poniedziałek, 8 sierpnia 2011

Collectivist Big Bang

Mainstream economists say they adhere to scientific method and empiricism just like, say, physicists. That would indeed give higher credibility to their theories. On the other hand, Austrians claim scientific method is not applicable in economics as there is no repeatability here. In other words you can't build a lab where you can test if socialism works better than capitalism, all other things being equal. There are factors like culture or available natural resources that may easily render a socialist country considerably richer than capitalist one, even though the former is considerably worse, all other things being equal.

In theory it is true, but I don't think it is that bad. Actually, collectivists themselves have built quite a lab in Korea. I believe this satellite photo does prove capitalism works better than socialism. Hard core communists still disagree though. One has explained that hard working people of North Korea actually go to sleep at night rather than waste their money in capitalist whore houses...

But are physicists really the scientific ideal? Those capable to actually use scientific method indeed are. But let's look at astrophysics and Big Bang theory in particular. Everyone has heard the story, it is part of the common consensus among mainstream physicists, just like Keynesian theory is among mainstream economists. Like Austrians, astrophysicists who reject Big Bang theory face academic ostracism. You might think they are all the Bermuda Triangle like crackpots. Halton Arp, with Ph.D. by Caltech doesn't sound like one though. And look at the signatories of Cosmology Statement in 2004.

The reason is, scientific method is just not applicable in astrophysics. What we can observe is merely a snapshot of a process that lasts at least billions of years. We can't create a lab where we could repeatedly (or even once, for that matter) create artificial universes and see how they evolve. Precisely same situation as with economics. Of course, scientific method is not the only way to figure out things in this world. There is also something called reasoning. Yeah, good old logical thinking.

Unfortunatelly reasoning is not too popular in a collectivist world where science projects are financed by taxpayers. Much more important is the ability to convince politicians and the common Joe that their taxes are being properly spent. Hence mainstream economists prefer the Keynesian idiocy because politicians and taxpayers like it. But why would the common Joe prefer expanding universe to the static one? Simple, because the common Joe believes God has created our universe at some definite point in the past. Note how popular even Creationism is with its retarded idea that God has created the world 10,000 years ago! Moderate common Joes can easily accept even 13.75 billion years if only to protect their religious minds from having to grapple with a never-ending static universe.

Big Bang's acceptance by ignorant masses and virtually all religious groups explains a lot, but there's even more important factor. Here's a quote from The Static Universe (2010) by astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe:

More than 90% of cosmological agents in Big Bang Theory are supernatural, unprecedented, and invisible.


The root of the current crisis in science is that we physicists so easy and completely belive that the mathematical component in our education endows us in some mysterious way with a deeper and more profound understanding of nature. I don't believe it does. It is my firm conviction that nothing in astrophysics except quantities need be expressed in mathematics exclusively, and surely, nothing belongs solely to unapproachable elite. In conversation with Virginia Trimble, eminent astrophysicist Rocky Kolb summarised the challenges of cosmology like this:
Our goal must not be a cosmological model that just explains the observations, the ingredients of the cosmological model must be deeply rooted in fundamental physics. Dark matter, dark energy, modified gravity, mysterious new forces and particles, etc, unless part of an overarching model of nature, should not be part of a cosmological model. We may propose new ideas, but they must wither unless nourished by fundamental physics.
Whoa! Can you believe this? How can mainstream economics and astrophysics have exactly same problem on such a fundamental methodological level? Why do they keep developing complex mathematical models with fairy tale assumptions and agents? Why laws we can observe in our everyday lives are supposedly no longer applicable when we discuss the universe or national economy? Ans: public financing...