TRUMP STOPPED THE GLOBAL ELITES MARCH TO "THE END OF HISTORY"

"The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk"
Hagel

What German philosopher Hagel meant is that wisdom (symbolized by the owl of Minerva, the Roman goddess of wisdom) comes only after the fact, that is, true understanding of events and historical developments often comes only in hindsight.

Those who had believed the US presidential election will be a 50-50 battle, or in fact Harris will triumph, they never walked the grounds and they paid attention only to the leftist media. The size and energy of the crowds at Trump's rallies as he criss-crossed the swing states has been a clear indication of what's to come. But main stream media refused to share this with their mainly liberal viewership. This election has definitely shown the power of the three traditional megahorns of public opinions are no more. Mainstream media, Hollywood and celebrities, and polls are no longer trusted by one half of the country. Recall how Straits Times said Taylor Swift's endorsement will win the election for Harris.

Mainstream media are hosted by an echo chamber of progressive and radical liberals. No less than Jimmy Kimmel has admitted the various corporations meet regularly to co-ordinate what to propagate which they then shamelessly parot exactly same catch words or phrases in order to emplify their narratives against Trump. They have been doing this since Trump walked down that elevator in NY back in 2015. The only exception is Foxnews. Although CEO Paul Ryan is the ultra Trump-hater, the talking heads at Fox do not follow Kimmel's lead. Even Fox's Bret Baer, althought a Trump-hater, does not follow the herd. He has his own hard-hitting narratives. Harris enlisted a host of Hollywood stars and celebrities in the last two weeks of campaign. Her interview by Oprah Winfrey is a faux meet-the-press when campaign finance report revealed she was paid US$1,000,000 to host the meet. It was in reality a campaign ad which makes a mockery of journalistic integrity on the part of money-faced Oprah. Almost all the polls predicted a very close contest which did not seem to project the reality on the ground. Some suggested there was a fear factor on the part of respondents to identify themselves as Trump supporters and this impacted the poll results. A better indication can be seen in what is known as a 'neighbour' poll. Respondents are asked who they think their neighbour will vote. Such 'neighbour' polls have shown higher scores for Trump. The polymarket whale, a French trader who calls himself Théo, who won US$43m betting on Trump, said he relied mainly on 'neighbour' polls.

In the aftermath of Trump's convincing win in the election, comes a ton of explanation to what was incorrectly predicted to be a closely contested fight. If you listen to the media megahorn, Harris lost because voters are racists, sexists and misogynists, which of course are reasons swallowed by the guillible liberal mass. Others say Harris had a messaging problem. It's surprising two anti-Trumper media big names have more internal reflection. Jon Steward said he was wrong about Trump's chances of winning but accepted he won it fair and square. Bill Maher told the the Left "you're are brats, and you're snobs, and people don't like that". My own explanation is Harris lost because 15m Democrat votes went missing.

Kishore Mahubani, (short video above) Singapore's diplomat extraordinaire, said "Only a deeply troubled society will elect a person like Donald Trump as president". He was commenting on the degradation of the infrastructure, economies and standard of living of the US, and pondered why did Americans elect Trump. I have great respect for Kishore in many of his views, especially his forte on geopolitics. How can he be so wrong here. Surely MAGA is about rebuilding America. Does Kishore not understand Trump's priority? Heaven forbid if Kishore thinks Harris is better-placed to lead US with her open-border policies, pro-criminal inclination, socialists economics of someone branded as on the furthest Left of the Democrat Party, and pro-Ukraine war stand. Surely Kishore can see the chaos of US in the four years under Biden-Harris?

I brought Kishore into this blog to show how dangerous the Leftist media can be when one of Singapore's brightest son holds a view on Trump apparently coloured by mainstream media narratives. In the Singapore Inc silo, this must surely be the shared view. What we are seeing happening in US and other Western countries is a tectonic ideological battle. I would expect someone like Kishore to enlighten us with a big picture view that makes sense. I mean, do you understand what this woke culture is all about, this transgenderism, non-binary. pronouns, tampons in boys' restrooms, men in women sports, etc. Why open the floodgates for un-vetted illegal immigrants that include criminals and all sorts of bad hats. Why the mad rush to vaccinate everyone with untested vaccines. Democrats are not stupid folks. Of course they know the chaos their policies are creating. It begets the question why.

There is a very big picture narrative behind Trump-Harris battle that can help to make sense of our troubled world. It is something that I had wanted to blog about for a very long time but held back because it is way beyond my pay scale. I had hoped some super intelligent locals in academia or corridors of power can stand up and shine some light to enlighten the nation. Given this vacuum, allow me to express my thoughts on a very tough idea I have in my mind as I summon to the best I can some deep philosophical concepts.


The End of History

As a philosophical concept, the "end of history" contemplates the endpoint of ideological evolution, where society reaches its highest form of governance and moral order. Rooted in Hagelian and Marxist dialectics, it examines the possibility of a "final" stage in human political, social, and ethical development—where struggles for political legitimacy and ideological supremacy cease because society has reached an "ultimate" form of organization that satisfies human needs most fully.

Georg Wilheim Friedrich Hagel (1770-1831) introduced the idea that history moves in a dialectical progression of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Starting off with thesis which is the established order, or status quo, that is the current state or a system or society. Antithesis invariably arises, that is, opposing forces or ideas. This contradiction creates tension or conflict, challenging the validity or dominance of the thesis. The struggle between the thesis and antithesis, give rise to synthesis, which is a new, higher level of understanding or organization. The conflicts are resolved and society transforms the original state.

Human history is propelled by this cycle of contradiction and resolution. A society transforms from one form of organisation to another over time. Example from libertarianism to liberalism to conservatism, to communism, to capitalism, etc.

In Hagelian philosophy, dialectical progression is thought to drive history and human consciousness toward greater rationality and freedom. Each stage builds upon the previous one, with contradictions driving both thought and social order forward. This dialectical process continues until it reaches an "end" in an ideal state of freedom and rational self-awareness. For Hagel, history reached its "end" with the development of constitutional monarchies, which he saw as the ideal balance between freedom and order.

For Karl Marx (1818-1883) dialectical materialism, that is, material conditions — particularly economic relations — drive social and political change. Each stage of economic history (feudalism, capitalism, etc.) contains internal contradictions that ultimately lead to its downfall and replacement by a new stage, culminating in an "end" in communism. Thus for Marx, history ends with universal communism.

In 1992 American political scientist Francis Fukuyama published his book "The End Of History And The Last Man" in which he drew on the Hagelian idea but replaces the "end' state with liberal democracy. He argues that liberal democracy and market economies address humanity’s core desires for recognition, freedom, and economic security, marking the highest achievement in ideological evolution. For Fukuyama, history ends with the universalisation of Western democracy.


Liberalism vs Conservatism

In the context of US the underlying ideological struggle is between the Democrats (Liberals) and the Republicans (Conservatives). US is basically a two-party system. The Libertarians are just a side-show, often times viewed as a spoiler, garnering 1% or 2% of the votes. The only time when Libertarians had some high profile was in 1992 and 1996 when billionaire businessman Ross Perot ran as an independent. Their platforms overlapped ideologically and Perot managed to attract 19% of the votes in 1992 as Libertarians flocked to his campaign.

Despite their differences, liberals and conservatives often share a number of core values, even if they prioritize them differently or interpret them in contrasting ways. Let me go somewhat detailed into the key aspects so you can properly understand what the battles between Democrats and Republicans are all about.

* Belief in the Rule of Law:
Both sides generally believe in having a legal framework to govern society that covers protection of  individual rights, and ensuring justice.
Liberals often emphasize reforming laws to address inequality and social justice, while conservatives tend to prioritize preserving existing legal systems and order.

* Commitment to Democracy
Both value democratic processes - free and fair elections, the right to vote, elected officials are representatives of people.
Liberals focus more on expanding voting rights and ensuring inclusivity, while conservatives may emphasize voter integrity and protecting the system from fraud.

* Individual Rights and Freedoms
Both affirm the importance of individual freedoms - freedom of speech, religion, and assembly.
Liberals often prioritize rights related to social and cultural issues (e.g., LGBTQ+ rights, reproductive rights), while conservatives emphasize the protection of traditional values and rights related to property, family, and religion.

* Economic Opportunity
Both sides generally support the idea that individuals should have the opportunity to improve their economic circumstances, pursue prosperity, and succeed through hard work and initiative.
Liberals advocate for a stronger safety net and policies to reduce inequality, such as progressive taxation and government programs. Conservatives tend to emphasize free-market solutions, lower taxes, and minimal government intervention.

* National Security
Both recognize the importance of national security and protecting the country from external threats, whether through military defense or intelligence agencies.
Conservatives may prioritize a strong military and defense spending, while liberals may focus more on diplomacy, alliances, and multilateral approaches to security.

* Tradition vs Progress
Both value progress, whether it's in terms of social change or technological advancement.
Conservatives tend to emphasize the value of tradition, stability, and preserving established institutions. Liberals may be more focused on challenging traditions and advocating for social reforms to address modern challenges.

* Social Responsibility
Both believe in social responsibility - well-being of one's community, helping the less fortunate, and contributing to the common good.
Liberals tend to socialise  welfare, healthcare, and support for marginalized groups. Conservatives often stress the role of individuals, families, and private charity in fulfilling social responsibilities.

* Patriotism and National Pride
Both take pride in their country and value national identity, culture, and history.
Conservatives place more emphasis on national pride, military achievements, and symbols like the flag, while liberals focus more on the ideals of liberty, justice, and equality in the nation's history.

* Social Justice
Both care about fairness and justice.
Liberals support systemic changes to address inequality in society, while conservatives may prioritize justice in the form of maintaining law and order, individual responsibility, and equality before the law.

* Environmental Stewardship
Both cares for the environment.
Liberals advocate for more aggressive environmental regulations and government action to combat climate change. Conservatives may focus on market-based solutions and the importance of balancing environmental protection with economic growth.

The quarrels of the two sides revolve around how best to achieve these shared goals, with liberals emphasising systemic reform, social welfare, and inclusivity, while conservatives emphasising personal responsibility, tradition, and limited government intervention.

The two-party system unfortunately, is a fundamental weakness of the US since a constant is the flipping of policies with each change in administration.

The compromise that establishment politicians on both sides have been able to reach in the past 240 years of their history to achieve their goals has gotten more difficult. That ability to compromise started crumbling in the last 20 years with the advent of Barrack Obama and his identity politics. The Democrat Party has swung very much to the Left as the progressives take control. They are in effect now a Socialist party pushing full Marxist policies and members are growing more extreme, which in our part of the world we used to call ultra. Remember the ultra-nationalists of UMNO that wanted to arrest Lee Kuan Yew during the Separation period?

The Democrat Party of today is no longer the party of John F Kennedy whose short reign was fondly referred to as "Camelot", an association with the romance of King Arthur, a story set in high moral idealism. You must have been living in a cave if you say Liberals today love their own country. There are two key conservative values that stand in the way of Liberal machinations for total socialist control -- Christianity and the right to bear arms.

The smarter Liberals are now slowly red-pilling. Ex-House members Robert F, Kennedy Jnr and Tulsi Gabbard, and Senators Joe Manchin and Senator Kyrsten Sinema left the party because it's values have changed. Others include Jeff Van Drew, Tricia Cotham, Francis Thompson, and Mesha Mainor. As I write, the latest Liberal to come out and said so is from Hollywood. Popular actor Michael Douglas said "..the Republican Party is now the party of the people, the Democrat is the party of the elites."


Neo-conservatism and Brzezinski’s Doctrines

Liberal tendency to put emphasis on human rights and diplomacy, and overly cautious about military intervention and assertive foreign policy were seen as weakness after WWII when the West had to confront communism during the Cold War. The weakness of liberalism was most strongly felt during the presidency of Jimmy Carter (1977-1981), a time that saw Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Iranian Revolution and the hostage crisis of US Embassy at Tehran.

The 3 pillars of neoconservatism are:
* Spreading democracy, particularly in authoritarian regions, often using military intervention if necessary. This will lead to stability and aligns with U.S. interests.
* Have a robust military presence globally, advocating for preemptive actions to deter potential threats.
* Practice unilateralism to project U.S. sovereignty. Multilateral institutions limit American power and influence.

Neoconservatism had the most impact during George W. Bush presidency which saw US interference in the Middle East. Those heavily influenced by neoconservative thoughts are called neocons which include Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, John McCain, Lindsey Graham and John Bolton. They are well-known war mongers.

Neoconservatism as an idea is not partisan. Republicans McCain and Graham worked for Obama where the two Conservative senators were seen in the famous video giving Ukranian military leaders a pep talk promising US support. Diplomat (D) Victoria Nuland was deeply involved in the Colour Revolution of Ukraine. (D) Hillary Clinton was heavily involved in the Arab Spring managing American interests.

Zbigniew Brzezinski was Carter's national security advisor. His doctrines shared some neoconservative goals but they were more nuanced: His was a balance-of-power approach -- contain Soviet influence through strategic alliances rather than aggressive democracy promotion. Brzezinski preferred diplomacy and multilateralism when feasible, supporting interventions only if they were essential to maintaining global stability. He often opposed the outright use of military force to reshape political systems. In his book The Grand Chessboard (1997), Brzezinski outlined his vision for maintaining U.S. supremacy by strategically influencing key regions in Eurasia, advocating that the U.S. establish a stable presence without becoming bogged down in prolonged conflicts.

Neoconservatism and Brzezinski's Doctrines have been the guiding lights of American foreign policies in the past several decades be it a Democrat or Republican presidency. To Kishore's questions, it is the reason why they are building aircraft carriers even though their bridges are falling down and other infras crumbling.


Neoliberalism

Neoliberalism is about open markets and less state control. It is a political and economic ideology where popular words bandied about are free-trade, privatisaton, deregulation, fiscal austerity, and market efficiency. This was the agenda championed by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. While Reagan made a remarkable economic recovery for US after the disaster under Carter, Thatcher had mixed results in the UK as she had considerable time consumed in her great battle with the powerful and polarising figure of Arthur Scargill, the powerful union leader who led the National Union of Mineworkers. (I was stationed in London for a short while at the time and was stunned at the vulgarities of the expletives of Scargill on the streets, for I was brought up imbued with this image of the "English gentlemen").

Neoliberal reforms were endorsed by famous economists of the time - Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek. Other champions of neoliberal reforms were the European Union, WHO, IMF and World Bank.

Unfettered neoliberalism has tremendous downside - increase in income equality, reduced public social support, environmental degradation, and political instability. How so?

Neoliberal policies prioritise corporate interests and market outcomes. Corporations and top tier employees (big income earners) benefit at the expense of lowered wages for the other employees. Fiscal austerity sees reduction in social welfare programmes (healthcare, education). Deregulation often leads to less protection for environment. Concentrating economic power in the hands of a few leads to distortion of political processes and reduce accountability.


New World Order, One World Government, The Great Reset

What the heck are these all about? The three terms are complex and overlapping concepts that have evolved over time and often used loosely by global leaders, economists, conspiracy theorists and the general public.  They are focused on global governance, economic restructuring and international co-operation but they were grown out of different ideological and historical contexts.

New World Order as an idea arose out of the ashes of WWI and WWII when world leaders felt a need for some international system to prevent future conflicts. In 1991 President George WH Bush popularised the term when he mentioned it to refer to a world where the U.S. and allied countries would promote peace, security, and global economic stability.

The term One World Government arose sometime in late 20th century which was marked by the establishment of several international institutions, such as UN, IMF. It was seen as a move toward a more unified global governance. However, these bodies do not hold sovereignty over individual nations.

Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum (WEF), introduced the concept of The Great Reset in 2020 as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the economic turmoil it caused. The Reset aims to rethink global capitalism by prioritizing sustainable development, reducing inequality, and addressing climate change. Schwab’s proposal includes a transition toward what he calls “stakeholder capitalism,” where companies focus on social and environmental responsibilities alongside profits.

This is not to be confused with the "Reset" button that Hillary Clinton gave to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in 2009 which was a symbolic gesture by Obama admin to re-establish diplomatic relations strained during the 2008 Russo-Georgian War.

Due to the vague ideologies, the secretive nature of groups that discussed these international issues, such as "think tanks" and policy groups like the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and Bilderberg Group, high profile Davos summits attended by billionaire elites, corporate capture of various international institutions, weird and prophetic sound bites from people like Bill Gates and Schwab himself, such as the timing relating to the outbreak of infectious deceases, the infiltration of governments and "you will own nothing but be happy", and the relentless efforts to force onto the world the Covid-19 vaccination, climate control programmes, and the Pandemic Treaty, all these led to public suspicion of ill-intent by a closed powerful and wealthy group.


Neoliberalism and WEF

The above lenghty primer is necessary so you can appreciate the evolution of ideologies to get to where we are at today.

Neoliberalism has bred a small group of people whose wealth staggers the imagination. As of 2024, 1% of the world holds 45-50% of the total global wealth. 63% of new wealth generated in the last two years went to the 1%. This wealth distribution trend is driven by factors like tax advantages for the wealthy, such as lower taxation on capital gains and inheritance in many countries (zero tax in Singapore), as well as financial and market policies and globalization that benefit wealth holders.

Wealth concentration and distribution of this scale for the 1% weakens economic balance and limits social mobility, fueling inequality in access to resources, education, and healthcare globally. Human history has shown this state of affairs cannot last. How and when the powder keg will explode is up to speculation, but explode it will.

This then explains the greatest anomaly that no one is asking. Neoliberalists are the unfettered Capitalists. The Liberals of today in all Western countries have turned into cultural Communists. Capitalism and Communism -- “East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.” (Rudyard Kipling). So why are neoliberalists - the Capitalist titans of industry, the global elites, the multi-billionaires, why are they working with cultural Communists, whether in the form of Democrats in US, Christian Democrats in Germany, the Conservatives or Labour in UK, French Macron's Republique, or Trudeau's Liberal Party? 

Backtrack above I said Marx's "end of history" is Universal Communism - East, West, North and South must turn Red. Notice above I mentioned also Liberal's multilateralism. Now you get the picture for the crazy idea of open borders, mass immigration and multi-culturalism. There is alignment of ideology with neoliberalism for a globalised economic order.

WEF is the operating front, the mechanism for the universal aspirations of cultural Communism embeded in the various Liberal, Labour, so-called Republique and other political parties in Western countries.

Neoliberalist billionaires that are fully behind WEF include Bill Gates, George Soros, Klaus-Michael Kühne, Larry Fink, Marc Benioff, Michael Bloomberg, Ray Dalio, Jeff Bezos, Mukesh Ambani, Jeff Bezos, Jim Breyer, Patrice Motsepe, Larry Page, Sergey Brin (Singapore resident), David Rubenstein, Jack Ma, Lauren Powell (Steve Job's wife) and many many more from that special 1%. Elon Musk attends occasionally to share his views on technology stuff.

The money power of neoliberalists, often under the guise of philantrophist-capitalism, captures supranational institutions like WHO, media, various state agencies like FDA and CDC, and certainly buying politicians either the old fashioned way, or through lobbies or revolving doors, a strategy that allows them a foot in the door to shape and implement policies in countries all over the world. The end game is protection of their interests and preventing the inevitability of that powder keg of disgusting wealth from exploding.

When ideologies of neoliberalists and WEF align, is when money power and political power aligns. It does not bode well for the 99%. If you were in the 1%, wouldn't you want to board the vessel that gets you to a place where your monetary and political power can be safely ensconced? Plus the bonus of the various international co-operation in economic activities already captured?

Neoliberalists and WEF (the countries that back it) now see The Great Reset as their "end of history".


Enter Donald Trump

Like most people, I had misunderstood Trump. My perception of him is this big bully Gargantuar that tells the poor chap "You're fired". Trump has such a powerful presence in the room. In my mind I see him in the mould of Lee Kuan Yew. The only other person that had such a powerful presence to me is Jack Lord, (real name John Joseph Patrick Ryan) who played Steve McGarrett in the TV series "Hawaii Five-O". It was probably after two years into his presidency when I saw Trump delivering on his campaign promises that I began to realise the persona portrayed by media was agitprop. Yes those media corporations owned by the neoliberalists.

Now you can see in 2016 Trump stumbled onto the neoliberalists and WEF (aka Liberals) in bed together. It was no storm in a teacup of illicit affairs, but a moment of seismic consequence. Obama had brought America to the neoliberalists' "end of history" cliff. All it needed was for Hillary Clinton to tip Americans over. I have consistently shared the opinion that Trump's entrance on the political scene was providential. Because it forced all the neoliberalists and bought Democrats, as well as RINOs, to surface and attack Trump at a time when the demographic is not yet to their advantage. For decades, American institutions in public schools and universities have churned out indoctrinated Liberals. (Why do you think you see all those Pro-Palestinian protestors in colleges.) There is not yet enough Liberals to tip the scale. The only way for Democrats to win in the votes is cheat or bring in illegal immigrants.

In our modern history, almost all the momentous social upheavals all over the world, can be framed by a big picture narrative of evolution of ideologies. The current chaos in US and Western countries has its causation in the neoliberalists push towards their version of the "end of history". In the US, Trump's landslide victory in the 2024 presidential election has frustrated neoliberalists' ambitions. Unless you belong to the 1%, you ought to celebrate.

On the way to the White House, Trump has annihilated the powerful neocon dynasties of the Republicans - the Bush, Remsfeld, Romney, McCain Chenney and Bolton. There are still some RINO neocons in the party. He has recently announced neocons Niki Haley and Mike Pompeo, his ex-Secretary of State, will not be invited to join his new team. With big names out, Trump has effectively gotten rid of the war-mongers in the party. Unless you are not for world peace, you ought to celebrate.

Trump used a lot of his personal resources in 2016. This election, his campaign team has worked on support from the ordinary guys, which is much similar to Obama. Trump still has support from billionaires, but these do not seem to be neoliberals, rather they are those committed to conservative values. The Republican Party under Trump truly has flipped to the party of the ordinary people. There exists an anomaly though. Republican values of open market, tax cuts and small government may work against ordinary people. It's left to be seen.

As a Singaporean, I'm terribly disappointed Kishore basically asked "who would want to vote a man like Trump". Kishore either belongs to the 1% or he is unable to see beyond the discredited mainstream media. I wonder if Kishore is aware of the "Trump Effect" -- positive reactions almost immediately after his election victory:

* The Taliban announced they want peace with America.
* Putin said Western civilisation is not an enemy, they will still use USD..
* Putin takes Trump's aim for peace in Ukraine seriously.
* Mexico announced they will secure their border
* Qatar told Hamas leaders to leave
* President Xi said he wants co-operation with US
* EU proposes to use US LNG
* Houthis are stepping back
* Hamas calls for immediate end to War with Israel.

I wonder if Kishore has seen Trump's economic plans listed on his website and has tried to guess what is it that Harris has in store for America.

I also wonder if Kishore is aware Trump has already initiated three taskforces to:
* make America healthy again which includes investigating into the Covid-19 vaccine fiasco (headed by RFK Jr).
* investigate into government wastage (headed by Elon Musk)
* investigate Democrat-UN NGO pedophile networks and locate 325,000 missing unaccompanied children who crossed the Southern border.

Does Kishore think that Harris could have accomplished any of these? Why do leaders of the other countries react they way they do? Because like me, they see in Trump a doer. He delivers what he says. It would be a real concern if Singapore policy makers think like Kishore.

Addendum to the Trump Effects:

* Saudi royalty, Prince Turki bin Faisal al-Saud, former Saudi ambassador to the United States, asked Trump to complete what he started in the ME, a reference to Abraham Accords peace deals.


This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.

TRUMP OR HARRIS - UNDERSTANDING THE MAN AND HIS TARIFF WAR

Recently, Temasek’s Chief Investment Officer Rohit Sipahimalani sat down for an interview of which Bloomberg splashed this headline. In my earlier blog 22 Sep 2024 I opined the position of Singapore Inc as regards who it prefers to see in the White House. Rohit simply confirmed my assessment of which camp our local elites are in. Although it is in the nature of an investment discussion to talk of scenarios of economic outcomes under the presidential wannabees, this close into the extremely acrimonious US 2024 Presidential Election, Rohit's public statement is rather concerning. Note how Bloomberg carried the news as a Temasek announcement. As a well-respected sovereign wealth fund, Temasek's views carry weight. If this were a nuanced attack by Bloomberg, too bad the Harris Campaign Team is too dumb to capitalise on it.

Russia is now pursuing Alphabet, the parent of Google, to pay fines for blocking pro-Russia channels on Youtube. The fines have now accrued to about US$20 decillion, that is 20 + another 33 '0' behind it. Meanwhile, Trump sued CBS News for US$10 billion for election interference in their deceptive doctoring of the Harris' interview in their popular "60 Minutes" programme. CBS had admitted to an act that some thought warrants a severe punishment, even a withdrawal of licence, by the regulatory body. But under the Biden admin, liberals and anti-Trump entities can literary get away with murder. Russia and Trump's pursuits are unlikely to be realised in full satisfaction. That however, is the least of the intent. Those who can see the bigger picture, understands the whole purpose is to put in constant public consciousness the extent of the lies of a captured media.

In a recent Trump rally, comedian Tony Hinchcliffe made a joke on Puerta Rico's floating island of garbage. The media was quick to propagate all criticisms of Trump calling Puerto Ricans garbage. The reality was Trump said nothing of the sort, and neither did the comedian. It was just a joke about a well-known fact of the garbage situation in Puerto Rico. Hinchcliffe is a controversial comedian. Comedians do what comedians do. Unlike Beyonce, paid to appear at a Harris rally, but she was a singer who didn't sing, a bait and switch that infuriated the crowd who came to watch her performance. Unfortunately, for Hinchcliffe, this for him must surely be a career-ending act as far as engagement in political events is concerned. 

Trump's locker-room talk of "grabbing them by the p....." was certainly disrespectful but blown absolutely out of proportion by media. It was one single moment of reckless boast of manliness which to many, in their mind, has come to be the basis to judge Trump's morality, oblivious to the totality of the full complexity of his life and actions. In psychology this is called the "fundamental attribution error" which is a cognitive attribution bias, often caused by character assasination, and in the case of Trump, the media has done a fantastic job. This fundamental attribution error is probably on display in Singapore as it relates to Lee Hsien Loong regarding the house at 38 Oxley Road

For far too many, Trump is a misogynist. Yet those who bear this view, and the press, have nothing to say about Joe Biden creeping up behind and smelling women in public. Neither have they anything to say to Mark Cuban, the liberal billionaire, who condemned women supporters of Trump as lacking strength and intelligence. Nor have they anything to say about how ex-Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's husband, Paul Pelosi, battered his ex-girlfriend.  

A CIA whistleblower has now revealed that in 2016, FBI director James Comey, an avid Trump-hater, planted two female agents in Trump's campaign team to conduct honey pot traps. The attempt at entrapment was a failure for conservatives are built on stronger moral fibres. The media is absolutely silent on this. And they too are silent on honey pot success of Fang Fang, a Chinese CCP agent who had entrapped Democrat Congressman Eric Sawell.  Life was easy for a Democrat in a Democrat-controlled Congress. Sawell sat on the House Intelligence Committee and remain seated even after his amorous adventure was made public. 

Tim Walz, Kamala Harris' VP pick, has now been outed for a very long affair with the daughter of a CCP agent in the US. This would have ended his career in the government immediately, but he is still Harris' running mate. And the media is abolutely fine with it.

Trump held a massively successful rally at the world famous Madison Square Garden, a huge indoor arena where all sorts of events  have been held. Tickets for that rally sold out within 3 hours. New York is fiercely liberal and actively antagonistic towards conservatives in general and Trump in particular. It is a place where no one is placing their money on a GOP winner. Trump went into the Lion's den, a fiery display of his courage. In pre-WWII days, American Nazi youths held a rally there once to preach support for Hitler's Germany. For that reason, Democrats and media went to town to holler Trump is a Nazi and Hitler fan. If media were to say Hitler drank water, Trump drinks water, proves he is a fan of Hitler, many would have believed. Media does not show there were many Jews at the rally, and the only signs of Hitler was a group of Democrat activists outside the areana holding up placards with the Swastika sign. Never will media say Trump has a Jewish son-in-law and his daughter embraced Judaism.

In Revelation 2.13 John of Patmos wrote about where Satan dwells. It is in the Temple of Pergamon (present day Turkey). From its archaeological ruins, the Altar of Pergamon was shifted to Berlin and reconstructed in a special museum. In Nuremberg, architect Albert Speer once constructed a platform designed after the Altar of Pergammon. It was on this platform that Hitler made so many of his fiery hate speeches.  In 2008, for his nomination speech, Barrack Obama stood on a platform that was modeled on the Altar of Pergamon, following the footsteps of Hitler. (I blogged about this in Story behind the story behind the story 7 Sep 2019.) You got yourself a heck of a Hitler fan there. The media does not speak about this, but for holding a rally in MSG, Trump is a Hitler fan. 

I picked on some of the stories to show media capture by the liberals to draw caveat to what is now a general consensus - mainstream media cannot be trusted. These are just tip of the iceberg, yet majority of people are consistently consuming media lies as matter of fact. Most of the comments I see from Singapore elites seem to me to be coloured by the same media bias.

What is most confounding to me is the often alluding to Trump as erratic and Harris as establishment type politician, a bastion of consistency. It takes a man with a bigger vision to see how hopelessly inappropriate this assessment of Trump is. No less than our reverent ex-Foreign Minister  George Yeo, a man Lee Kuan Yew once credited as a visionary, who said for all the media hyped negativities, there is one thing to be said of Trump, and that is, he has been consistent in his core policy stands for years. As a matter of fact, for decades. The same cannot be true of Harris, who has been flip-flopping, and making a mess of where she stands on many issues. The one consistency of Harris is she is for abortion up to full term. The fact that Singapore elites cannot see through this fundamental difference is worisome.

Trump is one of those larger-than-life seemingly chaotic personality, often creating iconic moments in history. His famous descent down the escalator at Trump Tower on June 16, 2015, is one such memorable moment people often refer to. It was when he announced his candidacy, delivering a speech that set the tone for his campaign with strong, populist themes and controversial statements, including remarks about immigration. Most people are coloured by perception rather than deep understanding, and the biased media has a lot to do with this.  How much does an ordinary guy know about Trump? Let's be frank, ask yourself. The truth is, absolutely nothing other than what you see and hear. Most people perceives him as “like a bull in a china shop,” making a noisy entrance, upending the environment, and unsettling others with their intense energy. Think of him as brash, heedless of others’ responses, and unfiltered in expressing opinions or frustrations. He dominates the room, causing both fascination and disturbance in equal measure. The proletariat probably sees him as Gargantuar, the cartoon character from the Plants vs. Zombies video game series. He is that large, muscular zombie who carries a huge club and smashes everything in his way. He is all brute force, sheer power and destruction. The bourgeois may see echoes of the literary character Gargantua from Gargantua and Pantagruel, a 16th century work by François Rabelais .

Is it just me or do you too sense it too. We are living in a time, at least in Western-influenced part of the world, where there is a normalisation of wrong as right, and right is wrong. Media and progressive neo-liberalism has a lot to do with this. For all the pomposity thrashed onto Trump, we seemed to have the most peaceful four years in modern history of the world during his presidency. The unthinkable almost happened as the Abraham Accord that he pushed brought Middle East countries and Israel towards peaceful co-existence, the crazy man of the East, Kim Jong Un, simmered down and no North Korean rockets were fired towards Japan. President Xi sat down with Trump to thrash out their economic differences. Afghanistan war was finally over. Trump has been right on many things he said, including that seemingly offensive point on immigration he made in 2015. Look at the chaos, violent crimes and illegal drugs has brough to western countries with open borders.

I confess I shared the same opinion of Trump like most people back in 2015. However, his work in the White House made me do a double take and reassessment. I saw he delivered on many campaign promises. I saw through the lies of media and his political enemies. I saw the unconstitutional acts of leadership in government agencies and judiciary work against him. His accomplishments were significant given that much of his term was spent fighting the lies of the Democrats in pushing two impeachments against him, and appointees who were working against his mission. Here is a man who can work under unimaginable stress and make good on his promises. In this election, he is proving once again that capability to strive under intense pressure. No known presidential candidate ever has to face the kind of intensity of not just political opposition, but pure hate, and risk his life, in pursuit of a mission, as he mentioned in an interview some 40 years ago, to do better for his countrymen.   

That intelligent people cannot peel back the layers of Trump the showman to the core of his substance is a measure of the observer's emotion clouding critical thought. Take for example his latest gimmick of working in McDonalds and his press conference sitting in a garbage dumpster truck, with him complete in the famous French Fry apron and garbage collector's vest. His critics and stoic Singaporean elites no doubt see buffonery in action, but marketeers see a master class act that scored both ways -- endearing Trump to the working class and rebuffing his opposition to the extent they have no response. It was of course a mockery of Harris' claims that she once worked in McDonalds which was a lie to embellish her fictitious middle class upbringing, and a skit on Tony Hinchcliffe's faux pas comic line of Puerto Rico's island of garbage. 

Now back to some of the economic commentaries.

Rohit Sipahimalani:
“I know the conventional wisdom and consensus is that right now a Trump presidency is better for markets.... A Trump win is probably going to mean a stronger dollar and higher rates than you would otherwise have in a Harris administration ......  But as you look out to 2025, the picture is not that clear.... A slowdown in global growth would also have a direct impact on US-listed firms given that 25 per cent of revenues at S&P 500 companies come from outside the country,"

A stronger dollar means a better economy, with pressure on inflation and thus higher interest rates. Rohit seems to mean America is better off economically with a Trump presidency. You do notice where Bloomberg bias is.

Dylan Loh, an assistant professor at Nanyang Technological University’s Public Policy and Global Affairs division :
“While Trump may inject greater uncertainty and unpredictability, a Harris presidency will not and cannot suddenly engender stability, peace and predictability”

That seems to me like a bunch of typical word salad from Harris.

Lee Hsien Loong, ex-PM, Singapore:
"A second Trump term would likely spell more disruptions for American allies and other countries. In particular, I think, what you can anticipate is that his attitude towards allies, towards America’s friends, will be different from what the Democrat administration has done in these last four years,” .

Say what you like, LHL has visions far ahead of the pack. This is an important point of his observation. But then again, as I pointed out, if one has been able to see the substance of Trump, he has been consistent in this. He has made it very clear America will no longer be the sucker to bear disproportionately heavier financial burdens for various funding responsibilities, be it for global security, contributions to intranational agencies like UN and WHO, more particularly for those which have shown no loyalty to the interests of the US. He intends to be transactional. Medicant countries cannot expect to receive with their hands from Uncle Sam and kick him with their legs.   

The problem of trade tariffs:

This has been the core sticking issue of Singapore Inc as regards Trump.

Rohit:
"The tariffs are going to create uncertainty, which is never good for investment and actually I think it’ll be negative not just for emerging markets but across the world .....(it would) impact global growth”.

Tan See Seng, research adviser at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies 

“If Trump wins, he is likely to reconvene another trade war with China. If that leads to China doubling down on its ongoing effort to ‘decouple’ its economy from the US, Singapore’s economy will be affected but it’s unclear at this point exactly how so.” 

Bilahari Kausikan, a former permanent secretary of Singapore’s foreign ministry:

"If Trump were to carry out his promise to levy tariffs on all imports to promote American manufacturing, it would slow the world economy."

Lee Hsien Loong warned that if Trump were to slap tariffs of 60 per cent or higher on Chinese goods in his second term as promised, it would put Singapore in “uncharted territory”.

The contrarian says:

The downside of tariffs as expressed above comes out of standard economic text books. In most scenarios, tariffs lead to inefficiencies and resource misallocation. Higher import costs typically reduce overall consumer welfare, raise production costs, and can lead to retaliation from trade partners, which disrupts global supply chains. This generally results in less optimal resource utilization and may harm long-term economic growth by discouraging trade and investment.

However, a directed tariff can provide limited economic benefits, such as protecting certain domestic industries from foreign competition, potentially saving local jobs or encouraging the growth of emerging sectors

There have been many write ups, videos, and commentaries, presented sometimes in racist overtones, and more than often, aa a middle to the Orange Mop, for Trump's Tariff War I which they viewed as failures. Trump's tariffs on Chinese products was followed by a retaliation on American agricultural products. Which was to be expected. This resulted in the US spending billions on subsidies to help the farmers, the funds of course, came from the revenue collected from the higher tariffs. Of course no one can really work out the mathematics and say the winner is .... Again, the perception is Trump had his nose rubbed.

But here I stand alone and say, the winner of Trump Tariff War I is the whole world. The fundamental point overlooked by everyone is Trump's objective and did he achieve it. 

China's great leap in economic growth after opening up to the world was due primarily to it being a cheap manufacturing base. (Let's leave aside other issues of technology transfer, intellectual property theft and political stability). As its economy matures, China stuck to its monetary policy of pegging the renmenbi to US$. The fixed rate kept the yuan cheap and made China the factory to the world. This is an unfair trade practice that manifested in huge balance of payments for China. The massive forex reserves accumulated propelled China Investment Corporation to the second largest sovereign wealth fund in the world with US$1.4 trillion assets under management. This is a situation that Singapore Inc knows too well with its GIC experience. The situation is untenable as no country in the world, not just the US, will be able to compete on an unfair basis against the sheer size of the Chinese economy. 

Tariff War I was about China's unfair trade practices and bringing them to heel. That was Trump's objective. And did he succeed? A resounding YES. The Bank of China gradually allowed the Renmenbi to appreciate. Today, the Renmenbi is maintained on a managed float basis, more or less similar to what the Monetary Authority of Singapore is doing. The Chinese currency is now more or less in line with market expectation of where it should be. Had it not been for Trump's initiative, all factories in the rest of the world would have to shut their doors. 

I remember an incident back in pre-Tariff War I days. I was invited to quote for supply of a few thousand Corbusier sofas and 3-seaters for a grand international event to be held in Singapore. I submitted the lowest limbo-rock low prices possible, hopping to make on volumes. The winner was a guy from China, which was not surprising. What surprised me was their price which was just 25% of my lowest offer. Considering they had to factor in shipping cost, it was simply an impossible price. That in a nutshell, is what unfair trade practice does to competitors.

Trump's Tariff War II has a fundamentally different objective whcih the commentaries above seem to have missed the point. The tariff is to hit hard on American companies that shut down their US plant and either domicle it offshore in countries such as China, India, Vietnam. Mexico etc or simply outsourced from overseas. The objective of Tariff War II is primarily to force American companings to bring their manufacturing jobs back home to the US. Whatever one feels about Trump, that is what a leader has to do for his country.

As Ho Ching once said, Temasek can afford to hold contrarian views. Rohit is with the herd. I stand with Ho Ching here. Give me a tariff war any time over a nuclear war. A Harris win is taking a chance on a nuclear war in Europe. A Trump win is giving peace a chance. Trump's tariff may cause the decoupling of economies and re-alignment of supply chains. It will be unsettling for some but opportunities for others. But the world and Singapore will navigate it, however the outcome. Certainly a better scenario than a nuclear war. 

This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.

DOES SCIENCE OR GOD EXPLAIN ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE?

"Ex nihilo nihil fit"

Parmenides

"Nothing comes from nothing" is the metaphysical thought that originated from Parmenides, believed to be born about 540BC. Parmenides was a pre-Socrates Greek philosopher generally accepted as the father of ontology. This thought remains the cornerstone of classical and modern physics principle of mass-energy conservation, which states that mass and energy are conserved and can only change forms. They can neither be created nor destroyed.

Law of Conservation of Mass  as proposed by Antoine Lavoisier in 18th century, states that the total mass in a chemical reaction remains constant. It is not created nor destroyed in chemical processes.

A similar Law on Conservation of Energy was developed in the 18th century by various scientists that states energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only converted from one form to another (e.g., chemical energy to kinetic energy).

Then in 1905 came Albert Einstein's famous equation E = mc².  This is the Law of Mass-Energy Equivalence which basically says that mass and energy are two forms of the same thing. Mass can be converted into energy and vice versa. For example, in nuclear reactions, a small amount of mass is converted into a large amount of energy. This does not violate the conservation laws because the total amount of mass and energy is still conserved.

What these conservation laws of mass and energy say is, in a closed system, mass and energy remain constant, though they can change forms through many physical processes, such as chemical reactions, nuclear processes, and thermodynamics, and they can neither get into nor escape from the system. So the question that needs to be answered is where do all the matter that form the universe come from? The fundamental concept in both philosophy and science is the principle of causality which states that every effect has a cause. So what caused the universe to come into being?

The theistic explaination is of course God is the Creator of the Universe. Atheists and those who swear by science and laugh at dogmas, would have none of this, and so the search for an empirical causality. I have to say, like most people, I have no theological, philosophical nor scientific understanding on the matter. The creation of the universe is one of those deep questions that fixated my curiosity in my teen years. I wasn't sold on the Genesis story and I was weak in physics to try to wrap around the science, particularly in those days before internet access to info was not that easy. But there was something that piqued me from a very young age into adult life and that is the idea of infinite space. Imagine taking away all the galazies in the universe, that is, taking away matter, what is left is just empty space. There is no matter, there is nothing, just ... nothingness. What is this thing that is nothing? What is the purpose of nothing? How to describe this? Then in Genesis I see the word, and it is called 'void'.

Here I try to assemble the works of some brilliant scientists, many of whom are men of religion, and see where the search for causality is leading to. Is it towards a material, empirical understanding or towards a metaphysical conclusion of a supernatural beginning of the universe.

Follow me as we go on a journey where we take away matter, space, and time out of the universe, till there is nothing left but a teeny weeny infinitesimal dot of energy.

Up till the early 1920s, the world view was a static universe. The universe has been there all the time and has never changed. There is no point in discussing its origin. Physicists Fred Hoyle, Thomas Gold, and Hermann Bondi in 1948 proposed the Stasis Concept or Steady-State Model which states the universe is infinite in both time and space, meaning it has no beginning and no end. Individual stars or galaxies may change, but the overall structure and density of the universe remain constant.

Sir Isaac Newton

With the publication of "Principla" in 1687, Newton established the Law of Universal Gravitation. All bodies in the universe have mass and attract each other. Between two bodies, the one with the bigger mass pulls the smaller body to it. The force is inversely proportional to the distance between them to the power of 2 (F=1/d²). That is, if the distance is increased by 2 times, the force is decreased by 4 times, if distance decreases by 3 times, force is increased by 9 times etc. This gravitational force is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. It can be computed using a constant (G) multiplied by the sum of the mass of the 2 objects divided by the distance between the 2 objects squared.  This force is expressed as :

F = G × ^{m₁ × m₂} / r²

Newton computed the gravitational force of Earth as g = 9.81 m/s² , i.e. 9.81 metres per second squared. 

Prior to Newton, Aristotle (384–322 BC) and Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) had also addressed gravitational force. Aristotle said objects with higher mass falls faster than a lighter one. Galilei said that is true only if there is air resistance. Where there is no resistance, such as in a vacuumn or space, all objects fall at the same speed. This has now been proven in modern day space missions. 

Newton's hypothesis went further than the falling apple. His Law of Universal Gravition extends to all the celestial bodies in space and explains why they are all held together in a stable relationship.

Newton's universal gravity law was the world view for the next 250 years.

Albert Einstein

In 1915 a young Einstein published his General Theory of Relativity and his complex 'field equations'. What does a patent clerk know! No one knew what it was all about at the time. Einstein redefined gravity not as a force, but as a result of the curvature of space-time.

According Einstein, massive objects like planets, stars, and galaxies cause a distortion or bending in the fabric of space-time. He gave a thought experiment of how space can bend.

Imagine in a rocket at rest or ascending at a rate under 9.81m/sec squared and you shine a torchlight against the wall. The ray of light will be straight as normal. But if the rocket accelerates the light will curve slightly. It will need the acceleration to exceed the Earth's gravitation substantially before the curve becomes apparent. What happens is the light is still shining on a straight line but following the curvature of space. Einstein shows the curvature of space and how velocity also has an impact on gravity.

In Euclidean math a straight line is the shortest distance between 2 points. In spherical geometry, a straight line can be a curve. The following illustrates.

Suppose a guy fires a shot with his rifle. The pressure built up in the firing chamber pushes the bullet out and the grooves in the barrel gives it the spin for more speed. The bullet travels on a straight trajectory up to a point when its energy or speed drops and it then takes a parobolic descend to the ground. With a more powerful gun and bullet, the bullet can travel on the straight path much further. Supposing he has a gun and bullet powerful enough to travel 25,000 miles (Earth's circumference), the bullet will have the velocity to curve round the Earth, but its fligth path is still a straight line.

Imagine space is not void but filled with layers upon layers of fabric. Now imagine a two-dimensional view by taking one piece of fabric and stretch it out. If a ball is placed on the fabric, the mass of the ball will cause the fabric to curve under it. All the celestial bodies in the Universe bend the fabric just like the ball. In our galaxy, the Sun is the biggest mass and so it has the greatest impact in bending the fabric.

Just like the bullet that circles the Earth is actually on a straight line, the planets that circle the Sun are also on a straight line. But now, because space is bended, the planets' straight path also bends.

American physicist John Wheeler describes it best : "Matter tells space-time how to curve. Space-time tells matter how to move".

Einstein's law of relativity shows that mass warps space and thus distorts space and time. The law of relativity does not negate Newtonian gravity, it shows that celestial bodies move according to how space is warped.

As the planet moves closer to the Sun by Newtonian gravitational pull, it follows the curve of the space-time warp. It is still on a straight path but is curved.

Planets do not crash into the Sun due to (a) their sideway movement, that is, tangent to the Sun, and (b) their velocity. This results in planets revolving in eliptical paths round the Sun known as orbits.  

The image above is two-dimensional looking at only one layer of imaginery fabric. Space is of course bended in three-dimensional way. Einstein's law of relativity brings space and time together into a new 4-dimensional concept called 'space-time'

To an astrounaut or a satellite far up in the sky, space is not warped. Earth as a huge mass, warps the space around it. Thus the same straight line A-B is shorter in space compared to that on Earth. Speed = Distance/Time, therefore Time = Distance/Speed. As the speed of light does not change, it means there is a time difference between space and Earth due to the curvature of space caused by Earth's mass. 

This curvature of space distorts time. Time is now relative.
1. If both are stationary or moving at same speed, time moves faster for the one with the greater gravitational field. This is called gravitational dilation. Thus time moves faster on Earth than the one in space.
2. Time moves slower for the one that is moving faster. This is velocity dilation. Time for the satellite moves slower because it is orbiting Earth at speeds of 28,000 km/hr, circling the Earth every 90 minutes, compared to Earth that spins on its axis at a speed of 1,670 km/hr. Because of time difference, all those GPS data taken by satellite has to go through some tweaking to sync with Earth-time.
Note : The time difference means astronauts in the space station should age slower in space. But they actually age faster due to health reasons from exposure to mircrogravity and radiation.

What's all these Einstein mumbo jumbo got to do with creation

Let's take a breather. Up till now you must be wondering what has all this got to do with creation of the universe. I will get to that. But since we want to know Science or God? issue, we need to have a grounding in the science, and General Theory of Relativity is key. If this is tough for you, don't worry. You are in good company. It is so complex and even involves another aspect of math called Reimannian Geometry which even Einstein himself could not figure out. Even Einstein had to enlist the help of Swiss Mathematician Marcel Grossman to help him. Eventually, Einstein worked out his Field Equations.

Einstein's law of relativity shows that matter distorts time and space. This has actually been proven correct twice.

First, Newtonian law cannot explain a peculiar problem of Mercury' precession, that is, its motion in it's orbit. The eliptical path of a planet is called its geodesic, and the point where it is nearest to the Sun is called perihelion, the point furthest from the Sun is the aphelion. Newtonian calculations is not able to pinpoint the exact position of Mercury's perhelion. There is a precession error of 43 arcsecond per century. Einstein's Field Equations was able to accurately predict the 43 arcsecond per century precession. Mercury is the closest to the Sun and thus more affected by its gravitional pull. Its geodesic passes through a bigger curvature of the space-time warp near the Sun. Einstein's Field Equations takes into consideration the space-time distortion.

Second. in 1919 Sir Arthur Eddington conducted an observational test on the general theory of relativity.  Large objects bend space-time. That means the light coming from stars far away bends as it passes these large objects. An observer therefore will see the stars not in the exact position they were supposed to be. An analogy is light refraction in water. We see an object in the water which does not appear to be its actual position. Since the Sun is the biggest object, then the distant stars to the rear of the Sun would be seen away from the position thay are supposed to be. But we can't see the stars with the Sun in the sky. Eddington made the observation during a full eclipse of the Sun. And true enough, as predicted by the general theory of relativity, the stars were in slightly different locations.  

Now we come to the gist of the importance of general theory of relativity to the Science or God question. Einstein's field equations are a set of equations that describe how mass and energy influence the curvature of spacetime. The curvature of spacetime, in turn, dictates the motion of objects. The equations relate the distribution of matter and energy to the curvature, forming the foundation of modern gravitational theory. It led to the development of a cosmological model of an expanding universe (Edwin Hubble), the possibilities of black holes - a situation where the space-time curvatures are so extreme that even light cannot escape (Karl Schwarzschild), and singularity- a point where density and gravitational forces are infinite, and the known laws of physics break down  (Penrose, Hawking, Ellis).

Einstein preferred the philosophical idea of a static universe. So he proposed there is an equal countering force to the gravitational pull which he called the "Cosmological Force". He postulated all the parameters and metrics to arrive at the cosmological force. To put it harsely, he cheated, but Stephen Meyer, American scientist and philosopher, puts it more kindly, at the same time it's a dig at Science, that Einstein used some 'fine-tuning' to arrive at the value he wanted. It was not till 1931 that Einstein admitted the cosmological force was his greatest blunder. Here's hoping those with blind faith in science take a leaf.

Redshifting

First, let's understand some basic physics. We see things from the reflection of light from the observed object. Light is made up of a spectrum of colours. When a ray of light passes through a glass prism, it comes out in it's spectral colours which can be observed. Light travels in waveforms, different colours have different wavelengths or frequencies. The colour red has the longest wavelength and blue the shortest.

In 1842 Austrian physicist Christian Doppler hypothesised that the observed frequency of a wave depends on the relative speed of the source and the observer. Specifically, he proposed that the wavelength of light emitted from stars would change depending on their motion relative to Earth, leading to shifts in color. The motion of stars relative to an observer would cause the colors of the stars to change (either toward the blue or red end of the spectrum) based on their velocity relative to the observer. This is called the Doppler Effect.

When the wavelength of light from an object increases in length, it is called redshifting and it means the object emiting the light is moving away from the observer. The object appears more reddish. When the wavelength decreases in length, it is called blueshifting and it means the object is moving towards the observer. The object appears more blueish.

Astronomers use a spectroscopy to measure redshift by analyzing the spectrum of light from an object. The light emitted by stars and galaxies contains specific absorption or emission lines (which correspond to the elements in them). By comparing these lines to the positions they would have in a stationary object, astronomers can calculate the redshift. Redshift is used to estimate the distance to faraway galaxies. The further away a galaxy is, the more its light is redshifted. Astronomers use redshift as a proxy to gauge how far an object is from Earth.

Vesto Melvin Slipher

American astronomer Vesto Melvin Slipher was the first to mention redshifting. In 1912 he was studying Andromeda Galaxy (M31) at a time when all those distant blobs were called nebulae. Today we know they are a million galaxies out there. What he saw was blue shifting, which means Andromeda is moving towards Earth. He later discovered that majority of galaxies are redshifting, moving away from Earth. Slipher, however, did not formulate his discovery into an expanding Universe model.

Edwin Hubble

Edwin Hubble started out as a lawyer for a short while and changed track to be an astronomer. He did his research at Mount Wilson Observatory in California which used the 100-inch Hooker Telescope, the most powerful one at the time. This is not to be confused with the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) named after him which was launched into space in 1990 aboard the Space Shuttle Discovery

In 1929, Edwin Hubble made one of the most important contribution to modern astronomy. Building from the knowledge of Einstein's general relativity theory and redshifting, he theorised that distant galaxies are moving away from Earth, he added that their velocities are proportional to their distances. This relationship is now known as Hubble’s Law. From this he built the cosmological model of an expanding Universe.

In 1931 Hubble invited Einstein to the observatory. After being a witness to the observable evidence of redshifting, Einstein finally accepted an expanding universe and that his cosmological force was a mistake.

The Universe has an origin !

Hubble's hypothesis had great implications - in other words, there is a beginning of Time. If the Universe was expanding, how was it before. By back extrapolation, we have a shrinking Universe as we move back in time. Take the analogy of a deflating balloon which gets smaller and smaller. There must be a point when the Universe started its expansion from an origin.

Einstein's field equations show how spacetime curvature is influenced by matter and energy, including in a contracting universe scenario where the spacetime curvature would change accordingly, and this would affect the motion of celestial bodies. Gravitational attraction will pull galaxies, stars, and other objects closer together causing the density of matter in the universe to increase dramatically, potentially leading to large-scale mergers and the collapse of structures. Galaxies could collide and merge on a larger scale. As objects get pulled together, they form like black holes. In turn, black holes, could merge into larger black holes, eventually accumulating more mass as they interact with surrounding matter. This will end in a final event called the Big Crunch where all the matter in the whole universe congeals into one infinite mass called singularity, a point where the curvature of spacetime becomes infinite and the laws of physics as we know them break down.

Einstein’s theories describe how spacetime behaves during the contraction of the universe, but do not fully explain the detailed process of how these bodies merge into a "final mass," particularly as it approaches the singularity.

To sum up for Einstein. His theories and field equations lead science to this tiny infinite dot called singularity. This is a compression of matter, space, and time of the whole universe into energy in one infinite dot. It cannot explain if there is anything pre-singularity because all known laws of physics do not work at this point. Neither can it explain how this dot came into being. Was this the origin of the Universe?
.
The Cosmic Egg

Many ancient civilisations have a story about a sort of cosmic egg which cracked open and gradually formed the universe. These ancient mythologies include:
* The Hindus have the Hiranyagarbha or "golden egg" mentioned in the Rigveda as the source of the universe.
* The Chinese have the story of  Pangu who was born from the cosmic egg where he emerged and separated heaven and earth. 

* The Greeks have the Orphic Egg from which the god Phanes emerged to create the cosmos.

Georges Lemaître

In 1931, Georges Lemaître, a Belgian Catholic priest, physicist, and astronomer, published his hypothesis that the universe originated from a single, incredibly dense point. He called this the Primeval Atom. This cosmic egg exploded at the moment of the creation of the universe. He basically described the 'Big Bang' although he did not call it that way.

Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking, and George F. R. Ellis

These 3 physicists are known for their significant contributions to solving aspects of Einstein's field equations. Well, actually they didn't directly "solve" Einstein's field equations in the way one might solve a simple equation, but they used them to demonstrate profound implications about the universe's nature, particularly around the formation of singularities and the evolution of space-time. Their work advanced understanding of the origins and structure of the universe by applying general relativity to extreme conditions, such as the formation of black holes and the Big Bang.

In the 1960s and 1970s, Penrose and Hawking worked together to develop what is known as the Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems. These theorems show that, under certain conditions, Einstein's field equations imply the existence of singularities, points in space-time where density becomes infinite, such as at the center of black holes or at the Big Bang.

Penrose initially formulated a singularity theorem for gravitational collapse, showing that black holes form under certain conditions. Hawking extended this work to the entire universe, arguing that the Big Bang itself could be described as a singularity.

George Ellis co-authored with Hawking in 1923 the important work "The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time", which explored the consequences of Einstein's equations on the structure of the universe. Ellis contributed to understanding the global structure of space-time and how it evolves over large scales in the presence of gravitational fields

Hawking's other contribution is his famous prediction that black holes can emit radiation that slowly evaporates. This is known as Hawking radiation.

In 1969 Penrose was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on black holes. Hawking, for all his acclaims and popularity, never received any Nobel Prize. The Nobel Prize in Physics is typically awarded for discoveries that have been experimentally verified. While Hawking's theories were revolutionary, they have not yet been observed directly. Perhaps he may get one for his predictions about black holes emitting radiation.

The Big Bang

We now come to the day itself, the day when time and space started. Unless you are well read on this topic, boy, are you in for a few big surprises.

First surprise, Big Bang actually refers to the singularity as the point when the Universe began. We have seen how a back intrapolation of a contracting universe lead us to a point where all celestial bodies collapse or congeal into one infinite mass. where space, time, mass and energy became a point of infinite density, concentrated in an infinitely dense and hot state and all the laws of physics break down. There was nothing, no space, no time, nothing. As the Bible says, just 'void". And this singularity, which is this infinite dense hot state with no laws of physics. The Big Bang actually refers to this initial singularity suddenly coming into being and began a rapid expansion, not an actual physical explosion. Where did it come from? Science, Einstein's general relativity, quantum mechanics, cannot explain it.

Second surprice, the term Big Bang was coined by Physicist Fred Hoyle in a BBC broadcast in 1949. Actually it was meant in a sarcastic way since Hoyle was a believer of the static universe.

Third surprise, Hawking never described how the Big Bang happened. No one can explain since the laws of physics, including Einstein's general relativity and quantum mechanics, break down at singularity. There must have been some form of instability that caused Quantum fluctuations to occur leading to the conditions for the singularity to expand. Hawking never explained how the initial singularity came into being, nor how the expansion began.

Forth surprise, there was no explosion in the traditional sense of a bomb going off. Think of it as a rapid expansion of energy which formed space-time. After the initial singularity, the universe began to expand. This expansion can be thought of in terms of inflation, a theory proposed to explain the extremely rapid expansion of the universe shortly after the Big Bang. The rapid expansion means that space itself was created during this period, leading to the universe as we observe it today. The energy present at the singularity was transformed into matter and radiation as the universe expanded. According to Einstein’s equation E = mc², energy can be converted into matter, allowing for the creation of particles as the universe cooled. As the universe expanded, it transitioned from a hot, dense state into a cooler environment, allowing for the formation of subatomic particles, atoms, and eventually galaxies.

Signature of the Big Bang

Most scientists believe in the Big Bang Theory as there is a compelling body of evidence that supports it. Observational data, theoretical predictions, and advancements in technology enhance the understanding of the universe's early moments and its subsequent development. The signature of the Big Bang are :

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB)

Hawking Radiation suggests there should be traces of radiation from the early universe. It is estimated the Big Bang occured 13.8 billion years ago. What astronomers see in the sky is not an actual representation of present day status because light takes time to reach Earth. That means the radiation is still observable in our times. The remnant of CMB would have appeared as a uniform glow detected from all directions in space. Scientists have been on the lookout for this. Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson were the first to spot this in 1965. The CMB provides a snapshot of the universe approximately 380,000 years after the Big Bang, when atoms first formed and light could travel freely.

Redshift of Galaxies

Redshifting is evidence of a still expanding universe after the Big Bang. The farther away a galaxy is, the faster it is moving away from us. This is in accordance with Hubble's Law.

Abundance of Light Elements

Predictions of the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis model suggest that the universe's early conditions allowed for the formation of light elements such as hydrogen, helium, and small amounts of lithium The observed ratios of these elements in the universe match the predictions made by the Big Bang Theory. The specific abundances of hydrogen (about 75%) and helium (about 25%) in the universe provide strong evidence supporting the Big Bang.

Large Scale Structure of the Universe

The distribution of galaxies and galaxy clusters shows a filamentary structure known as the "cosmic web." The evolution of these structures can be traced back to small fluctuations in density in the early universe, as seen in the CMB. The large-scale structure aligns with predictions from models based on the Big Bang, including the influence of dark matter.

Temperature of the Universe 
The current average temperature of the universe is about 2.7 K, corresponding to the CMB radiation. This temperature is consistent with a universe that has been expanding and cooling since the Big Bang.

The coolness of the universe today aligns with predictions of cooling following the initial hot phase.

Where the science is now as regards 'Creation of Universe'

So now we have this tiny dot from which the universe began based on the Penrose-Hawking-Elise theorums on singularity. Two questions arise.

First, how this singularity came about? Second, how did it expand to form the Universe the way it is today?

These are the deepest mysteries in modern cosmology. There are several ideas and hypotheses, but none that has been definitively proven. No one can explain pre-singularity or pre-Big Bang since the laws of physics do not work and no one knows how gravity would have worked. Any theory of causality from material is impossible since matter did not exist at this point.

There are various hypotheses, non-substantiated and science fiction material, basically models proposed in a way to circumvent the singularity state. I shall not go into it but just to mention names. These include Quantum Cosmology models, Quantum Fluctuations models, tunneling or the Hawking-Hartle "No Boundary" proposal, Multiverse Hypotheses and Eternal Inflation, Holographic Principle and Quantum Information, Cyclic Models, and Ekpyrotic models. All these are obfuscating our understanding of the nature of reality. Where is Occam's razor? 

Observational evidence of astronomers are no longer the ones pushing new knowledge about the birth of the universe. What's pushing the envelope is theoretical physics with models out of extreme concepts. Most notably it is coming from quantum cosmology or quantity gravity. This is basically using laws of physics to explain how the universe could have come into being out of singularity, even though quantum physics and laws of gravity do not apply at the point of Big Bang event. In simple language, what these thinkers are trying to do is to explain how the universe can come into existence out of singularity as a result of a mathematical equation!

General Relativity (large scale) - Quantum mechanics (small scale)

General relativity is the classical physics that deal with large-scale phenomena like stars, planets, galaxies, and the entire structure of the universe. Einstein's theories describes gravity as the curvature of spacetime caused by mass and energy. Massive objects like planets and stars warp the fabric of spacetime, and this curvature directs how objects move through space. His field equations predict motion of planets and stars, describes black holes, neutron stars and gravitational waves, and helps to understand the expansion of the universe.

Quantum mechanics is the physics about the behavior of matter and energy at the smallest scales, such as atoms, subatomic particles (electrons, protons, neutrons), and photons. Unlike classical physics, quantum mechanics deals with probabilities and uncertainty. Particles at this scale behave in ways that defy intuition, exhibiting wave-particle duality, superposition, and entanglement.

Queerness of small

Singularity is the state were spacetime curvature is infinitesimal and energy is so dense and hot. When it came into being, that is the Big Bang. It began its expansionary phase. For an infinitesimal small window of time of the Big Bang, quantum mechanics do not apply. This small window is measured in Planck's time which is a unit of measurement of sub-atomic levels. Planck's time is about 10^-43 seconds (to the power of -43 means shifting the decimal 43 times to the left, that's how incredibly small this window timeframe is). In that window of time, the laws of physics breaks down. No one can explain what happened.

There are two basic concepts in smallness you need to understand:

Quantum fluctuations
In Quantum Field Theory (QFT), what we consider "empty space" is far from empty and is constantly active with quantum activity. Quantum fluctuations are temporary changes in the amount of energy at a specific point in space, arising due to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle which states that certain pairs of physical properties, like energy and time, cannot both be precisely known at the same time. These particles and antiparticles can spontaneously appear and disappear. They are a fundamental feature of quantum fields, which underlie all forces and particles in the universe. Thus at the quantum level, there is a violation of the conservation law of energy (energy cannot be created or destroyed) is violated where particles come into existence for very short times and then disappear.

Quantum fluctuations are essential to many physical phenomena, including the Casimir effect, Hawking radiation, and the structure of the early universe.

Wave-particle-duality
In quantum mechanics, tiniest particles like photons, electrons, exist in 2 states - in wave form or as particles (whether with mass or massless). They exist in a state of supersuposition when not observed, that is, they are both in wave and particle form at the same time.

You may have heard of the Shroendinger Cat. It is a mind experiment to explain this duality of existence. A cat is placed in a box together with some sort of poison or radioactive material. The box is sealed. Is the cat dead or alive? It can be said to be both dead and alive when it is not observed. It exists in 2 states at the same time. When box is opened and observed, then it assumes one state, either dead or alive.

It took me a long time to understand this, and it is not for want of grey matters. I not stupid what. I had misunderstood that when physicists use the word "observe" they do not mean someone looking at the particles. It means the particles are projected through a measuring device of sorts, something that can eject the medium such as photons or electrons individually.

In 1801 Thomas Young did the famous dual slit experiment on the wave nature of light. When light passes through a single slit, it spreads out and creates a diffraction pattern of the slit on a screen, with the brightest part in the center. But when light passes through two slits, it forms on the screen a pattern of several parallel slits, alternating with a light and dark tones.

Lights are photons. When it is shone through one slit, it is 'observed' and the photons behave as particles and land on the screen forming a pattern similar to the slit. When light is shone on 2 slits, it is not "observed" so the photons behave as waves and pass through both slits. As 2 waves pass through the slits, the waves hit each other. If the waves are in phase (crest meets crest or trough meets trough), it's called constructively interference, they enhance each other, creating bright spots on the screen. If they are out of phase (crest meets trough), it's called destructively interference, they cancel each other, creating dark spots.

Wave-particle duality is central to quantum mechanics, as it fundamentally describes the dual nature of matter and light at small scales. Its role in the origin of the universe is vital because the early universe was dominated by quantum phenomena. Understanding this duality helps explain how the universe transitioned from quantum fluctuations in the early moments of the Big Bang to the large-scale structure we observe today. Thus, wave-particle duality connects the behavior of the smallest particles to the formation of the cosmos itself.


The Mathematical Universe Hypothesis 

Wave Function

This is another concept one needs to understand. A wave function is a mathematical way to describe systems from a quantum perspective. Quantum theories deal with probabilities with different outcome configurations based on quantum laws. If certain parameter settings are pre-determined,or controlled, the wave function collapses, that is the outcome becomes deterministic. 

The universal wave function is a theoretical tool in quantum cosmology that describes the quantum state of the entire universe, particularly at its earliest moments. It suggests that the universe is not deterministic, but instead a vast sea of probabilities, with different configurations emerging based on quantum laws. What this means is theoretically, many universes could evolve from it, ours being one of them. (That's where the multiverse model comes from). The application of quantum mechanics to the universe’s beginning challenges classical ideas about causality and time. Instead of asking "What caused the Big Bang?" the wave function suggests that the universe’s origin might not require a classical cause, and could instead arise naturally from quantum mechanics, simply a matter of math.

The Mathematical Universe Hypothesis posits that the universe is not just described by mathematics, but is mathematics. In this view, all physical phenomena, including the Big Bang singularity, are manifestations of mathematical structures.

If this hypothesis is correct, the singularity came into being because it is an intrinsic mathematical feature of the universe's structure. The universe operates according to the fundamental equations of physics, and those equations lead naturally to singularities under certain conditions (such as the Big Bang or black hole formation).

This suggests that the singularity existed as a mathematical object before it manifested as a physical event in the universe. Therefore, mathematics doesn't just describe the singularity but brings it into being.

In this interpretation, mathematical causality refers to the idea that the physical universe and its behavior are determined by mathematical laws. Since the singularity is a solution to Einstein's field equations, which describe gravity and spacetime, the presence of a singularity could be seen as "caused" by the internal logic of mathematics itself.

The universe’s emergence from the Big Bang singularity, in this view, is less about an external cause and more about the unfolding of mathematical principles. The singularity exists because the equations of general relativity demand that such a state occurs under certain conditions, such as the collapse of mass into a black hole or the initial state of the Big Bang.

Several physicists are at the forefront of this hypothesis, such as Max Tegmark, Lawrence Krauss, John Archibald Wheeler and Bryce DeWitt. They are basically saying the Universe came out of nothing, and they can prove it mathmetically using quantum mechanics. 

The problem is these physicists need to prove an equation called the Wheeler-DeWitt Equation. This equation worked on the basis of quantum laws that throws out non-deterministic universal waves, that is, it provides undetermined possibilities of universes, one of it may just describe our universe. In order to get an outcome that describes only our Universe, the physicists must select certain conditions, or in quantum mechanics lingo, set the boundaries or constraints, and this will restrict the degree of mathematical freedom associated with the equation. This causes the collapse of the wave function to produce the solution pre-determined. In other words, it is the same as Eintein 'cheating' in the formulation of the Cosmological Force. The physicists set the boundaries in order for the equation to produce a wave function that describes only our universe.

Science or God?

So, instead of our Universe coming out of nothing, or coming out of material origin, we now have a third hypothesis of a mathematical equations as its origin, which is wierd. 

To get the wave function that best describes our universe, the physicists have to set the boundaries. This is huge at the philosophical level. What this means is it requires a 'mind', not just any mind, but a bloody brilliant mind. Did they just describe 'intelligent design'? Unless these physicists were present at the Big Bang, I don't see who could have set those boundaries.

So Science is saying it needs a 'mind' to tweak the operation of mathematics to produce a wave function that will create our universe, and using this hypothesis to argue against the theologists' position that an external mind, ie a Creator, is responsible for creating the universe.

There is a fundamental concept in scientific reasoning and philosophy of science called Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE). This principle posits that when faced with multiple competing hypotheses, the one that best explains the observed phenomena is preferred.

The causality for the origin of the universe has no material cause because at the event of the Big Bang there was no time, space, or matter to explain and no laws of physics. Mathematical hypotheses suggests there is a mind behind this. IBE would suggest the theological explanation is the most logical where an intelligent mind exterior to the system is responsible for the origin of the universe.

We seem to have come full circle. In ancient Greek cosmogony, the Pythagoreans had this concept of Monad, also know as The Absolute, the Supreme Being, divinity or the totality of all things. All things in the Universe came from Monad. 

Critics of religious belief, especially in the writings of atheists and agnostics, such as Richard Dawkins, in his book "The God Delusion", will always point to theologists invoking the 'God of the Gaps', as an explanation where empirical evidence cannot support a scientific position. They are quick to bear down on insults and disregard IBE as logical position. Those with theological inclinations, like James Tour, American chemist and nanotechnologist, have always said, while he believes in the Divine cause, as a scientist he cannot say science cannot prove it because who is to know 50-100 years later, a scientific explanation could be discovered. Tour finds no conflict in his position, because when that day arrives, he will just say in wonderment:

"Oh, so that's how HE did it!"

This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.