Would Galileo pass peer review today?

The case of Galileo Galilei, who was condemned for promotion of heliocentric model is usually interpreted by propaganda of mainstream science as a manifestation of superiority of so called scientific method over reactionary stance of Holy Church up to level, every notion of Galileo in different context is considered a direct manifestation of crackpotism. But under more thorough view we can identify many common points between reactionary stance of Holy Church and approach, which proponents of mainstream science are applying against promoters of Aether concept:

1. Heliocentrism was as an ancient Greek model by the same way, like Aether concept, so called plenum. It was thrown away later mostly from ideological reasons in both cases.
   
2. Holy Church was dominant meritocratic organization in Galileo era by the same way, like mainstream science today. Quantity criterion plays a role in AWT models of sociology, because majority mostly adheres to more conservative stance, then isolated souls due at the beginning of social cycle due the mutual compensation of progressive ideas (mutations) inside of larger groups.
   
3. Mr. Galileo has used an intuitive logical arguments without formal math to support heliocentric model (i.e. the order of Venus phases, orientation of lunar craters shadows, etc.), but they were ignored by his opponents on behalf of formal models by the same way, like mainstream science ignores logical arguments of Aether proponents on behalf of formal models - just because of their lack of formal math.
4. From the above reasons, Galileo was considered a controversial - if not naive - crackpot by the rest of people of his time by the same way, like many proponents of Aether concept today.
5. Both Holy Church at Galileo era, both mainstream science today have developed a tools for fast classification of renegades and crackpots without deeper analysis of their ideas, for example Malleus maleficarum handbook or famous crackpot index.
   
6. Heliocentric model was opposed by lack of stellar parallax regarding to Earth absolute motion, Aether model was opposed by lack of reference frame motion regarding to Earth absolute motion. This connection renders Aether model controversy as a direct analogy of heliocentric model controversy, just at different space-time scale.
   
7. While lack of parallax is was quite relevant argument against heliocentrism, the lack of Aether reference frame is result of pure misunderstanding of particle environment concept, as the motion of no environment can be observed by its own waves. This point renders mainstream science even more biased against logic and confused, then the proponents of geocentricism at Galileo time.
   
8. Geocentrists have ignored real life physics, the inertial physics in particular, which excludes the motion of heavier Sun around Earth on behalf of epicycles model by the same way, like space-time oriented model of contemporary physics ignores many real life connections of inertial character of vacuum, leading to wave character of light and many other phenomena.
9. Geocentric model was Platonism based on ad-hoced numerical regression of observation and ad-hoced geometrical constructs (deferents and epicycles) without deeper understanding by the same way, like mainstream physics today, which prefers formal theories based on ad-hoced postulates, abstract geometric constructs (strings, manifolds and branes of M-theory) and overly complex formal regression of reality, which nobody can understand at intuitive level too.
   
10. Geocentric model was used for calculations of motion of planets in Galileo times, although we know by now, these observations belongs into dual, i.e. heliocentric model. Analogously, mainstream science is blindly using relativity for interpretations of many phenomena (like gravitational lensing), which belongs into dual models by their very nature. We can consider this paradox a sort of supersymmetry phenomena (a formal model of theory is serving for confirmation of T-dual theory).
11. Formal models of geocentrists were of infinitesimal practical significance at Galileo times, they served mostly for calculations of horoscopes, based on periods of solar eclipses and planetary conjunctions, which gaved them the sign of authenticity. Many scientists today are using an Aether based models on background and Newtonian physics formalism (the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian calculus in particular) to give the predictability and notion of authenticity to their theories.
12. Many astronomers earned money like astrologers by bullshitting of layman people by their calculations without deeper understanding of their subject by the same way, like promoters of many scientific theories today, the promoters of string theory in particular.
13. Background motivation of negativistic stance of promoters of geocentric model was the fear for lost of their informational monopoly for interpretation of reality by mainstream paradigm (a theology in particular). The motivation of the negativism of mainstream scientists toward Aether model is the lost of their monopoly for interpretation of reality by so called scientific method.
14. The sectarian approach of both mainstream science, both Holy Church and other closed communities is characterized by so called novitiate period, during which new adepts are brainwashed by mainstream approach, before they're allowed to continue in further education and productive work. We can face this in contemporary educational system, where the formal approach to physical lectures prevails instead of more intuitive nonformal one.
    

It's apparent, history of science just repeats in social cycles at more advanced level of human understanding. Science just switched its progressive role with Holy Church of Galileo era. AWT explains this stance switching by inertial model of nested phase transforms, which is occurring inside of every large particle system during its gradual condensation/compactification.

When such system becomes sufficiently dense, its free-thinking particles will change into correlated, self-censored continuum, i.e. fluid or waves of energy. After then the density fluctuations of this fluid will behave like new generation of particles, while the former generations of particles are behaving like space-time or like energy wave by now. It means, the matter/particles and energy/space will switch their roles gradually and this evolution can repeat many times.

It may be interesting to follow, whether proponents of Aether theory will become such a brake of further evolution of science by the same way, like Holy Church of Galileo era or the proponents of mainstream science today. Thorough understanding of AWT pluralism should prohibit the formation of bias in ideology, though. We'll see. If nothing else, dense Aether concept could define a new era of ethics, tolerance and humanity understanding.

Can Boltzmann eggs really exist?

This post is a reaction to recent article of Lubos Motl, where he disputes the illustration presented from prepared book of Sean Carroll about thermodynamical time arrow. As usually, when Lubos begins to deny something, one can be sure, he's wrong, because he is applying strictly causal stance despite the fact, here's always symmetry between causal and intuitive approach. In general, consecutive logic of formal math isn't quite robust tool for determination of time arrow symmetry, being based on time arrow asymmetry. Therefore people with strictly logical thinking have often problems with unbiased, symmetric thinking, especially when supersymmetric ideas are separated by more distant space-time perspective (for example consideration of ancient Aether models together with modern geometrodynamics). Only emergence of many isolated formal theories, which are apparently singular/inconsistent mutually can bring us the clue about general symmetry in causality and to convince the hard core of formally thinking theorists about relevance of Aether concept.


Boltzmann egg is an paraphrase of Boltzmann brain concept in somewhat more edible form, related to famous chicken or the egg problem supposedly. Despite of Motl's algebraic game with entropy it's apparent, in sufficiently dense gas such egg can be formed spontaneously in less or more distant perspective, because every chaotic system forms a nested density fluctuations of various degree of complexity. We can observe for example a formation of two levels of density fluctuations during condensation of supercritical vapor and inside of environment of ultradense stars (so called "black holes") we can expect a spontaneous formation of even more complex systems. This is because despite low probability of intelligent brain formation the number of space-time states possible increases with number of particle involved fast and many combinations are even redundant: they lead to the same working brain - just rotated, translated or scaled in space-time perspective.

The complexity and number of nested levels of density fluctuations is virtually limited just by mass/energy density and here's no arbitrary reason not to suppose, Aether is infinitely dense environement. This makes formation of eggs or even moderately clever scientists undeniable. Suppose the human brain consist of 10^{23} particles, while we have landscape of roughly 10^{23*23} = 10^520 particle configurations available (maybe this number may sound fammiliar for someone in connection to solutions number of certain strrr...ange theory). After than the probability, at least one group of 10^{23} atoms would appear here in configuration, corresponding human brain complexity is just unitary. According to Hawking, a black hole of M kg has exp(1016 M2) quantum states. A typical astrophysical black hole formed by stellar collapse weighs about 1031 kg and carries as many as states. Converselly, the number of particles configurations observable inside of Universe by conscious creatures corresponds 10^{23*23} particles, which roughly corresponds the visibility scope of observable Universe.

From AWT follows, every formation of egg will be followed by spontaneous dissolving / destruction of some other egg in less or more remote perspective in analogy to spontaneous formation and dissolving of particle fluctuations inside of dense gas or elastic fluid. Evolution combines both the formation of complex system from chaos by the same way, like formation of chaos from complex system. String theory is the best illustration of the later with its landscape of 10E+500 solutions, because it's serving like quite costly generator of random numbers...

So I'm quite convenient with Dirac's and Carroll's idea of two or more reciprocal time arrows, separated by distant space-time perspective, as we can met with this phenomena at all dimensional scales: rain droplets condense and evaporate at the same moment, by the same way like stars evaporate into radiation, while still condensing into more dense clusters of galaxies or even black holes and this process still appears like causal from more general time perspective. The same conclusion follows from brane world cosmology. Our Universe may dissolve gradually during passing through even much larger gradient (space-time brane) and the acelleration of Universe expansion even supports this model. We can say, it's evaporating like black hole. The relation of reciprocal time arrows to the dark matter and antimatter distribution was disputed recently.

It's just a question of symmetry, where we should place such such general time scale, because in AWT the time is local concept by the same way, like space and at sufficiently remote scale Universe is basically aspatial and timeless, when looking both into past (i.e. cosmic scale), both future (i.e. Planck scale) and if some local symmetry violation still exists, it's probably of anthropic origin by its very nature.