Stephen Hawking: Genius or crook?
Thursday, April 5th, 2018Faustian pact?
Millions of people across the world have heard of Stephen Hawking, whose recent death hence made headlines. Everyone speaks of his ALS. But is it proof of his indomitable will? Or did he hence make a Faustian pact with the devil incarnate: the church? Daring to raise this question will doubtless arouse the rage of his admirers. But if we weigh it against the possibility that millions have been deluded using their trust in science, it is our public and ethical duty to raise the question. To answer the question Hawking’s disease is irrelevant, and we need to examine the merits of Hawking’s scientific work dispassionately.
Widespread ignorance
But it is near impossible to do so. While millions revere him, very few understand the mathematical intricacies about calculus related to his work, especially on PenroseHawking singularity theory. That theory was the basis of his bestselling book A Brief History of Time. The widespread ignorance about it became starkly obvious during my debate with Roger Penrose, in Delhi, in 1997, attended by various professors of physics from Delhi University and JNU whose blank faces told the story.
What the vast majority believe is a story about science, a story they blindly trust. So deep is their trust that, from a position of ignorance, they are quite certain a contrary opinion is not to be trusted! “Millions of people believe this, they can’t all be wrong can they?”. Such a “proof by numbers” is convincing because it has survival value, as explained in my book The Eleven Pictures of Time: there is often safety in being part of the herd. But this psychology also provides an easy route to propaganda to fool a mass of people. For centuries, millions of Westerners fervently believed in the idea of a powerful God who appointed the church as his broker. The belief persisted just because the church reviled any dissenters as heretics and atheists, and, for centuries, killed them most brutally.
The Christian theology in Hawking’s work
Therefore, common sense may be a better guide to the truth than guesswork based on trust. What even the most gullible person cannot fail to notice is the way singularity theory connects to the notions of a JudeoChristian God and a specifically JudeoChristian notion of creation.
I have pointed this out repeatedly over the last twenty years, but the faithful, and our secular liberals, just ignore it. So, it is necessary to point it out yet again. Hawking’s popular book was preceded by an academic book, The Large Scale Structure of SpaceTime, which he coauthored with G. F. R. Ellis who won the Templeton award for connecting science and religion. That book concludes that the cosmos has a singularity. What does that mean? The authors interpret it to mean a moment of creation. The bottom line of the book [p. 364] asserts: “the universe began a finite time ago. However, the actual point of creation, the singularity, is outside the presently known laws of physics.” God created the cosmos and then set the clockwork of eternal laws in motion.
For those who don’t understand this, the meaning is made explicit in a book coauthored by Hawking, “A briefer history of time”. It explained [p. 141] that: “At the big bang and other singularities, all the laws [of physics] would have broken down, so God would still have had complete freedom to choose what happened and how the universe began.”
(more…)
Decolonising mathematics and science: new reading list
Thursday, March 29th, 2018Q. 1. I would like to know how I can decolonise myself mathematically. (I am an Aircraft Maintenance Engineer with engineering back ground.)
Q. 2. Do u suggest any videos of yours or any books? subsequently how I could prevent my kids from mental colonization.
A.
Step 0.
Proposed videos. The general good news is that I plan to produce a series of videos aimed at school children to prevent their indoctrination through colonial/church school texts. Hope to get them out within the next 3 months.
Step 1.
Read the nontechnical accounts. A good starting point is 1000 word article for the layperson which went viral but was censored. The full version is still available on my blog.
To decolonise math stand up to its false history and bad philosophy.
As the first lesson in decolonisation, ask yourself: why was an article on mathematics censored after publication? Did it contain obscenity? And if there was something wrong in it why was anyone unable to point to a single mistake till now? As for people, they protest censorship of sex but not of mathematics: why?
Journalists mould your opinion, but today’s journalists look at the social backing, not the evidence. They call it “quality control” (meaning social control). At least one editor did apply his mind, at the Wire which put back the article (but forgot about the key issue of philosophy included in the title). Similarly, Science 2.0 highlighted the claim that “Euclid” was a black woman, obviously something to be censored in South Africa.
Decolonisation is NOT only about history alone. Another philosophy is important for the contemporary value of decolonised math and science. So, why is it taboo? A preliminary exposition is in the article on
In short, there are two issues regarding math: (1) the myths, and (2) the superstitions surrounding formal (Western) math.
The myths
Myths are the anchor of superstition. If you have heard a story, such as that of Euclid, and have no evidence, it is probably a myth. Here is an easy book on myths: the myth that science is Western in origin.
It is available on Kindle and from the Other India Bookstore, Goa. Hindi version from Daanish Books, Delhi, and Multiversity, Penang. It is suitable for children (but they should skip the scholarly preface by Vinay Lal).
The superstitions
For some 1500 years, Western civilization was dominated by the church, whose power is based on falsehoods. It is an idle fantasy of the colonised mind that this effect of the church just disappeared overnight. The manifest fact is that the church is still powerful in large parts of the world, including the US. And the West is still steeped in church myths and superstitions which creep even into science in a variety of ways, especially through math. (more…)
Cape Town “debate” exposes Stephen Hawking’s racist coauthor
Tuesday, February 20th, 2018The panel discussion at the University of Cape Town (UCT) achieved something important: it exposed Stephen Hawking’s coauthor G. F. R. Ellis, a star of the racist apartheid regime. He ran away from UCT debate, because he could not defend through open debate the awful church propaganda he along with Hawking and some others have been trying to promote as great science.
My longstanding critique of the book Large Scale Structure of Spacetime, by Stephen Hawking and G. F. Ellis is in my book the Eleven Pictures of Time (Sage, 2003). The critique is this: Hawking and Ellis use bad math (bad calculus) to support church dogma. They interpret a cosmological singularity as a moment of Christian creation, as in the Bible story. That is the bottom line of their book:
“the actual point of creation, the singularity, is outside the scope of the presentday laws of physics”.
In his popular book Brief History of Time, Hawking explained this further. The breakdown of the laws of physics at the “moment of creation” would leave God free to create the laws and world of his choice. For this piece of trash, Ellis got the million dollar Templeton award for putting together science and religion.
Tipler, who published in the “reputed” journal Nature, furthered this trash thesis. He said singularity theory proved
“Judeo Christian theology is part of physics”!
More recently, I tried to explain some of the implications of such claims in my review of Hawking’s latest book, which review was published as a fullpage article in the newspaper DNA as “The Christian propaganda in Hawking’s work”.
These singularities involve bad math in two ways.
(1) Hawking and Ellis use a bad postulate (chronology condition, exactly like the church curse on ‘cyclic’ time, which postulate they justify using Augustine’s bad critique of Origen).
(2) Secondly, they use a bad understanding of calculus (that differentiating a discontinuous function leads to singularities on the equations of general relativity).
Long ago, in 1997, I debated these aspects of singularity theory publicly with Roger Penrose, and no one could refute my published arguments for the past 15 years.
Specifically, I explained long ago (in 1988) how singularities in general relativity can be easily handled using nonstandard analysis. More recently, I explained, as in the appendix to Cultural Foundations of Mathematics, that the nonstandard analysis can be replaced simply by nonArchimedean arithmetic with which the Indian calculus developed.
I recapitulated the above arguments in the UCT panel discussion. The point was to explain how bad math is used to create bad science. I expected to debate further in the math department, the next day, on the technical aspects as my abstract shows.
But Ellis was frightened sick at the prospect of an open debate with me would crush his lifework. He was also afraid that would expose him. He knows he is mathematically too incompetent to tackle the points such as nonstandard analysis raised by me.
So, he resorted to a simple but unethical device within his technical competence: he used his student Jeff Murugan as a sock puppet to hurl falsehoods at me through the press. To me this reveals Ellis’ true character as a racist and a charlatan: he well knew what he wrote with Stephen Hawking is all false and written just to fool people. Surely Stephen Hawking did too.
Church and racists use similar tactics: they defend one lie by means of a thousand lies. The fresh set of lies against me were planted in a report in GroundUp.
But racists tell stupid lies.
Decolonising science: Victory in Cape Town
Monday, December 18th, 2017The panel discussion on decolonising science at the University of Cape Town (UCT) was a great victory. It publicly exposed that no one in the UCT had a single serious argument against me. Indeed, in the last two decades not a single person in the West has put forward a single serious argument against my proposals for decolonising science.
My advance summary of points was posted here.
My claims involved three broad areas: (a) mathematics and science, (b) its philosophy, and (c) its teaching. Accordingly, the panel which responded to me had three senior faculty members from (a) math (Henri Laurie), (b) philosophy (Bernhard Weiss), and (c) education (Leslie Le Grange).
Below is a video record of my presentation.
The panel response is here.
Summary
My three fundamental arguments were that
(1) The current philosophy of formal math involves a bad metaphysics related to church theology,
(2) this bad metaphysics results in bad science
3) eliminating it and reverting to normal math makes math easy and results in better science.
None of the respondents engaged with any of these three fundamental arguments.
The mathematician spent most of his time telling his autobiography. The philosopher could not go beyond some irrelevant quibbles. The educationist did a good thing by summarising my points, but then made some general statements unconnected with my claims.
More details (more…)
Decolonising math: Amsterdam lecture
Thursday, December 14th, 2017Thanks to Djehuti AnkhKheru for making and posting a video of my lecture on decolonising math at Amsterdam.
Decolonising math and science: Durban keynote
Saturday, October 14th, 2017Here is a video of the 11th Higher Education Conference at the University of Kwazulu Natal, Durban.
My keynote address: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpS6MfzJr2E
www.youtube.com
Chair  Professor Kesh Govinder, University of KwaZuluNatal Title  Decolonising Maths and Science Education

The presentation is put up, as usual, at http://ckraju.net/papers/presentations/ckrDurbankeynote.pdf.
Professor Kesh Govinder is with the math department at UKZN, and was earlier its head. Here is a longer conversation with him and Professor Nyna Amin on decolonizing math on the Teaching and Learning TV
Panel on decolonised science at University of Cape Town
Sunday, September 24th, 2017For those colonised minds who superstitiously believe formal math and Western science are universal, there was a panel discussion at the University of Cape Town.
Decolonising science panel discussion
The key point: antiempirical formal math is used to slip in church dogmas into science. Of course normal math (imported by Europeans) continues to be used for many practical applications as before: but that is no argument for the blanket acceptance of formal math. Formal mathematicians not only tell terrible lies about “Euclid”, they fraudulently keep grabbing credit: formal real numbers are NEVER used in any engineering application.
Another silly argument, if something “works” we must accept the whole package: blindly accept also the creationism of Stephen Hawking and Tipler’s foolish claim that JudeoChristian theology is part of physics.
Normal math works, formal math adds on redundant fantasies about infinity, related to church dogmas of eternity. This is a contrick.
In this way, a variety of church superstitions are slipped into science through formal math.
Decolonisation of science is achieved by rejecting those metaphysical dogmas, and reverting to normal math. It results in an easier math and better science.
Another video of conversation with the students which was relayed live by Vernac news.
Decolonising science: video of conversation with students
The last refuge of the coloniser has collapsed.
The Kerala school vs calculus teaching today
Wednesday, August 16th, 2017As pointed out in the previous post, calculus started not with the Kerala school but with the dalit Aryabhata, of Patna, in the 5^{th} c. The Aryabhata school in Kerala acknowledged him as their master, and Nilakantha somasutvan wrote a commentary (bhashya) on the Aryabhatiya. To repeat, the Indian calculus was a panIndia development, and NOT a product of the Kerala school alone.
In particular, though infinite series are an easily recognized aspect of calculus, the emphasis on them is misleading, especially for the purpose of teaching Indian calculus in universities today. The above quote in the earlier blog post continues:
“Further, if we teach the Indian calculus today in universities (as I do) the focus will be only on what Aryabhata did. So, the plagiarists’ false understanding of history also prevents us from reforming calculus teaching today. Neither of the plagiarists understands the calculus well enough to teach it.”
Another quote, in the earlier blog post, closely related to this is the following.
“Like all plagiarists, Joseph and Almeida made horrible blunders while restating my thesis (stated in the Hawai’i paper,^{1} that the calculus developed in India with a different epistemology). For example, in one of their papers in Race and Class they asserted “the Kerala mathematicians used the floating point numbers”, used in modernday computers. Ha! Ha! Ha! What a joke! Only complete ignoramuses like the two plagiarists could have thus misunderstood my thesis about floating point numbers stated in my Hawai’i paper, which was part of a course on Cprogramming that I was then teaching as Professor of computer science.”
No doubt this was a blunder, but why was this a horrible blunder? Because a different number system was at the heart of the Indian method of summing infinite series, but Europeans did not understand it (and did not understand how to sum infinite series), and Western historians like Plofker do not understand it till today.
This lack of understanding of Indian calculus by Europeans had serious consequences: it led to the failure of Newtonian physics. I have analysed Newton’s error in understanding the Indian calculus, the consequent conceptual error in the notion of time in his physics, responsible for the failure of his physics, and proposed a corrected theory of gravitation.^{2} (An expository account of the new theory of gravitation is also available.^{3}) The point about floating point numbers used to do calculus on computers is further explained in the course of this analysis, as is the point about avyakt ganit. Floats are a finite set, smaller than formal reals, with no recognizable algebraic structure, because the associative law fails even for addition; avyakt ganit results in a “nonArchimedean” ordered field larger than formal reals. Calculus can be done with number systems smaller or larger than formal reals, university calculus as taught today is not the only way to do calculus as some foolish historians assume.
The matter is simple, the Indian use of avyakt numbers very naturally led to avyakt fractions which are today called rational functions and correspond to the use of socalled nonArchimedean arithmetic. (more…)
Myth, math, and censorship
Thursday, August 3rd, 2017My article on “Mathematics and censorship” appeared in Kafila on 25 June 2017.
The original censored article “To decolonise math stand up to its false history and bad philosophy” was first published in the Conversation (global edition), in October 2016. It went viral and was removed by the South Africa editor on the lame ground that “You sited [sic] yourself”. Meaning, you brown man, what right do you have to talk of a new philosophy of mathematics? What right do you have to demand evidence for Greeks like Euclid? What right do you have to say that mathematics may have had a black mother not a white father? Don’t you know Conversation boasts of academic rigor, and that means you can only cite the work of others approved by White/Western reviewers. That is our (unstated) editorial standard.
In India the censored article was republished by Wire and Scroll. Both took it down when the Conversation did. But Wire put it back with an apology. The article currently survives here on this blog, on Wire, and on Science 2.0. The article was recently reproduced in full as part of a peerreviewed scholarly article published in Journal of Black Studies, a draft of which is available online.
To reiterate the Conversation failed to find anything wrong with the article. It was unable to refute a single point or a single sentence in the censored article. So, the real reason to censor the article was to protect vested interests. What are those vested interests?
One such vested interest obviously relates to White domination, which persists not only in postapartheid South Africa but elsewhere. On a myth that is still taught to Indian school children “Euclid” is declared the father of mathematics and our school texts carry an image of him as whiteskinned.
However, as my censored article pointed out, there is nil evidence for the very existence of Euclid leave alone for the color of this skin. I objected to it, but the NCERT did nothing; Narlikar, Sinclair and Co, wanted to propagate false stories. To drive the point home, I then offered a prize of Rs 2 lakhs for the slightest serious evidence about Euclid. No one claimed the prize.
Obviously there is ample counter evidence that the book Elements attributed to Euclid, was written long after his purported time, by someone else, a woman who was in all probability black as portrayed on the cover of my book Euclid and Jesus.
This “black mother of mathematics” was raped and killed on the altar of a church (though the censored article did not mention this last fact because it was tightly edited in collaboration with the Conversation editor and limited to 1000 words,). Myths are a source of power, so this attack on their myths enraged the racist Whites in South Africa. They first tried the usual technique of “proof by abuse”. When that failed, censorship was applied.
However, the actual vested interests are deeper than one imagines. (more…)