Self-Published Genius #108: The Best One Yet!

Today we have a new addition to our series about Self-Published Geniuses. This is where we bring you news of authors with a vanity press book in which the author claims to have made paradigm-shattering discoveries, and announces his work by hiring a press release service.

But this one is exceptional. The author isn’t using a press release firm — at least not yet. He seems to be generating his own publicity. And as a special feature, the author is nominating himself for a Nobel Prize! How’s that for confidence? We learned about it thanks to a tip from our super-secret highly placed clandestine operative, who doesn’t even have a code name.

The website where our operative learned about this amazing author has this headline: Author expects to receive the Nobel Prize for new books – ‘The Science of Physics – Proof That God Exists’ and ‘Remaking Humans’. That mentions two books, but to keep our head from exploding, we’ll only discuss the first one. Here are some excerpts from the article, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Most important Scientific Discovery in history! [Wow!] Albert Einstein, up to the day he died, attempted to prove that ‘The Force’ existed [What?] but the math proved to be too much even for this magnificent brain. We invented a new number for this purpose [Huh?] and came up with the world’s most important mathematical formula – easy enough for anyone to understand and use in their daily lives.

What formula are they talking about? Be patient, all will be revealed. The article says:

It all started with the discovery of the God Particle. [Groan!] From here, we could infer that the universe was created for a reason. [Ah yes!] Moving along to the next most important discovery in Science [That’s “science” but with a capital “S”], we learned that when electrons become entangled – like two people meeting at a bar – they may fall in love and never forget about their new lover. [Electrons in love!] When the state of one of these sub-atomic life forms [Life forms?] changes, the other ‘married’ partner changes its state to counter-act their lover. This happens regardless of distance with zero time expanded. Clearly something magical is happening.

That might be the most amazing paragraph that has ever appeared at our humble blog. Want more? Sure you do! The next paragraph begins with a quote mark. Presumably they’re quoting the brilliant author:

“From the day that Charles Darwin taught us about Evolution and Natural Selection – things have been unsettled in the realm of human spirituality because it is one of our most basic instincts that God exists and loves us, while ‘Darwinism’ propounded that all life has evolved on this planet merely by accident, or random chance – no evidence of any Creative Force anywhere.

The quoted material continues:

“But – new knowledge propounded in this book shows that Darwin was only partially correct and that ‘Random Selection’ can now be replaced confidently to become known as ‘Artificial Selection’. [Gasp!] This means that Evolution of our species is no longer left to chance and instead will be directed by us as a direct ‘pay-it-forward’ to our Creator and carried forth by a form of intelligence that is based on our own intelligence, but is highly improved, streamlined, immortal and without all or most of our human flaws.”

Isn’t this the most amazing stuff you’ve ever read? And there’s more! It says:

Michael Mathiesen – Author – Remaking Humans and The Science of Physics – Proof that God Exists …

What follows that is a picture of the book cover. We’ll take it as a cue to give you a link to the book at Amazon — here it is! The cost is only $14.95 in paperback — quite reasonable for a book comprised of 158 pages. The publisher is listed as Michael Mathiesen, which is also the name of the author — self-published indeed! Amazon has a “Look inside” feature, so go ahead — look inside! There are no reviews yet. You can be the first!

Returning to the article we’ve been reading, we’re told:

The Science Of Physics explains a new formula that is literally an I.O.U. between you and the universe. [Very exciting!] Either the universe owes us all or we all owe the universe. The energy goes both ways at all times. A new number, created by the author – Zero to the exponent of Infinity [Wow!] explains our place in the universe and the placement of all other energies in a simple easy-to-understand summary of the Laws Of Physics.

Zero to the exponent of Infinity — that would be 0. Very impressive!

Okay, that’s enough. We know you’re going to buy the book, dear reader. And we have no doubt that the author will win his Nobel Prize. He certainly deserves it!

Copyright © 2020. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

48 responses to “Self-Published Genius #108: The Best One Yet!

  1. My brain hurts…

  2. But which Nobel Prize?
    This is clearly equally qualified for any.

  3. Megalonyx, your brain hurts whenever you try to count more than three bananas.

  4. I only can humbly bow my head for this genius. I mean, isn’t “impressed” an understatement for what we feel after reading

    “I have been an independent thinker all of my life as far back as I can remember but in my independent research, I feel that I have been freer to investigate the questions that truly need to be answered, rather than minor insignificant questions.” ?

  5. Ah, MichaelF, perhaps we should point out to MichaelM (fortunately nomen is not always omen) that “mass suicide like the lemmings running hysterically of the cliff” is a serious obstancle on his path towards the Nobel Price.

  6. You forgot to mention: “This author is a prolific author, having published over 100 books and audible books in Science and Science Fiction and sold more copies than most authors sell in a lifetime.”

    Unfortunately, a search on his name at Amazon.com seems to include material from at least two very different authors, so I had some difficulty evaluating his claim

  7. Would “bragging” do?

  8. Paul Braterman says: “You forgot to mention …”

    Surely it’s forgivable. I’m still overwhelmed by 0.

  9. SC,let me introduce you to [infinitiy]^0

  10. ISTM that
    0^[infinity} = lim (1<x<[infinity]) 0^x = 0
    [infinity]^0 = lim (0<x<[infinity]) x^0 = 1

  11. Michael Mathiesen

    Accomplishments (1)
    Too many to list here (professional)

    1990-01-01

    Authored several books including the first book about Internet Marketing and Social Media. The first book about the Cloning of Jesus Christ. The first book about One Million Years into the Future. AND most recent, the first Sci-Fi Thriller about the God Particle – Realia: E Pluribus Unum

    Education (1)
    University of California / Santa Cruz: B.S., Science Fiction 1969

    Yep more science fiction from him

  12. @Jesso, Where did you find this?

  13. My vote for the worst coinage, ever, by any criterion, in any medium:
    the God particle

  14. Is expertfile part of the self publishing? It certainly looks like it

  15. You should pick on someone your own size. CQ

  16. Ross Cameron

    Expertfile.com has naught on the expert of everything, Ken Ham. Hmmm.

  17. Dave Luckett

    OMG. I say that appropriately, for it is saying nothing. There is nothing to be said. OMG.

  18. Dave Luckett

    Zero to the power of infinity. Talk about your “all or nothing”. What about any number other than zero, divided by zero? What’s that? What isn’t it?

    I jes’ lurvve mathematics.

  19. @Paul Braterman at that link I posted from google

  20. @TomS: as far as I understand limits your expression doesn’t make sense, because limits by definition approach and are nothing like intervals. What MichaelM is talking about is likely

    0^[infinity] means {limit x –> [infinity]} 0^x

    and here I’m in doubt. Either this expression is meaningless or it equals 0.

    The other one, [infinity]^0 likely means {limit x–> [infinity]} x^0 and again I’m in doubt – either it’s meaningless or it equals 1.

    The right sides of your two equations might be written as 0^x on the interval {x ε |R | x > 1} and x^0 on the interval {x ε |R | x > 0} respectively.

    “the God particle”
    I second that this is the worst nickname ever invented. Unsurprisingly a reporter is responsible; physicists prefer higgs-boson. But hey, MichaelM is an independent thinker and such, so he probably after months of study has decided what the appropriate name was.

    @Notsogenuinearticle: you’re right, it’s physically impossible to pick on a mosquito (brain) like MichaelM’s. Smashing with an old newspaper will do.

  21. @FrankB
    Agreed.

  22. Eddie Janssen

    The scientist said “goddamn particle” because it was so difficult to find and the editor thought (wisely) that “goddamn particle” would not make a good headline and changed it into “God particle”.

  23. There was once an attempt to find a better name than “Big Bang”, but no substitute could be agreed on. Calvin suggested “Horrendous Space Kabooiie”. If anyone would ask me (no one would be so foolish) I could come up with alternatives to “God particle”, like maybe “Bigfoot” (for the difficulty in finding evidence).

  24. As already pointed out here, 0^infinity is 0. So, although he doesn’t realize it, Michael has estimated for us very precisely the probability that he will win a Nobel Prize.

  25. TomS says:

    There was once an attempt to find a better name than “Big Bang”, but no substitute could be agreed on.

    No one really likes the name. When I refer to the event I call it the “great expansion,” but we seem to be stuck with “Big Bang” for the name of the theory. See Big Bang: the etymology of a name.

  26. So, 0^∞ is zero. Of course. 0 times anything is zero.

    We all learned that any number divided by itself = one. So, would 0/0 = 1 ?

    And would ∞^∞ be more than infinity? How could that be?

  27. @ Pope Retiredsciguy: We could add here the marvellous schoolboy ‘proof’ that there are twice as many even numbers as there are odd numbers, vis:

    * O + E = O: The sum of any odd number and any even number is always an odd number.

    * O + O = E: The sum of any two odd numbers is always an even number.

    * E + E = E: The sum of any two even numbers is always an even number.

    Ergo: In two out of three possible combinations, the result is an even number. So there must be twice as many even numbers as odd numbers. QED!

    This should surely make me a joint winner of whichever Nobel prize is won by this particular Self-Published Genius.

  28. This link will make TomS rejoice. For years he has demanded a definition of Design. Well, sometimes dreams come true!

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519320302071

    “A design is a specification or plan for the construction of an object or system, or the result of that specification or plan in the form of a product.”

    Of course I could still care less, but I’m an incurable evilutionist. Don’t pay attention to me.
    NWhat interests me is the names of the authors – very un-American. A bit of googling (actually binging) taught me that Thorvaldsen works at the University of Tromsø and Hössjer at the Unviersity of Stockholm.
    Yes, my dear ladies and gentlemen. What we are witnessing is the Wedge Strategy at work – IDiocy is infiltrating the academic world and in the Scandinavian Countries of all places.
    Now Kclunckerdunkcer and co have something to write about.

    (Thanks, PZ Myers)

  29. The typo (should have been “couldn’t care less” allows me to link to PZ’s blogpost:

    https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2020/07/10/gussying-up-creationism-with-math-doesnt-make-it-valid/

    It seems that he’s not impressed.

  30. Michael Fugate

    From the Paper
    Declaration of Competing Interest
    The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

    Somehow I am not convinced. – especially since it mostly cites DI fellows.

  31. @FrankB
    What happens when a tornado blows through a junkyard.
    That is a design.
    I resist the urge to give more examples of designs.

  32. @retiredsciguy
    There is a whole lot to be said about infinity.
    First of all, there are different kinds of infinity:
    There are the infinities as extensions of the real or complex numbers. They can be understood as the end points of the real number line, or a point which joins those ends together, or a point which makes the complex plain a sphere.
    Then there are the cardinal number infinities, which count the number of things. Those go on forever, and there are ever bigger infinities.
    And there are ordinal number infinities, which describe the ordering of things. You can think of the principle of
    mathematical induction in general. Once again, there are lots of ordinal
    Infinities, some which are bigger than others. With these, infinity+1 is different from infinity.

  33. @Megalonyx, The fallacy with the argument you quote is that as well as O + E, you have E + O. (There are further fallacies involving the comparison of infinities, as many here will know.)

    @Retiredsciguy, what @TomS said. Also, if a set contains n members, it has n^2 subsets, and it is easy to show that unless n = 0, n^2 must be greater than n. Thus the number of integers (aleph-null to its friends), which is the smallest infinity, when squared, gives us the number of real numbers (known as C), which is greater, although I believe it has been shown that whether there is any infinity greater than aleph-null but smaller than C is a formally insoluble problem.

  34. I boobed. It’s not n^2 but 2^n. And n = 0 is not an exception. 2^0 = 1,correspodng to the fact that the null set does have one subset – itself. And aleph-null^2 = aleph-null (see Cantor’s proof that the number of rationals is equal to the number of integers)

  35. The Wikipedia article “Aleph numbers” tells about some of the relationiships regarding infinities. For ordinary mortals, it is a good idea just to assume a few axioms, like the Axiom of Choice, and the Generalized Continuum Hypothesis. Things are complicated enough.

  36. Which is larger, ∞^∞ or ∞! ?

    (In case the special characters don’t appear, the question is, “Which is larger,
    infinity to the infinity power, or infinity factorial?)

    I know, I know. Infinity is a concept, not an actual number. Thus, in a sense, infinity is an imaginary number, but not in the usual sense of an imaginary number (square root of a negative number).

    There really is no “infinity”. We live in a finite universe. (Maybe. Who knows? Can we ever know?) One thing I do know is that I am out of my depth here.

  37. I’ll just consider (it’squite enough for me) aleph-null. The first one. In the second, you are multiplying integers and you’ll never get past aleph-null. But the first one is clearly greater than 2^(aleph-null), which as I said earlier, after correcting my asinine error, is much greater than aleph-null.

    Actually, for finite integers also, n^n > n! Try it with 1, 2, 3, 4 and you’ll soon see why

  38. @retiredsciguy
    There are different mathematical concepts of infinity.
    ∞ is the usual symbol for infinity as an extension of the real or complex numbers. The sort of thing that one sees in calculus, as a symbol denoting a limitless set. There is no meaning to bigger or smaller to this sort of infinity. There is a +∞ and a -∞, but in a sense, they are the same thing, a point which completes the real line and makes it a circle. And the there is an ∞ which completes the complex plane and makes it a sphere.
    This is the only sort of infinity which one is apt to run into in physics.
    The next most common concept of infnity that one hears about is the cardinal number, that is a counting number, the number of elements of a set. Without getting into complexities, we can think of the cardinal numbers denoted by the Hebrew letter aleph א with a subscript, like א0. There is no meaning to negative alephs – a set cannot have less than 0 members.
    And I’m not going to go any farther.

  39. I made a misrake in trying to type in the techically correct way to show aleph bill. I’m not going to go through the work it take.
    I completely agree with @Paul Breteran.

  40. @retiredsciguy, division by 0 is undefined. 0/0 is therefore meaningless. If you allow it, you get those sily proofs that1 = 2

    1/n as n -> 0 increases without bound. That is not strictly a limit, since in mathematics a limit, strictly, is something one approaches more and more closely. So we cannot even define 1/0 as infinity.

    It is ok to say that 1/n approaches zero as n becomes very large. And that *is* an example of a limit. So in a sense 1/infinity = 0. But dividing by specific infinities is problematic;

    it is easy to show that aleph-null/2 = aleph-null For we can put the even integers into one-one correspondence with the integers; each 2n in correspondence with its n, and that is the definition of “same number”.

    Look up “Hilbert’s hotel”

  41. I’d make it clear that when talking about infjnities there are different concepts involved and different rules to follow.
    The “lazy 8” infinity which crops in calculus is the common one. It is an extension of the real or complex numberd. There is no concept of bigger infinities of this kind of infinity.
    The cardinal number, the one that is often seen as an aleph, is something different.
    And there is yet another kind of infinity, an ordinal number, which is seldom talked about, but is important in the theory of recursion – mathematical induction – computing.
    When it comes to questions about infinity, there are often different answers. What is going on is that there are different concepts of nimber, but we don’t have to pay attention when dealing with finite nimbers. Something is 3 meters long, or there are 3 letters, or correct letter 3, those are different, but we use the same arithmetic. But when infinity is involved, the “arithmetic” is different.

  42. I hope that this does not confuse things. I just want to emphasize that, when dealing with infinities, there are different kinds of infinities to which different rules apply. If omega is the ordinal infinity of the positive integers, then
    1 + omega = omega < omega + 1
    2 x omega = omega omega + 1

  43. Dang it. That should be
    1 + omega = omega < omega +1
    2 x omega = omega omega +1

  44. Dang it again. Why does the computer “correct” me?
    2 x omega = omega
    omega omega + 1
    This is confusing enough, and I don’t need computer corrections.

  45. It just won’t let me do it right.
    (omega) + (omega) = (omega) x 2

  46. At least that last equality got throgh, Sorry for the unnecessary confusion. The computer just won’t let me do it straightforward.
    Just believe me, that there is a different artithmetic for infinite ordinal numbers.