Feed My Buzz

I am now updating my scientific results onto Buzzfeed, which even has a science branch. You can see my buzz here. You may remember well that this was one of my very first proofs.


Gravity: the bad news, the good news, the NOT news

Although some anti-scientists still deny the existence of gravity, The New York Times has done a study that shows what we all already knew: gravity exists and is here to stay. (QUICK ASIDE: The bumbo who narrates the video begins by saying what we know of the universe has always come from what we could see. This is OBVIOUSLY false – not true – since we also can HEAR and TASTE the universe, not to mention FEEL it, mainly with our hands.)

Now some people have pegged me as a scientist who denies the existence of gravity. This is because I devastatingly destroyed the main explanation of gravity given in the primary schools: the “bowling ball illustration.” (Destruction here.) I have also challenged, quite successfully, MISUNDERSTANDINGS of gravity that lead people to patented absurds like what I’ve called “The Myth of 0mph.”

But please let us have not this chatter about how I have been refuted: instead the studies do what I always wanted: they show a REAL proof of gravity instead of what I have hated: dumb proofs that fail like the bowling ball illustration.

Brian Greene on How To Make Your Own Universe

According to this radio broadcast, Stephen Hawking’s butt boy, Brian Greene, claims that humans are very close to being able to “create their own Universes.” Readers of this blog shouldn’t be surprised that Greene’s (probably Salvia-induced) hallucinations have reached this new low. But fans of Greene’s might be disheartened. At least now they can know the truth.

Greene’s idea has a couple of premises. One is his mythological view of history, that the beginning of the Universe happens “over and over and over again.”

He also talks about – get this – a “cosmic bubble bath.” If you listen carefully enough, you’ll notice that he admits his theories are a “mental exercise.” Indeed. So basically Brian Greene is doing Yoga, not physics. I ask you:


Interestingly, Brian Greene also justifies the Holocaust in this broadcast. He says, “I don’t think it’s a good guide to use our senses and our intuition to determine what we think is right or wrong.” Well Brian, that’s what Hitler said. Don’t worry, you just think genocide is wrong. Really the math works out quite nicely!

Without further ado, here are Brian Greene’s instructions for how to build a Universe:

If you want a manageable way of building a Universe, what you want to be able to do is build something pretty small. But a small thing is not a Universe, so it has to expand. For something to expand, there’s got to be some outward push, there’s got to be some repulsive push. And that’s where this repulsive side of gravity come into the story. There are conditions, which according to the Laws of  general Relativity, the laws Einstein wrote down a long time ago, well tested, those laws tell us that in this context of the right energy density carried by the right substance, you will have repulsive gravity, which means, if you can build this little seed, this little nugget, it will on its own start to expand, grow, faster and faster and faster, begin tiny and sprouting into a gigantic Universe. You can calculate that the nugget that we believe perhaps gave rise to our unvierse – maybe someone created it in their aprartment in some other universe – was about roughly, mmm, ten to the minus 26 cneitmeters across, weighed about ten pounds. That’s small! You wouldn’t really think intuitively you could build the whole universe from ten pounds of stuff. … But it turns out that that’s all you need, because the repulsive side of gravity is so powerful that it actually injects energy from gravity itself into the expanding space. So from that point of view all you need is the seed and the gravity takes over and does the rest of the work.

Now Mr. Greene thinks this “seed” needs a black hole. But how to get a black hole? As always, Greene has the answer.

It turns out that black holes don’t have to be big. You give me any object, and if I squeeze it sufficiently small … it will be a tiny black hole. There’s nothing that you could give me that I couldn’t turn into a black hole by squeezing it sufficiently small.

And if you’re worried that the Universe would expand and kill everyone, don’t be.

This Universe that you create would in essence create its own space. It wouldn’t encroach on your space by expanding into your domain, your house, into your region. It would expand by creating new space, space that hadn’t existed before. So it would be off on its own, if you will, creating its own bubble universe. What you’re creating on the other side is there, and in principle you could go there.

If you feel like after that primer, you’re still not quite able to make your own Universe, don’t feel bad. Greene’s instructions are border-line incoherent, and where they are coherent, they are impossible. For example, everyone knows that creating a black hole would cause Planet Earth to be sucked into itself. And so on.

Gravity and the Myth of 0mph

It’s long been an axiom of physics that everything is constantly in motion, due to the cosmic background stretching of the Universe. At least that’s what Brian Greene tells us, and in this case I’m inclined to believe him. No matter that everything he concludes from this fact is not even false.

Yet, al a cartes Thomas Kuhn, we know that old washed up ideas die hard. This is the case with a little gem I was taught in high school physics concerning an object falling toward the Earth, after been thrown away from it. Specifically, if you throw an object straight up, gravity will cause its acceleration/speed to decrease until reaching 0mph, at which point it will begin increasing its acceleration/speed in the opposite vector. Your immediate reaction should be that the phrase “at which point” is inherently ambiguous. Yes it is, and that’s half the problem. Let’s look at a chart provided by a propaganda website.


According to this diagram, an object will be basically at rest right where you see the a= 0 m/s2. Of course, none of these wizards can tell us how long the object will be at rest. That’s because it’s impossible to tell. Why is it impossible to tell? Despite the fantasies of William Tells, the object is never at rest. We know from contemporary science that nothing is ever at rest! Well then, to paraphrase Hume, whence the cognitive dissonance? Basically people have a hard time conceptualizing an instant change in vector – it makes them nervous. As Kant described, the human mind has to impose mental structures on physical perception in order to make sense of it. Well, in the case of “in between time” (the real culprit here), the structure happens to be irrational. It’s what gives us Zeno’s Paradox – the idea that you must be able to always divide time/distance sequences. This idea turns out to be false, as proclaimed loudly and clearly by Bertrand Russell. Well, it’s also false in the case of allegedly negated vectors. There doesn’t have to be a “zero” in between positive and negative opposite vectors. Hard to rap your mind around, but take a look at this adjusted diagram, which should help (although we can’t ever fully understand physical reality, since we play too many language games).


Alright. The concept of “0mph” can now be put to rest. No matter what science fiction authors say. Very simply, when you throw up an object into the air, it never stops moving. After all, if it did stop moving, how would it ever get back to you, without something to force it back down? Few people think of the most obvious dilemmas in their allegedly scientific reasoning.

Go ahead and try this one out on your physics friends. Have them tell you how long an object supposedly stays at rest for, at the peak of the falling down curve. They won’t be able to. If pressed, they will tell you that it is an infinitely short moment. And by now my readers can’t fall prey to those shenanigans.

9/11 Conspiracy and the War on Christmas

Some people don’t like Christmas. Twice. Or Chanukah.

But some people, who are (if you can believe it) even more shameless, have decided to capitalize on Christmas by opening the old wounds of terrorism. Here is the proof. Can you believe it? As if insulting science wasn’t enough, these people now want to insult Christmas! Well, some of us wish to keep our real science, and our real holidays.

pentagon       tower-picture1

The scientific pitfalls of this 9/11 conspiracy stuff are too numerous to count. There are more holes in 9/11 conspiracies than there are in the fossil record! Many people have pointed them out, including the international press. Like Dark Matter, 9/11 conspiracy theories get much of their impetus from works of fiction. It should be no wonder, then, that the vast overwhelming majority of academics in the movement are poets and Mormons. Imagine that! Scholars with the gall to tell us that Reformed Egyptian is a language have now decided that gravity proves conspiracies! Sure, and Jesus was a Native American. Anyway, let’s quickly go through some of the main claims of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

1) Buildings don’t obey gravity when they are hit by airplanes

This claim should make you queasy right off the bat. To base a broad overarching theory on something as shaky as gravity, which no one understands, is ludicrous. And in any case, consider the false dichotomy presented by “Jonathan” and the other conspiracy theorists: it was either airplanes, or it was the government. But surely any five year old can think of other alternatives, e.g., the buildings happened to fall down that day. Stranger things have happened. Why rule out this coincidence? Furthermore, perhaps Al Quaeda itself did a controlled demolition. That none of the conspiracy theorists have thought of this is incredible! Good one guys.

2) Science proves that 9/11 was a conspiracy

None of the theorists have the authority to say this. For one thing, the movement consists mainly of middle schoolers who don’t know how to express themselves. Honestly, is Dylan Avery still in diapers?

3) Dick Cheney planned 9/11 from a bunker. We know this from documents.

Nope. Go ahead, check for yourself.
So those are three of the major claims. They are incredibly easy to refute, as you can see, since I just refuted them. This won’t even be my longest blog post. Besides, several other commentators, including psychopaths, have refuted 9/11 conspiracy. That’s embarrassing for the movement.

And natural scientist Noam Chomsky has very, very succinctly refuted the basic premises of the movement. He has done this multiple times.

Anyhow, this Christmas, don’t get distracted by the war profiteers pushing 9/11 conspiracy. Dylan Avery, Jonathan Leland, Korey Rowe, the Mormon Church, and Jason Bermes, think they can make money of the birth of Jesus. I think that there’s enough profiteering during the holiday season. We don’t need it tarnished even more by the crazies.