The Ethical Skeptic

Challenging Pseudo-Skepticism, Institutional Propaganda and Cultivated Ignorance

Exotic Nature of FRB 121102 Burst Congeries

It is clear from the data that a MIGO grouping exists inside the 93 bursts of FRB 121102, representing a consistent and distinct profile from their comparable Primary grouping burst twins in terms of frequency, signal duration and overall resulting Planck dilation – yet in stark contrast, featuring negligible impact in terms of signal arrival timing relative to c.
These fast radio bursts appear to bear the profile of the collision of two very massive objects. The smaller object moving rapidly as a percentage of the speed of light around the larger  – signalling the universe in desperation as it descends hopelessly into the dark Schwarzschild sea. Two black holes tripping the light fantastic among the stars.

Now I am not a physicist, nor an astrophysicist. I want to make that clear. I do not claim the moniker of scientist. Although I have been president of a research lab, and led it through the process of groundbreaking scientific discovery, and although I have employed or had in my reporting structure many scientists and engineers, I myself cannot claim such a title. Despite involvement inside complex decisions of science and technology on a daily basis, I have not earned the hash marks, degrees and dissertation necessary in passing industry qualification as a scientist.1 This was purposeful. I am a business man, economist, analyst, designer, technologist, strategist, leader and advocate for those who suffer at the hands of poorly developed science. Therefore I am technically only a skeptic. I critique the philosophy, structure and meta-application of science – flagging the circumstance wherein its deployment serves to negatively impact its stakeholders. I write technical reports and specifications for the employment of technology, and determine for its stakeholders, how the technology or science involved will serve to impact their lives. Now this is a profession inside which I am enormously qualified and maintain an arduous decades-long track record of qualification and success.

But during my youth I was a scientist at heart. I devoured every Carl Sagan, Stephen Jay Gould and Isaac Asimov non-fiction book which my small town library was able to get. In my free time I studied the sky with my Meade telescope and dabbled in my Gilbert Chemcraft junior chemistry lab. I burned, dissolved and emergency-buried a lot of volatile stuff. A freshly bottom-lit (not top-lit) Bunsen Burner will fire a penny through a ceiling tile at 1/4 the muzzle velocity of a .22 caliber standard load round. Many exciting things can be done with potassium. After my instructors realized that I was not stupid, rather just bored, and saw that my science aptitude scores were at a college level, while in the 5th Grade, I was advanced two years early through my science and math curricula; earning a top award for a science paper my senior year of high school. I entered a nationally ranked top-3 nuclear science undergraduate program, but was swayed in my career when the Dean of my school awarded me an A+++ on my paper on Ethics of Technology and Science, the highest grade he had ever given.  It was then that I knew there was more to science than simply donning a lab coat, initiating exoentropy and taking the measurements. The question was not one of how to do science, but what one could do with it. Or should do with it. For benefit or for harm, and how to discern the magnitude and difference.

As a skeptic, never rest on your laurels and self-congratulate over your callow wielding of doubt.
As a skeptic, you must go and actually look. You must think incrementally, eschew pat answers, ask probative questions and then risk hard work.
Anything short of this is worse than the process of never having doubted to begin with.

Throughout the time since I have maintained a fascination with astrophysics. I have read Kip S. Thorne’s, Black Holes & Time Warps, probably 3 to 8 times. I am a regular consuming fan of Deutsch, Tippler, Wolfram, and Greene.  Wolfram’s A New Kind of Science and Thorne’s Black Holes & Time Warps reside in my library on the quick-reference shelf along with the Webster’s Dictionary, Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Science, Newton’s The Principia, Lewin’s Genes IX, The Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, Whitman’s Leaves of Grass and the New American Standard Bible. My thirst for clues which nature offers us through the wisdom of astrophysics, has never been slaked.

Fast Radio Burst 121102

So when science first started detecting Fast Radio Bursts (the subtle grey curved line inside the graphic to the right), this was a subject which fascinated me no end. Not in the sense that an extraterrestrial civilization might be the source of such quirky electromagnetic chirps (so far they bear a number of ‘natural’ profiles to be sure), but rather a fascination toward the clues which the phenomenon could serve to offer regarding the nature and structure of our cosmos. As a quick summary, a Fast Radio Burst is a very short (20 to 100 milliseconds ‘long’ in dispersion arc and .75 to 3.5 millisecond barycentric duration pulse) and narrow band (3 GigaHertz ‘tall’) flash of electromagnetic C-Band microwave energy. It is akin to a bird chirping a short and very precise musical note, or the emanation a bat might make in order to echo-locate. The key interesting feature of such a short duration burst of electromagnetic energy resides in its characteristic ‘dispersion’. Dispersion is the difference between the attenuation of the higher frequencies of EM energy in the signal and that of its lower frequencies. In our cosmos, lower frequency radiation is attenuated more readily and arrives at its destination somewhat after the higher frequencies inside the same exact signal. The lower frequencies lose the race against the higher ones. In the graphic to the right, one can observe that the higher frequencies at the top of the graph, say in the 7.5 GHz range, arrive first (motion of the EM signal is right to left) before do the lower frequencies inside the single FRB burst – despite both frequency sets having originated at the same exact instant, far far away. The magnitude of this dispersion allows an astrophysicist to estimate how far that signal has traveled through space-time (or gravity), through measuring the separation between the arrival of the higher and lower frequencies inside a fast radio burst.2

What results is an arc, characteristic of a warped electromagnetic signal. On a graph indexing an ordinate of signal frequency (GHz) against an abscissa of time (seconds), the result is an exponential relationship.  Inside the graphic immediately below in red field background, one can observe (again, pretend that the EM signal is moving from right to left) the higher 7.8 GHz EM C-band microwave radiation (at the top of the figure) to arrive at the receiver on Earth, sooner than do the 5.4 GHz frequencies (at the bottom of the figure), and by a simple square in acceleration of effect on the lower frequencies toward the bottom of the graph (which is why the signal is curved in its dispersion differential). The rate of dispersion shown in the graphics above and below equate to around 2.5 billion light years of travel through space-time and/or gravitational fields. The arc immediately below in particular was extracted from the FRB 121102 fusillade; marked as FRB 121102-1.

Problem Statement

But there were two peculiarities regarding FRB 121102 which piqued my interest above and beyond the media generated discourse around the other several dozen individual FRB’s we have found scattered around the cosmos. First, in contrast with the other FRB’s we have detected, this FRB burst comprised a fusillade of 93 individual signals which arrived in quick succession (seconds to hours apart). Second, the signals arrived in an array of differing dispersion and frequency profiles. Of course, obtaining a repeating FRB source was unprecedented to begin with and of key interest in its own right; however, the fact that all of FRB 121102’s dispersion and frequency profiles did not match, was a mystery of even greater proportion. You see, if the signals all emanated from the same source; and given their rapid fire and common location in another dwarf galaxy 2.5 billion light years away, they should be assumed to originate from a common source, then all of the signals should bear the same frequency and dispersion profiles (within a given measurement error precision and accuracy). This was not the case with the FRB 121102 signal burst group.

Problem

FRB 121102 burst signals featured significantly varying frequency and dispersion profiles, despite having emanated from the same source and having traversed the same exact space-time conditions, all at the same time.

So I set about the task of examining this odd stream of signals, in order to hypothesize a mechanism which potentially could impart such a characteristic pattern. The study from which I drew my data was a paper submitted on 9 Sep 2018 by Zhang, et. al., entitled Fast Radio Burst 121102 Pulse Detection and Periodicity: A Machine Learning Approach.3 The two graphics to the right (labeled 1* and 1) were extracted from the study, representing burst number 1, which was the signature burst for the group. It bore the strongest flux amplitude, as well as the signature duration of 1.57 milliseconds barycentric width and dispersion of .21 ∂v/∂t.  The study was a report on the detection of 93 total pulses “from the repeating fast radio burst FRB 121102 in Breakthrough Listen C-band (4-8 GHz) observations at the Green Bank Telescope. The pulses [last 72 of them] were found with a convolutional neural network in data taken on August 26, 2017, where 21 bursts had been previously detected.”4

The study did not offer up its database of signals, so I downloaded the imagery for each of the 93 signals and conducted measures of each signal’s frequency band and time dilation directly from the signal itself. I assembled a database (see bottom of article) of start time, end time, time measure, graph time, pulse width, signal to noise, v-peak, v-min, ∂v in GHz, ∂t in seconds, and then finally the dispersion measure ∂v/∂t (= ∂GHz/∂ms), signal flux in milli-Janskys and barycentric pulse width. I then conducted analytics and intelligence development upon the array of data which resulted. What followed stands not as a dilettante ‘proof’, rather an observation-intelligence-necessity petition for plurality or assistance in hypothesis mechanism development (Steps 1 thru 5 of the Scientific Method).

Observation Reduction and Methodology

Discrete Integrity of Signal

Intelligence 1 – The signals exhibited discrete frequency banding with a v-max beginning at 7.8 GHz and ranging all the way to 5.0 GHz.
Intelligence 2 – The single trend in relationship of v-max to v-min suggests with high confidence that the original signal was emitted from a single source.
Intelligence 3 – A single influencing factor served to additionally alter v-max and v-min by lowering them both in about half the signals, but not disturbing this 1:1 relationship.
Intelligence 4 – The source of the v-max cascading and mimicked dispersion of the .32 ∂v/∂t group, appears to suggest the intervention of a discrete, powerful and singular gravitational influence nearby the source of the signal – either through direct Schwarzschild time dilation or by inducing an orbit in the emission body featuring an exotically large speed.

The bursts exhibited direct proportional and 1:1 consistency in the level of frequency relationship between each v-max and v-min measure, confirming that the signal was of a discrete-banding nature and not a broad-band radio burst (such as might be emitted by a quasar). This is not an occurrence often seen in nature and I personally cannot fathom a physical circumstance, even under the high gravity or energy physics of a black hole event horizon, in which such a discrete duration (1 ms) and frequency band (2.5 GHz) of energy could be generated by a natural phenomenon. But neither am I the fount of all knowledge. This, while odd, is certainly not enough to start adding more exotic explanations into the fray just yet (Ockham’s Razor plurality). It merely suggests there is an area of exotic physics in which we have some discoveries yet to make. It inductively weakens our confidence in our standing related provisional explanations.

In the graphic to the right, the v-max index is along the abscissa and the v-min measurement is along the ordinate axis (y-axis). The 45 degree trend line suggests a direct and 1 to 1 relationship between the two, indicating a fixed interval from top frequency to bottom frequency. The dispersion of the scatter plot down and to the right most likely comprises imprecision in measurement along with the degradation of the signal to noise ratio as many of the pulses trended into lower frequencies – thereby making the lower end (most attenuated) of the pulse much harder to measure as compared to the higher end. Nonetheless, a terminal high and low end frequency was able to be established as a characteristic profile, confirmed by the group’s signature signal #1 (121102-1 was the strongest and most coherent of the fusillade) = 7.8 – 5.3 GHz.

Of added note is the fact that this one-to-one simple relationship between the v-max and v-min extremes indicates strongly that all 93 signals were emitted by the same source. This was corroborated later in examining the arrival time curve, which appears to exhibit a consistent one-factor logarithmic-formulaic pattern. In addition, lower and lower v-max frequencies were detected in the grouping, which appeared to either be a characteristic of the emitting source, or some kind of influencing or intervening source of gravity. This influence is substantiated by the linear trend discipline which exists, even in the case where v-max is altered significantly (the lower left end of the graph). This added dispersion or red shift, could be the results of a gravitational body or a high speed orbit. Both of these will be evaluate herein. Given that the attenuation patterns of both the lower and higher v-max emissions were similar – this suggests that the influencing factor was not a gas cloud – which would have caused enormous chaos in both the v-max and v-min patterns, causing a more circular scatter plot in the above graphic. In addition, a gas/lone plasma cloud could not, and exclusively would not have been able to serve to introduce this observed dispersion distortion, one mimicking in the .32 ∂v/∂t group (below) of signals an added 1.5 billion light years of travel for the lower v-max signals (when we know they were emitted at the same time from the same source). This scatter plot and dispersion profile is in no way compatible with the intervention of a gas cloud, or large bank of stars for that matter. The source of the v-max cascading and mimicked dispersion of the .32 ∂v/∂t group, appears to suggest the intervention of a discrete, powerful and singular gravitational influence nearby the source of the signal – a gravitational body which is directly dilating the EM emission, or is causing an orbiting body emitting the bursts to move alternately toward and away from us as the observer.

Natural Log Decay Timing Profile and Gapping

Intelligence 5 – The arrival timing of each burst fell cleanly into a formulaic pattern of a y = ln x natural logarithmic basis with no characteristic Shapiro time delay observed. This corroborates the linear v-max/v-min relationship above, and supports the hypothesis that the signals all emanated from a single, natural source. As well the peak signal flux amplitudes decayed by a logarithmic function, however sustained a base rate which persisted until the signal stopped.
Intelligence 6 – The single source which imbued the characteristic v-max cascading and mimicked dispersion of the .32 ∂v/∂t group, did not appreciably alter the speed of the signals themselves relative to space-time or c. So each of those data points was kept as original signal data.

The bursts appeared to take a confirmatory time of arrival (TOA in the chart at the bottom), arrival distribution conforming to a natural logarithm curve y = ln x. A classic textbook natural log curve is overlain across the time of arrival plot for the 93 burst group, in purple in the chart to the right. The logarithm trend line is placed only to highlight the circumstance that this burst progression indeed follows a natural log distribution in time. The natural logarithm of a number is its logarithm to the base of the mathematical constant e, where e is the irrational constant 2.7182819… ad infinitum. This does not mean that aliens have sent us the precise constant e as a message, rather this pattern occurs in a number of systems observed in nature, especially where the decay rate of energy is involved. For instance say, the decay of a radioactive isotope. This is a very large hint here that the source of fast radio bursts is a natural source.

In addition, the conformance discipline of this curve (with some exceptions to be examined below) hint that all the observations, despite their degraded signal to noise ratio in many cases, are valid observations of confirmed signal. None should be ‘tossed out’ as discrete entities. However this does not preclude our ability to group and profile the burst arrivals. This conclusion was essential to this analysis.

Of primary importance however, is the inference which can be drawn from this curve, in that the single source which imbued the characteristic v-max cascading and mimicked dispersion of the .32 ∂v/∂t group, did not appreciably alter the speed of the signals themselves relative to space-time nor c. This is addressed again later in Intelligence 10 inside this article. It is an important observation – as one must grapple in this circumstance with the power/energy of an intervening body which can cause 1.5 billion light years worth of pseudo-dispersion in an electromagnetic wave, yet not alter its speed in the least.

Apparent Burst Cluster Scatter Plot Groupings

Intelligence 7 – The bust fusillade bore more diversity in dispersion than anticipated, but appeared to exhibit a Poisson μ at .21 ∂v/∂t.

The peak of dispersion occurrence rate versus the signal to noise ratio of the 93 measures, resided at a dispersion of .21 ∂v/∂t. This measure was both the most commonly featured dispersion measure in the group, and as well was the dispersion measure for the strongest signal to noise ratio signals of the group. For instance FRB121102-1 cited earlier in this article, featured a .21 ∂v/∂t as well as a very high signal to noise ratio. It was the first signal detected and stands as the signature burst of the group. The cluster of 93 signals skewed to longer dispersion tails upon an apparent Poisson distribution, where the accuracy of measurement of the signals themselves imparted a +/- 10% measurement tolerance. Two suppositions came from this data: 1. That lower dispersion measures, which were fewer in number, were the result of antenna detection errors primarily, and 2. That a characteristic dispersion for the entire group, given a single common source and instance of signal, could be assigned at .21 ∂v/∂t.

Suggested Intervention of a MIGO Body

Intelligence 8 – Dispersion measures were chaotic, however exhibited a two-cluster profiling around .21 and .32 ∂v/∂t. Variation which was not stochastic in origin and exhibited bilateral symmetry between the two groups, as if bearing the gradient dynamics of an orbit pathway – approaching and regressing cyclically.

There appeared inside the data, a clustering of two distinct dispersion profiles, which exceeded significantly both the database detection sensitivity and the measurement error tolerance. These profiles clustered around .21 ∂v/∂t and .32 ∂v/∂t. The bursts which composed the .32 ∂v/∂t grouping tended to

• be slightly delayed in arrival time (see graph to right),
• be weaker in signal to noise ratio (.34 versus .22), and
• feature greater Poisson degrees of freedom as compared to, the .21 ∂v/∂t group.

This second grouping of bursts appeared to me to be a kind of weakened version of the bursts (or maybe an echo?). But given the y = ln x conformance – this is not likely), or perhaps delayed-warped-duplicate of what I call the ‘Primary Cluster’ bursts (in blue), perhaps the type of bent EM signal whose trajectory was impacted by an intervening large gravitational mass; perhaps a black hole. Very much like a refracted lensing which occurs in visual astronomy, this EM light appeared to be a replications of the Primary Cluster signals – red shifted – a separate vector of EM energy which was diverted from its original path by a Massive Intervening Gravitational Object (MIGO), and now toward the Earth, to join alongside their Primary and direct-path signal twins (orange versus their blue twins in the graphic to the right). It is not that each signal arrived at Earth twice – rather, there were two types of signal in general – Primary and MIGO. These MIGO bursts are flagged by orange color in the graphic to the right. They feature a consistent enough pattern to ascribe some characteristic measures to the group as a whole, which can be contrasted with the Primary Cluster equivalents. In this analysis we examine both the constructs the the MIGO object is directly Schwarzschild time dilating the MIGO signal group – OR – alternately is causing a high speed orbit in a second body, which would explain both the Primary and MIGO clusters as well.

However, even at this early point in our study, the bilateral symmetry and even balance and consistency between the two burst classes hints strongly at an orbiting body approaching and regressing, and exhibiting the incumbent Doppler effect differential.

FRB Source Orbiting the MIGO?

Intelligence 9 – MIGO Cluster bursts featured consistent differentiation from the Primary Cluster bursts – and both appear to alternate in contiguous groupings as if produced as a signature of an body in orbit around another.
Intelligence 10 – The Planck based red shift and time-width displacement (Schwarzschild time dilation in both observations) far exceeded the displacement of the twin signals in relative elapsed time of arrival (Shapiro time delay, a measure which was almost negligible) – This clue is critical in deducing a solution to the source of the signal, at the end of this article.

So I took a representative – not average, rather good signal to noise and parametrizing measured – signal from both the MIGO and Primary burst cluster groups and developed a consistent profile for each EM signal group, which removed the effect of antenna detection and measurement errors. Those two consistent EM burst profiles are depicted in the graphic to the right. The blue curve represents the dispersion, in the same format as FRB 121102-1 is depicted above, characteristic of the Primary Cluster of bursts. The orange curve represents the dispersion characteristic of the MIGO Cluster of bursts. It is clear from the data that the MIGO Cluster of bursts represent a consistent and distinct profile from the Primary Cluster burst group in terms of the following:

  • reduced v-peak from v 7.8 to 6.5 GHz
  • reduced v-min from 5.3 GHz to 4.8 GHz
  • reduce ∂v from 2.5 GHz-band to 1.7 GHz-band
  • increased signal duration ∂t from 60 milliseconds to 80 milliseconds
  • imbued Planck dilation red shift contrast on the order of .32 .21 ∂v/∂t
  • the relative arrival time ΔT differential was on the order of

and

Please note that it is possible that the MIGO is part of the formula as to how a fast radio burst is generated in the first place. In other words, two black holes.

The MIGO Exotic Profile – Two Massive Object Dynamics

Intelligence 11 – There exist 16 discrete gaps and 17 ‘orbits’ in the decay rate of the FRB source as compared to a y = ln x analog. These appear to be introduced by the influence of a massive external body to the source of the bursts.
Intelligence 12 – The burst .32 and .21 ∂v/∂t groups and burst trends appear to feature a positional relationship with these intervals of minor occulting, as if a lensing or possibly rotational effect was being imbued by an orbiting mass. Both will be examined.

In the analysis to the right, we examine further then a magnified view of the y = ln x arrival timing curve (arrivals 1 – 48) identified in Intelligence 5 above. Of significance in the time series of this set of early arrivals are the presences of static gaps in progression – flatter periods in the chart to the right, of which there are 7 shown here, and 16 or so of them in the overall 93 burst data set. The first four gaps are highlighted by a horizontal orange bar in the chart. The gaps of arrivals are in seconds of arrival observation. The strongest signals in the .21 ∂v/∂t group tend to appear just before the first occulting. However this relationship decays after burst 25 or so. Of interest is to note that one quadruple/triplicate burst occurred right at the inception of occulting number 3; an occulting of which then lasted for 121 seconds. These decay gaps tended to trend actual burst timing as distended slightly versus that of a true natural logarithmic y = ln x curve (in purple above and in Intelligences 13 thru 16 below). This flat-decay-gapping is highlighted by a 57 minute gap in the arrivals between bursts 82 and 83 (denoted in orange in both graphic above – also see TOA in chart at the bottom of this article).

It is also of interest to compare that exception to the natural logarithmic discipline of the purple curve above occurs only as a result of, and commensurate with each occulting – as if the occulting member is actually momentarily delaying the decay of the emanation source (an orbit artifact in this case?) in some fashion during the short perisingular (nee perigee) pass – thereafter the decay source briefly resuming its natural decay rate after a 119 to 198 second break early – and much longer breaks as the process moved on. I am establishing mechanism here, projecting that during perisingular pass between two objects, a state of connection is established such that the bursts are quenched in some fashion. Of course once the merge is complete, the bursts would then be quenched in finality.

Given that it is doubtful that during aposingular orbit progression (or possibly the entire early orbit even to the intersection of event horizons), that the Roche limit is surpassed for these two bodies – it is possible that some artifact is created between them, which only exists at a given/formulaic proportion of the Roche limit, distance and the two masses.

Examine if you will, the first three cycles of the orbiting body in the chart above, which occur over about 1100 seconds. If we use the assumption of a 1,000,000 mile average elliptical orbit radius, this equates to a speed of 17,100 miles per second, or 9.2% of the speed of light. Some kind of relativistic energy shedding may be at play in genesis of these bursts.

This same occult influence repeating can be observed in the larger scale time of arrival curve below (Intelligence 13 thru 16); wherein the 57 minute delay induced a complete cessation of the decay of the emanating source of the later group of FRB signals. This is highly exotic and suggests both a rapid orbit as well as an elliptic eccentricity inside such an orbit, culminating in a final merge of the two bodies.

Orbital Decay and Merge Dynamics

Intelligence 13 – The burst times of arrival appear to be occulted on a semi-regular basis (16 times).
Intelligence 14 – The only exception to the natural logarithmic discipline of this curve occurs with each occulting – as if the occulting member is actually momentarily delaying the natural log decay of the emanation source in some fashion.
Intelligence 15 – Because of the high speed and elliptical nature of the suggested object orbits, this set of curve metrics suggests that both the emanation source, as well as the intervening gravitational source, are massive large gravitational bodies.
Intelligence 16 – The decay gapping appears to exhibit an early elliptical orbit profile, and then progress steadily into a faster and faster orbit, then mass merge profile, over the period of 5 to 7 hours. It appears as if the emanation source itself is the smaller of the two bodies.

As we saw in Intelligences 11 and 12 above, buried within this curve are several interventions in the rate of decay in the arrival timing, highlighted by the 16 horizontal orange markings in the chart to the right. One can observe that the actual decay took longer than its natural logarithm analog in purple. This suggests an occulting by a larger body of some type repeatedly moving in front of the burst source and then possibly merging with it briefly during the cessations (actually as you will notice they are ‘suspensions in decay’ technically) in burst activity, and then finally permanently at the end of the curve.

The distention of the continued logarithmic curve thereafter in time, suggests a body which is so close to the source that it is altering the very decay physics of the emanation source itself, such as in the case of the consumption of maybe a neutron star or denser by a black hole. However, this is very preliminary and only mildly inductive. The occurrence of the 57 minute break runs in contrast with the breaks/gaps in decay which occur earlier in the burst decay process. These appeared to be more orbit related – however as the orbit of the smaller FRB source body decays over time, you can see the gapping getting more and more frequent until the burst 82 (57 minute) merge event. Thereafter, bursts became less and less common until there are none at all. What is depicted inside the graphic to the right in black are three concept orbit states which relate to the various burst signatures along the 5 hour decay log.

This suggests that a repeating FRB is only therefore a ‘multiple FRB’; not sustainable in reality, and not ‘repeating’ in the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) sense. My projection is that we will hear no more noise from FRB 121102 in the future.

The occultings suggested by the data are complex, but not so complex as to be outside the possible range of Relativistic or even classic orbital dynamics. The relatively level state of the decay process during the gaps (flat orange lines in the graph to the right) could stem from a contribution of exotic material mass between the MIGO and emanating body, or as well be simply the result of a delay in the arrival of those bursts by their having to be refracted around the occulting MIGO body as it passes in front of the emanation source. It is tempting to jump to the conclusion that the latter explanation here fits the data well, as indeed it appears to do inside bursts 1 – 48. However, as seen in the curve above, a later 57 minute gap in burst activity results in a depression of the decay rate for a substantial period of time, lending more to the mass contribution explanation than the occult-refractory explanation. Overall, a disintegrating orbit scenario, with Doppler effect constituting the main mechanism underlying the differential red shift in the MIGO group, is a superior explanation.

The Implications of This Observation Set

Objective Implication

The exotic profiling of the MIGO cluster along with the arrival gapping in energetic decay appears to have been generated by the orbit of the FRB 121102 emission source around a massive intervening gravitational object. The MIGO suggested above would have had to be very close to the radio burst emission point in space and very tight along the line of sight with Earth during occultations. This because the ΔT(2) to ΔT(1) differential in the above equation proved to be very slight to nothing on the epochal scale of time involved. The images to the right and below are speculative, but portray a highly eccentric orbit dynamic between two black holes which have just initiated collision. Such a collision would be necessary to account for the high speed orbital occulting displayed in the Intelligence 13 – 16 graphic.

This inductively inferred scenario would account for the three critical path intelligence components:

  1.  Erratic occult gapping of bursts
  2.  Added Planck dilation of .32 ∂v/∂t refracted bursts
  3.  The monumental delay in the natural decay of the emanation source during occult gaps.

But it would not account for the lack of a Shapiro time delay observation (Intelligence 5). This is deductive in its critical path inference.

The burst dynamics, as well as the origin of FRB’s themselves, could be the result of the collision of two black holes – wherein a special condition exists which creates in the smaller (orbiting body) of the two, or in an intermediate exotic plasma or yet unidentified space-time condition, a brilliant 1 millisecond burst of narrow-band decay energy (say the momentary collapse or appearance of a neutron body releasing its quark binding force). In the case of FRB 121102, that special condition existed long enough to exhibit a natural energy decay profile, momentarily and erratically interrupted by the intervention of the MIGO black hole (most likely an occulting). I have developed a concept illustration above in an attempt to depict this dance between two black holes.

It is very possible that both scenarios are occurring – wherein there is an alternation between exotic elliptical gapping and mass merges at play. In fact, as you observe the gapping inside the arrival profile versus a pure logarithmic decay curve, you will notice increasingly large gaps in the decay time, which shift from Doppler red/blue shift dynamics and into mass contribution dynamics in their nature.

This suggests an artifact of the elliptical orbital collision and then mass merging of two gigantic massive bodies over a 5 – 7 hour period, as the genesis of Fast Radio Burst 121102.

Regardless, what this intelligence also suggests is that both the emanation source AND the intervening body are BOTH of a massive nature. And the ensuing dance energy is stimulating repeated brief 1 ms eruptions of electromagnetic energy, sparkling like a strobe in an erstwhile disco of black holes tripping the light fantastic.

Deductive Inference: We Found Schwarzschild but Not Shapiro – And You Need Both

Finally, a deductive inference regarding the FRB emission structure can be discerned by examining the implications of the General Theory of Relativity on this intelligence set – the problem with Intelligence 10 above is that it violates my understanding of electromagnetic energy propagation and Planck red shift. The Planck dilation of the MIGO .32 ∂v/∂t bursts featured an enormous impact in terms of such dilation – 2.5 GHz and 20 milliseconds, roughly equal in magnitude to each other, resulting in an overall .11 ∂v/∂t additional Planck dilation. This equates to an added 1.5 billion years of light travel imbued into only a subset (half?) of these signals. Signals which we know emanated from the same source at the same time. However the delay in time of arrival was essentially negligible – on the order of an estimated 120 seconds at most, over a base of 2.5 billion years (1/(7.9 x 10^16)). This is essentially a zero impact on the speed of this signal’s propagation versus the speed of light, c. In a Newtonian sense, the negligible delay or decay gaps might be explainable simply by the longer physical path that particular light vector took relative to a line of sight path to Earth. The problem is that this negligible difference violates the Shapiro time delay which should have been embedded into the .32 ∂v/∂t group of bursts, according to the formula5

A case where M is rather large. The conflict resides in reconciling the rather null presence of any observed Shapiro time delay, with the observed monumental effect of the ostensible Schwarzschild time dilation metric in the .32 ∂v/∂t group, which is governed by the formula6

M is exceedingly large in both cases. So what gives?

There should have been both a Shapiro time delay and a Schwarzschild time dilation inside the signals – and we apparently only got one of them at best. Therefore the lensing explanation for the MIGO Cluster group fails. We are left with a Relativistic Doppler red/blue shift as the remaining mechanism.

High Speed Orbital Doppler Red/Blue Shift Differential – We Got Bursts Coming and Going

Another possibility resides however, and potentially resolves this paradox, in that both signals possibly already do reflect the Shapiro time delay, and there is in actuality also no differential Schwarzschild time dilation as this factor is also equal in both the Primary and MIGO burst groups; however, the MIGO group red shifted profile was simply generated by a relativistic Doppler shift derived from the speed of the source away from us, relative to the speed of light.  In other words the source was alternating in its motion toward and away from Earth as it emitted this series of bursts.  This would be according to the formula7

Where v would be the velocity of the emitting body away from Earth during the red shifted emissions affecting both t – waveduration and f – wavefrequency. To the credit of this idea, the emissions did come in profile contiguous groups early in the series (Intelligence 12), as this construct might suggest. As well, the two sets of burst groupings exhibited bilateral symmetry around their common average. This is what one would expect in orbit cycle Doppler dynamics. But, as well, the emitting body would have had to be traveling around its gravitational host (which would be required in this case as well to allow for alterations between the Primary and MIGO blue/red shift profiles) at a significant fraction of the speed of light. So let’s examine this alternative then. Relatively, we observed 17 orbits (16 occultations) in about 5 hours. At a radius of 1 million miles between the black holes, this would represent an orbital velocity given by

or 5934 miles per second. Where C is the number of cycles undergone 17, and P is the duration of the merge. That equates to a v of 3.2% of the speed of light on average for the 17 cycles. Enough to do the job on the Hubble (λ) differential required, especially given that we must divide the .11 ∂v/∂t by a factor of two, since we are receding in one burst group and approaching in the other. Principally, once noise and error are removed, we arguably are left with only these two distinct red and blue shifted burst profiles.

So it is very possible to likely that the orbital velocity of the smaller black hole (the emission source) orbiting at ~1 to 4% of the speed of light, around a larger black hole, could explain the differential red shift between the Primary and MIGO fast radio burst groups, while at the same time allowing the FRB bursts to arrive in a clean natural log time distribution.

What remains to be explained is the mechanism inside the smaller black hole (or between it and the MIGO body) which allows for a natural logarithmic decaying multiple set of 2.5 GHz narrow band and discrete 1 ms time truncated electromagnetic frequency emissions.

It is possible, that the very act of accelerating to a fraction of the speed of light, on the part of a smaller black hole approaching a larger one, serves to produce disruptions in relativistic physics such that discrete quanta of spacetime are ejected from the smaller black hole at the signature frequency of that hole. In a direct collision, this only happens once. In an indirect collision, we now know it can happen 93 times.

Mystery Solved?

Finally, an intervening plasma or gas cloud could not have possibly caused this particular set of observations either. So if the blue/red shift orbit explanation above is not valid, then a dilemma exists, to my understanding, in that a Planck dilation of extraordinary magnitude in impact to a burst signal, was matched to a rather non-remarkable impact to the speed of that electromagnetic signal on the part of the same intervening massive object(s), over the same time and space vectoring. And if valid in structure and my understanding, this bears profound implications to our current paradigm of inflationary theory. Essentially, if an electromagnetic signal can be red shifted through the presence of gravity-time alone (Schwarzschild time dilation) in this manner and not be simply dispersed in its lower frequencies, yet its speed relative to c not be appreciably altered (no Shapiro time delay), then there is no need for galaxies to be ‘hurtling apart on a galactic scale’ (actually space-time itself inflating) to stand as the explanatory mechanism for an observable red shift in EM energy transiting our universe. The red shift per hoc aditum being simply an artifact of EM energy having traversed time and gravitational fields. In other words, a 2 dimensional Planck dilation (G,t), as opposed to a 3 dimensional space inflation (l,w,h). In other words, space is not inflating (Scale Invariant Cosmological Model) – rather gravity is serving to dilate time (t). Under this line of reasoning, a gravity-time dilation alone causing the red shift differential between these two sets of signals.

To be fair, such an alternative (time dilation) model of the red shifted universe has been proposed recently by University of Paris astrophysicist Jean-Pierre Petit. But so far has not received much ear from the scientific community at large. Time dilation models more than adequately explain the Hubble red shift, and in some circumstance, do a better job at explaining it.8 Does the FRB 121102 data support the Scale Invariant Cosmological model?

However, Ockham’s Razor suggests that since we have a less feature-stacked mechanism viable now and inside a classic and well supported model, there is not need to introduce the Scale Invariant Cosmological Model explanation just yet. Although there is inductive support for such an idea, the current model carries with it an explanation sufficient to reject pursuing it at this moment.

Unless I am mistaken in all of this of course. One of the tenets of ethical skepticism is to ask the question ‘If I was mistaken, would I even know?’ And in this case, I would not know, and accordingly should ask for help. Any physicists out there who understand this better than do I, and can provide me with the understanding of such a mechanism which serves to reconcile this observation back into alignment with standing universe inflation and red shift theory – please drop me a note and correct or enlighten me. It would be much appreciated.

The database I assembled and used for this analysis resides below. Click on the image to expand it to full size or save it. The Primary Cluster leading signals are in green shading, while the MIGO Cluster signals are shaded in orange.

epoché vanguards gnosis

——————————————————————————————

How to MLA cite this blog post =>

The Ethical Skeptic, “Exotic Nature of FRB 121102 Burst Congery” The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 9 Nov 2018; Web, https://wp.me/p17q0e-8yk

November 9, 2018 Posted by | Ethical Skepticism | , , , | Leave a comment

The Spectrum of Evidence Manipulation

Unconscious bias occurs with everyone and inside most deliberation. Such innocent manifestation of bias, while important in focus, is not the First Duty of the ethical skeptic. The list of fallacies and crooked thinking below outline something beyond just simple bias – something we call agency. The tricks of obfuscation of evidence for which ethical skeptics keep vigilant watch.

Michael Shermer has outlined in his November 2018 editorial for Scientific American, a new fallacy of data which he calls the ‘Fallacy of Excluded Exceptions’. In this informal fallacy, evidence which does not serve to confirm one’s a priori conclusion is systematically eliminated or ignored, despite its potentially robust import. This is a form of, not unconscious bias, but a more prevalent and dangerous mode of corrupted thinking which we at The Ethical Skeptic call ‘agency’. The First Duty of Ethical Skepticism is to oppose agency (not simply bias).

Fallacy of Excluded Exceptions

/philosophy : pseudoscience : data manipulation/ : a form of data skulpting in which a proponent bases a claim on an apparently compelling set of confirming observations to an idea, yet chooses to ignore an also robust set of examples of a disconfirming nature. One chisels away at, disqualifies or ignores large sets of observation which are not advantageous to the cause, resulting only seeing what one sought to see to begin with.

“Excluded exceptions test the rule. Without them, science reverts to subjective speculation.” ~ Michael Shermer 1

Despite his long career inside skepticism, Michael is sadly far behind most ethical skeptics in his progression in understanding the tricks of fake epistemology and agency. That is because of his anchoring bias in that – he regards today’s ‘skepticism’ as representative of science and the scientific method, as well as all that is good in data reduction and syllogism. He is blinded by the old influences of bandwagon hype. Influences as master which he must still serve today, and which serve to agency-imbue his opinions. The celebrity conflict of interest.

Agency and bias are two different things.
Ironically, agency can even tender the appearance of mitigating bias, as a method of its very insistence.

Well we at The Ethical Skeptic have been examining tricks of data manipulation and agency for decades, and already possessed a name for this fallacy Michael has been compelled to create from necessity on his own – precisely because it is a very common trick we have observed on the part of fake skeptics to begin with. Michael’s entrenchment inside social skepticism is the very reason why he could not see this fallacy until now – he is undergoing skeptive dissonance and is beginning to spot fallacies of agency his cronies have been committing for decades. Fallacies which he perceives to be ‘new’. Congratulations Michael, you are repenting. The next step is to go out and assist those your cronies and sycophants have harmed in the past through fake skepticism.  Help them develop their immature constructs into hypotheses with mechanism, help them with the scientific method, help them with the standards of how to collect and reduce data and argument. Drop the shtick of a priori declarations of ‘ you are full of baloney’ and help them go and find that out for themselves. Maybe. 2

Agency versus Bias

Bias is the Titanic’s habit of failing to examine its ice berg alerts.
Agency is the Titanic telling the ship issuing ice berg alerts to ‘shut up’.

If all we suffered from was mere bias, things might even work out fine.
But reality is that we are victims of agency, not bias.

Just maybe as well, embarking upon such a journey you will find as I did – that you really did not understand the world all that well, nor have things as figured out as you had assumed. Your club might have served as a bit of a cocoon, if you will. Maybe in this journey you have so flippantly stumbled upon, you will observe as ‘new’ a fallacy that ethical skeptics have identified for a long time now; one which your cabal has routinely ignored.

Evidence Sculpting (Cherry Sorting)

/philosophy : pseudoscience : data manipulation/ : has more evidence been culled from the field of consideration for this idea, than has been retained? Has the evidence been sculpted to fit the idea, rather than the converse?

Skulptur Mechanism – the pseudoscientific method of treating evidence as a work of sculpture. Methodical inverse negation techniques employed to dismiss data, block research, obfuscate science and constrain ideas such that what remains is the conclusion one sought in the first place. A common tactic of those who boast of all their thoughts being ‘evidence based’. The tendency to view a logical razor as a device which is employed to ‘slice off’ unwanted data (evidence sculpting tool), rather than as a cutting tool (pharmacist’s cutting and partitioning razor) which divides philosophically valid and relevant constructs from their converse.

Your next assignment Michael, should you choose to accept it, is to learn about how agency promotes specific hypotheses through the targeting of all others (from The Tower of Wrong: The Art of Professional Lying):

Embargo Hypothesis (Hξ)

/philosophy : pseudoskepticism/ : was the science terminated years ago, in the midst of large-impact questions of a critical nature which still remain unanswered? Is such research now considered ‘anti-science’ or ‘pseudoscience’? Is there enormous social pressure to not even ask questions inside the subject? Is mocking and derision high – curiously in excess of what the subject should merit?

Entscheiden Mechanism – the pseudoscientific or tyrannical approach of, when faced with epistemology which is heading in an undesired direction, artificially declaring under a condition of praedicate evidentia, the science as ‘settled’ and all opposing ideas, anti-science, credulity and pseudoscience.

But Michael, as you begin to spot agency inside purported processes of epistemology, we have to warn you, there is more – oh, so much more which you do not know. Let’s take a brief look shall we?

Agency as it Pertains to Evidence and Data Integrity

So, in an effort to accelerate Michael’s walk through the magical wonderland of social skepticism, and how it skillfully enforces conformance upon us all, let us examine the following. The fallacies, modes of agency and methods of crooked thinking below relate to manipulations of data which are prejudices, and not mere unconscious biases – such as in the case of anchoring bias, wherein one adopts a position which is overly influenced by their starting point or the first information which arrived. They may hold a bias, but at least it is somewhat innocent in its genesis, i.e. not introduced by agency. Prejudicial actions in the handling and reduction of evidence and data, are the preeminent hint of the presence of agency, and the first things which the ethical skeptic should look out for inside a claim, denial, mocking or argument.

Unconscious bias happens with everyone, but the list of fallacies and crooked thinking below, outline something more than simple bias. They involve processes of pseudo-induction, panduction, abduction and pseudo-deduction, along with the desire to dissemble the contribution of agency. You can find this, along with agency-independent and unconscious biases, all defined at The Tree of Knowledge Obfuscation: Misrepresentation of Evidence or Data

And of course, all of these fallacies, biases, modes of agency and crooked thinking can be found and defined here:

And as well, more modes of agency can be found at The Tree of Knowledge Obfuscation itself.

The Tree of Knowledge Obfuscation

A compendium of fallacy and corrupted thought commonly employed inside Social Skepticism

 

 

epoché vanguards gnosis

——————————————————————————————

How to MLA cite this blog post =>

The Ethical Skeptic, “The Spectrum of Evidence Manipulation” The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 2 Nov 2018; Web, https://wp.me/p17q0e-8wy

November 2, 2018 Posted by | Argument Fallacies, Tradecraft SSkepticism | , , | Leave a comment

Authority Credulity: Antipode to Conspiracy Theory – But Even Worse

Authority Credulity. While the conspiracy theorist may allow themselves to be whipsawed into fits of paranoia concerning authority, the authority credulist employs symbols of power, identity and correctness to assuage an immature ego; to exorcise injury over past transgressions and target those whom they see as having caused this pain. It thrives inside a milieu of mindlessness which in the end serves to cause more harm than conspiracy theorizing ever could.

Authority Credulity is the paradoxical opposite of Conspiracy Theory. It is a type of gullibility and desire to allow one’s self to be comfortably fooled, through scant amounts of science and ample doses of imperiousness and insistence – especially when posed in the name of some psychological need for a symbol of power wielding authority. Virtue signalling for instance, is a common type of authority credulity. It is conducted within and exploits a cultural milieu of mindlessness. Whereas conspiracy theory may arise from various blends of paranoia, pareidolia and/or apophenia – authority credulity arises from past resentment over an injured ego, and the desire to ensure that everyone knows that the person bearing it is indeed the smartest person in the room. Science is one such identity and authority through which such a mindset can be plied. Hence the origin of this familiar tenet of ethical skepticism:

Simply because scientists use skeptical thinking discipline, does not mean that skeptics therefore represent science.  The two are not congruent.

However, authority is simply one tool in their quiver of tactics employed in winning arguments at all costs; as the Ten Pillars of Authority Credulity outline this mentality, the banal antipode of the conspiracy theory mindset.

   Authority Credulist

/philosophy : agency/ : the opposite of a conspiracy theorist, but even worse in terms of harm imparted. Believes authority with very little question. Vulnerable to and often exploited by authorized propaganda outlets, through bearing an abject weakness in ability to grasp asymmetry, spot patterns or develop intelligence. Seeks to be an agent which foments conflict between what they view as authority, and everyone who disagrees.

The Ten Pillars (Vulnerabilities) of Authority Credulity:

I.        Social Category and Non-Club Hatred
II.       Narcissism and Personal Power
III.      Promotion of Personal Religious Agenda
IV.      Emotional Psychological Damage/Anger
V.       Overcompensation for a Secret Doubt
VI.      Fear of the Unknown
VII.     Effortless Argument Addiction
VIII.    Magician’s Deception Rush
IX.      Need to Belittle Others
X.       Need to Belong/Fear of Club Perception

Who of course, fall victim most often to fallacies involving the Misrepresentation through Authority. This informal error in logic does not simply comprise one fallacy, as many sophomoric philosophical sites outline, rather an entire domain of mistaken method and fallacious thinking. So while conspiracy theory critics often correctly outline an entire series of fallacies committed by those vulnerable to that ilk of ideas, they routinely miss that authority credulity is very much a similar domain of corrupted thinking.

A key indicator resides in this: to the authority credulist, everyone who holds a differing idea is guilty of magical thinking and conspiracy theorizing. It is the same as using accusation of being racist and a Nazi. The term has been emasculated through abuse. And as they age and realize the ludicrous nature of such mindlessness, they must yet still possess an anchoring bias or conflict of interest in maintaining their dogma, while at the same time appearing to be open minded. They know what the old guard social skeptics can do to them. Heck they did it to people too. This inevitably leads the authority credulist down the compromised road of liberalism or libertarianism. You are free now to think the way they think.

   Libertarian

Maintains a cynical perspective on authority, yet bears an inability to grasp asymmetry, spot patterns and develop intelligence. Totally free except where authority quietly wags a finger at them. Then, a retreat into silence.

Many social skeptics, upon encountering skeptive dissonance, tend to move toward styles of libertarianism as they recognize the shortfalls of their former philosophy. Michael Shermer offers up a great case example of such a life transition. By his own account this is actually Michael’s third manifestation of personal cosmology. Neo-Libertarians err however, in not recognizing the blinding impact which their clinging to authority has wrought in their inability to handle probative data, risk and intelligence.

The authority credulist, even in the instance where they mature into a libertarian, employs panduction in order to discredit entire domains of thought. Despite the condition of being correct for the most part, ultimately this proves only to introduce a level of harm and scientific stagnation, unequaled by most forms of conspiracy theorizing.

   Conspiracy Theorist

Maintains a cynical perspective on authority, which whipsaws into unsound levels of conjecture, stemming from a sense of asymmetry and higher developed skills in pattern recognition. Relatively unskilled at necessary forms of intelligence development.

The conspiracy theorist who cultivates a skill in intelligence, inevitably begins to find that 80% of what they regarded to be true, indeed turns out to be bunk. The value however, of bunk finding, is limited – as rather, it is the discovery of the novel, and the falsification of incremental risk in conjecture, which move science forward. Not compliance and authority. I would rather discover myself through field work to be wrong 9 times, and serendipitously accurate one time, than be compliantly correct ten times. This illuminating set of discovery leads one to begin to ‘up their game’ – heeding the cautions of skeptics certainly, but not buying into their inverse negation fallacy conclusiveness. Consensus and proof are very hard standards to attain, and an ethical skeptic begins to understand this. This is where one learns to spot and oppose agency – even conspiracy theory agency. One journeys into the realm of the ethical skeptic.

I would rather prove myself wrong on nine ideas and find one to be prodigiously valid, than wallow in the correctness of ten unquestioned norms.

   Ethical Skeptic

Maintains a healthy perspective on the role of authority tempered with the realization that proof is a hard standard to come by. Keen sense of asymmetry, skills in pattern solving and ability to develop intelligence.

Of course, ethical skepticism hinges around the ability to spot and develop intelligence.

Intelligence

/philosophy : data : decision theory/ : data is denatured into information, and information is transmuted into intelligence. Inside decision theory and clandestine operation practices, intelligence is the first level of illuminating construct upon which one can make a decision. Intelligence skills combine a healthy skepticism towards human agency, along with an ability to adeptly handle asymmetry, recognize probative data, assemble patterns, increase the reliability of incremental conjecture and pursue a sequitur, salient and risk mitigating pathway of syllogism.

Authority, Data and Fact are merely information at best. They do not constitute intelligence. One cannot adopt a belief, nor take an action bearing risk, unless based upon intelligence. And in absence of intelligence, the ethical skeptic maintains a disposition of neutrality.

This is why the appeal to authority informal fallacy exists. When I was a department head in intelligence, I was able to determine that a dignitary whom we had thought to have died accidentally, was indeed assassinated. We could not inform the nation involved, nor of course the family – but I accomplished this task through my own side investigation, examining more than simply the reliable sources and authorities. Less reliable, but high probative value and robust consilience potential channels of information gradually began to belie the standard reliable channels with the official (and easily believable) story – and turn our accidental death case into one of international intrigue. The cover story was perfect. It bore consensus.

Chekhov’s Gun

/philosophy : scientific method : intelligence/ : is a dramatic principle that states that every element in a fictional story must be necessary to support the plot or moral, and irrelevant elements should be excluded. It is used as part of a method of detecting lies and propaganda. In a fictional story, every detail or datum is supportive of, and accounted for, as to its backing of the primary agenda/idea. A story teller will account in advance for every loose end or ugly underbelly of his moral message, all bundled up and explained nicely – no exception or tail conditions will be acknowledged. They are not part of the story.

Ultimately, determining this perfectly explained accidental death to be a murder, opened up a line of investigation that helped topple an espionage ring. I refused to accept the reliable, authoritative and sensible information, and insisted instead upon critical path logic, probative corroboration and deductive falsification. Understanding reduction and critical path logic is not a skill possessed by most people, and certainly most skeptics.  But it essential to the path of ethical skepticism.

The ability to go into the field and see for one’s self, to recognize probative data and know how to convert it into reliable conjectures – these are the skills of a good detective. Such skills can be developed through a savvy or even unprecedented use of statistical inference, as is demonstrated no better than by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. Or one can develop such skill by becoming an investigator or intelligence specialist. While I do not possess the skill set in mathematics any longer which NNT does, I have suffered through nine semesters in statistics, probability, hypothesis testing, modeling and simulation and decision theory (actually I loved these courses – but they were demanding). In addition I have functioned as a department head inside an intelligence organization. Authority and correctness counts for very little inside such disciplines.

These are two background sets which can serve to enhance one’s skills at the denaturing of mere information, into intelligence. And intelligence is the construct basis of ethical skepticism, not simply ‘facts’ and ‘data’. As these devices constitute merely the battle cry of the poseur, the authority credulous.

epoché vanguards gnosis

——————————————————————————————

How to MLA cite this blog post =>

The Ethical Skeptic, “Authority Credulity: Antipode to Conspiracy Theory – But Even Worse” The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 29 Oct 2018; Web, https://wp.me/p17q0e-8uB

October 29, 2018 Posted by | Ethical Skepticism | , | Leave a comment

Chinese (Simplified)EnglishFrenchGermanHindiPortugueseRussianSpanish
%d bloggers like this: