I think it's helpful to know about the person writing something even though the substance of what is written should be evaluated independently. Education, accomplishments, reputation and credentials all allow for a shorthand method of prejudging the work of an individual, although clearly there are limitations. "Worked in a patent office" hardly sounds like an accomplishment that would give a person credibility with either mathematicians or physicists.
In today's agenda-driven climate, understanding "where someone is coming from" can also focus attention on people who may twist the truth or borrow words without using them correctly in order to sway people who don't know that they are being manipulated. "Quantum health" is, in my opinion, a misuse of the word quantum. It does sell books however. Even in this circumstance, it is the work that should be evaluated if one is to either accept or reject it.
Most of what I will write about myself relates to education and/or accomplishments, but I will include some basic background that may be of interest to some. Well, it interests me and I hope you will bear with me as I travel down memory lane.
I was born 4 years before the launch of Sputnik 1 in a small town in deep south Texas, 10 miles from Mexico, to a teacher and a bureaucrat. Describing my mother as a "teacher" is self explanatory I suppose, but bureaucrat is a woefully inadequate word to describe my father. He was an idealist who was the director of the Social Security office that had been recently established in that part of the world. He received awards for providing equal opportunity, helping the less fortunate and participating in a lot of activities designed to make the community a better place. My father never did complete college, but my mother had a degree from the University of Alabama. My parents, and my mother in particular, made every effort possible to give me access to culture, literature, education and sports. We had the Encyclopedia Britannica, Great Books, collected organ works of J.S. Bach (by E. Power Biggs), Mozart and many other composers. I was encouraged to attend church, participate in choir (both in church and in school), play tennis and, of course, study.
My father described my mother as "the most intelligent woman I have ever known." My mother described my father as... well, nevermind.
They divorced while I was in high school.
From an early age, I was interested in science like many children of my generation. I did experiments, documented the results, dissected animals and explored the town with my best friend who later became a pathologist. Our "science" as children was purposeless, but it was nonetheless interesting to us at that age.
I did well academically in high school and was selected for the National Honor Society, but I really didn't shine until I was in college. At Pan American University (later University of Texas Pan American), I received the Chemical Rubber Company Freshman Chemistry Achievement Award. I was also the top student in every other science and math class I took from Calculus to Comparative Vertebrate Anatomy. Satisfied with my success as a Freshman, I elected to transfer to the University of Texas at Austin for the remainder of my college education.
The transfer did not go as smoothly as I had expected. My chemistry credits transferred fine, but my biology credits only transferred as "electives." For me to graduate, it was necessary for me to switch my major to chemistry with a minor in physics. My ultimate goal was to become a physician, and that was decided as much by my mother's encouragement as my respect for heritage. My grandfather on my mother's side was a physician. It was a noble profession to consider, and it met my criteria for altruism and science. Although I had not chosen chemistry as the preferred major to become a doctor, it was the only viable alternative.
I did well in chemistry, mathematics and physics, and I was elected into the Chemistry Honor Society (Phi Lambda Upsilon). I also received two scholarships to do research in Chemistry which both helped to pay for college and provided me with some insight into research methods. I found that chemistry crossed over into nuclear physics, thermodynamics, nuclear magnetic resonance and electron spin resonance. In the end, the research was more educational than productive.
Later in college, I was elected to two other honor societies; Phi Kappa Phi and Phi Beta Kappa. I graduated Summa Cum Laude and set my sights on medical school with no particular specialty in mind. I received a scholarship early on which helped pay for tuition, but I have to admit that I did much better during the academic part of medical school than the interactive part. Regardless, I graduated from medical school. I had decided in medical school that I would find a specialty that was more focused on science than counseling, cure than palliation, and accurate diagnosis than guesswork. I wanted a specialty that dealt with chemistry, physics, logic and precision. I also did not want to relinquish all of the education I had received in medical school. After a lot of soul searching, I decided that urology met my criteria and I have not been disappointed.
My residency in urology began in Dallas and ended by my joining the army and completing the rest of my training at Brook Army Medical Center in Fort Hood, Texas. My mother was in poor health, and she lived with me as her health declined. She died during my residency.
When I completed my residency, I took the board examinations provided by the American Board of Urology. My score put me into the top 1% of those taking the test that year. During my military service after residency, I spent time in El Salvador during a time of turmoil there and later spent some time in Saudi Arabia during Desert Shield and Desert Storm. I also found time to teach myself assembly language because I was too cheap and poor to buy software for my computer.
I have been generally content with practicing urology, but I have also enjoyed learning from others outside of my chosen livelihood. Discussion groups that consider big and small questions prompted a lot of reading about many scientific and philosophical subjects, and I saw no problem with questioning accepted wisdom. I learned to think critically and ask questions about evidence, underlying assumptions, and logic. Interestingly, focusing on these same questions has been very productive in the practice of urology as well.
The natural question to arise is, “Why is a urologist challenging what astrophysicists have to say about astrophysics?” Why do I find this an interesting subject, and what on Earth (and elsewhere) prompted me to dig into such a specialized field outside of my chosen profession?
It might be the height of hubris, but I address questions with an assumption that there is nothing that I am incapable of understanding. I don't claim to be an expert in any subject other than what I have been specifically trained to do, but I refuse to accept that any field of science has become so parochial and esoteric that it can't be understood except by a few select experts. If the word of experts lacks foundation, makes unsupported (and unsupportable) leaps of logic, or is based on assumptions which are unwarranted or factually incorrect, then it is everyone's duty to speak out. Consensus is very important in science, but if science is a democratic endeavor of the scientifically literate, then at least those who are capable of understanding should be free to express opinions, even if they differ from the consensus. I may joke about being relatively uneducated or ignorant, but I am far from scientifically illiterate.
With that in mind, I have been reading about discoveries in astrophysics and other areas for some time in order to answer questions for myself and others. My original goal was to simply understand what was being said and the evidence and logic behind the theories about origins – origins of the universe, life, species, culture and civilization. In the course of these studies, I came across facts that didn’t fit theories in the area of astrophysics. As I read about this in greater detail, I found explanations to be lacking. There were unanswered questions, of course, but also explanations that seemed like rationalizations: Made up explanations and ad hoc answers that failed to address the issues with the same degree of foundation as the theories themselves. Eventually, facts that were at odds with the theory became too numerous to ignore, and it seemed like every new discovery brought forth more evidence contrary to what one would expect – and the explanations became increasingly confused and confusing.
I found contradictory statements and concepts. At least, they seemed contradictory to me. The following hypothetical contradiction and explanation may give you an idea of what I was reading:
Statement 1: The cup is black.
Statement 2: The cup is white.
Explanation: The cup is a black cup that is painted white, or a white cup painted black, or it looks black, but is really white, or it's black on the inside and white on the outside, or it's white when seen in the light, but black in the dark.
The simplest statements sometimes had the most complicated explanations. Getting to the bottom of any single statement took a lot of reading, but with a set of rules guiding me I was able to come to some conclusions and then fit them together into a coherent picture. It just wasn't the picture that most astrophysicists would have painted.
Let me present a sampling of the kinds of rules I used.
1. Data takes precedence over theory. (if the theory predicts something that is not consistent with the data, believe the data).
2. The simplest, most common use of words should be the guide for understanding sentences.
3. No possibility shall be rejected a priori. (if equations allow for more than one possibility, then each possibility should be considered)
4. If more than one interpretation of data is possible, all interpretations shall be considered.
5. Don't argue with the mathematics, but consider all assumptions underlying the math.
6. Consider the simplest solution for problems first, even if a solution may seem improbable.
7. Where the data is poor, examine interpretations for possible bias.
8. Events, theoretical and observed, will not be considered unique unless there is adequate justification for such a claim.
9. Do not be afraid to disagree.
10. Build from the bottom up.
In the example above, then, the cup is however it appears when it is seen. The 2 statements are absolute and therefore irreconcilable. Descriptions of cups don't usually refer to what is underneath the exterior of the cup. If the lights are off, the data is inadequate - so turn on the lights. That which cannot be seen cannot be judged, but given the absolute nature of the claims, and assuming the truth of one of them, the cup cannot be both black and white, or one color on the outside and another on the inside, but even if it were, it is the outside of the cup that is usually being described when one says a cup is a particular color.
Show me a cup, and I will tell you what color it is.
To try and resolve discrepancies between statements, observation and theory, I began to dig deeper. What, exactly, did the theory have to say, what were the supporting pillars for the theory, and what were the assumptions underlying the theory? Did it all make sense? I began a long trek through complicated territory that was largely dominated by mathematics, and it was necessary to probe the math for assumptions hidden in the equations.
Astrophysicists are always wrong, but never in doubt. ... RP Kirshner
The mathematics of astrophysics is complicated and interdependent. The FLRW metric is a curved coordinate graph, and the Friedmann equations (the “F” in FLRW) rely on Einstein’s field equations applied to the curvature of space. In the mathematical sense, the problem lies with the value of “k”, which can be +1, 0 or -1. I believe that the universe is flat (k=0) and the density remains constant over time (because of the introduction of new matter). A value of k=0 indicates a flat universe, and, taken to one possible conclusion, the universe may be infinite (as I believe). I don’t mean to express these as unqualified assumptions. I arrived at these conclusions after careful consideration of the principles and data, and I hope that I have presented the case in an understandable and persuasive manner in the papers that accompany this brief autobiography.
I don’t expect anyone to accept what I write uncritically. In fact, I would not expect anyone to even consider what I am writing until sufficient data becomes available, and I can put a date on that: 2014. The James-Webb telescope will be launched then, and I have high hopes that it will vindicate much of what I am writing (and, in the process, frustrate everyone that has made predictions based on the Big Bang theory). I suppose it is nonetheless possible that I may be vindicated earlier than that with the accumulation of other types of data, but up to the present time, data has been subject to interpretation, and that interpretation has always been influenced by the theory.
I believe the day will come when new ideas about the universe will not only be accepted, but necessary. I may well be completely wrong about everything. In fact, given that I am in general disagreement with virtually all of academia, it is almost certain that I am wrong about a lot, but then there may be a kernel of truth buried in my musings.
Regardless, it is good to have been born in this time when I can be free to express my ideas and opinions even if they are unorthodox.
