of time travel. Don't you believe any of it. Clock slowing is not due to time dilation but to energy conservation at work. That's all. Besides, a clock does not measure the passing of time but temporal intervals. If a clock slows down, it follows that the measured intervals will be longer than the previous ones. Time dilation is not just a misnomer, it is a stupid misnomer simply because time cannot change by definition.

Coming Up

As I wrote earlier, time is not the only thing that is wrong with Einstein's physics. In Part II, I will go over the reasons that continuous structures are a pile of crap.

See Also:

Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics
Nothing Can Move in Spacetime
Why Gravitational Waves Are Nonsense

Wednesday, May 5, 2010

Sitting on a Mountain of Crap, Wasting Time (repost)

[I am so pissed at the physics community right now that I am reposting this article as a way to vent my spleen. Bear with me.]

Theater of the Absurd

I love physics but I cannot stand physicists. No other field of science has more ass kissers and more blatant, in-your-face crackpottery. Just a couple of days ago, some crackpot physicist by the name of Nikodem Poplawski announced to the world that the universe is inside a wormhole, which is inside a black hole that lies within a much larger universe full of other black holes, wormholes, crackpot physicists and other universes. I swear I am not making any of this shit up. But this crap is common fare in the physics community. And only physicists can get away with going public with such absurdities.

A Mountain of Unadulterated Bullshit

As we all know, black holes and wormholes are based on Einstein's physics. The problem is that Einstein's physics is based on the existence of continuous structures and of a time dimension, both of which are pure unmitigated crackpottery. This crap is not even wrong because, as anybody with a lick of sense should know, a time dimension makes motion impossible. Moreover, continuity (infinite divisibility) is, of course, a pile of crap on the face of it because it leads to an infinite regress by definition. But these two turd examples only scratch the surface of the Himalayan-size mountain of bullshit on which modern physics is resting. Almost everything you learned in physics school is crap, from the Star-Trek voodoo fairy tales of time travel and multiple universes to the Einsteinian idea that only relative motion and position exist in the universe. It's all pure unadulterated bovine excrement. I need lots of synonyms for 'crap', I know.

Chicken Shit Voodoo Physics

Who will rise up to deliver us from this mountain of crap? Will it be the little con artist in the wheelchair over in England? I seriously doubt it. Stephen Hawking is one of the most prolific crap makers of them all. His shit stinks to high heaven even if his band of disciples and the clueless media love it so. I feel like vomiting every time I think about Hawking's chicken shit voodoo physics.


The situation in the physics community is so bleak that, lately, I am considering buying a rubber chicken to make my point. I will write 'Physicist' on it with a black marker pen and I will hang it by the neck at the entrance of my home. Why? Because all I read about lately is worthless chicken shit voodoo physics and chicken shit voodoo physicists like Hawking and Poplawski.
Please do me a favor. Don't write to tell me that you're offended because I don't care. I am the one who should be offended because I spent countless hours of my life learning a bunch of physics crap only to spend countless more hours unlearning it. Yes, I have been sitting on this mountain of crap most of my life, wasting my precious time. And I don't like it. The physics community owes me and everybody else an apology, goddammit. But thanks to the internet and computer engineering, none of which was made possible by wormhole physics, multiverses, time travel and other such crap, I can vent my spleen to my heart's content. I can crap all day long on their wormhole, black hole, Big Bang and time travel religion. It's the rebel in me. Isn't free speech grand?

I feel better now. Thank you.

See Also:

Why Einstein's Physics Is Crap
Physics: The Problem With Motion
Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics
Nothing Can Move in Spacetime
D-Wave's Quantum Computing Crackpottery

Tuesday, May 4, 2010

How to Construct 100% Bug-Free Software (2nd repost)

[I think the message in this article on software reliability is so important to society that I will repost it about once a month until it sinks into the collective consciousness of the computer industry.]

Abstract

Software unreliability is a monumental problem. Toyota's brake pedal troubles are just the tip of the iceberg. Yet, the solution is so simple that I am almost tempted to conclude that computer scientists are incompetent. As I showed in my previous post, the usual 'no silver bullet' excuse (Brooks's excuse) for unreliable code is bogus. Contrary to Fred Brooks's claim in his famous No Silver Bullet paper, it is not necessary to enumerate every state of a program to determine its correctness. What matters is the set of conditions or temporal expectations that dictate the program's behavior. Timing is fundamental to the solution. Below, I expand on my thesis by arguing that the computer can in fact automatically discover everything that may go wrong in a complex program even if the programmer overlooks them. Please read Unreliable Software, Part I-III before continuing.

Expectations and Abnormalities

Jeff Voas, a software reliability expert and a co-founder of Cigital, once said, "it's the things that you never thought of that get you every time." Voas is not in any hurry to see a solution to the unreliability problem because he would be out of a job if that happened. Still, I agree with him that it is observably true that the human mind cannot think of everything that can go wrong with a complex software system but (and this is my claim) the computer is not so limited. It is because the computer has a certain advantage over the human brain: it can do a complete exhaustive search of what I call the expectation space of a computer program. The latter has to do with all the possible decision pathways that might occur within a program as a result of expected events.

A billion mathematicians jumping up and down and foaming at the mouth notwithstanding, software is really all about stimuli and responses, or actions and reactions. That function calculation stuff is just icing on the cake. Consider that every decision (reaction) made by a program in response to a sensed event (a stimulus) implicitly expects a pattern of sequential and/or simultaneous events to have preceded the decision. This expected temporal signature is there even if the programmer is not aware of it. During the testing phase, it is easy for a diagnostic subprogram to determine the patterns that drive decisions within the application under test. It suffices to exercise the application multiple times to determine its full expectation pattern. Once this is known, it is even more trivial for the subprogram to automatically generate abnormality sensors that activate in the event that the expectations are not met. In other words, the system can be made to think of everything even if the programmer is not thorough. Abnormality sensors can be automatically connected to an error or alarm component or to a component constructed for that purpose. The system should then be tested under simulated conditions that force the activation of every abnormality sensor in order to determine its robustness under abnormal conditions.

Learn to Relax and Love the Complexity

The above will guarantee that a program is 100% reliable within its scope. The only prerequisite to having a diagnostic subprogram like the one I described is that the software model employed must be synchronous and reactive. This insures rock-solid deterministic program behavior and timely reactions to changes, which are the main strengths of the COSA software model. The consequences of this are enormous for the safety-critical software industry. It means that software developers no longer need to worry about bugs in their programs as a result of complexity. This way, adding new functionality to a system makes it even more robust and reliable. Why? Because new functionality cannot break the system's existing expectations without triggering an alarm. They must conform to the functionality that is already in place. Expectations are like constraints and the more complex a program is, the more constraints it has. We can make our programs as complex as necessary without incurring a reliability penalty. So there is no longer any reason to not have a completely automated mass transportation or air traffic control system.

Academic Responsibility

This is the part where I step on my soapbox and start yelling. This blog is read everyday by academics from various institutions around the world and from research labs in the computer industry. I know, I have the stats. If you are a computer scientist and you fail to act on this information, then you are a gutless coward and an asshole, pardon my French. Society should and probably will hold you personally responsible for the over 40,000 preventable traffic fatalities on U.S. roads alone. You have no excuse, goddammit.

See Also:

Why the FAA's Next Generation Air Traffic Control System Will Fail
Computer Scientists Created the Parallel Programming Crisis
Parallel Computing: Why the Future Is Synchronous
Parallel Computing: Why the Future Is Reactive
How to Solve the Parallel Programming Crisis
Parallel Computing: The End of the Turing Madness
Half a Century of Crappy Computing
Why Software Is Bad and What We can Do to Fix It
Project COSA
The COSA Operating System