Physicists do not have a constituency

This commenter makes 6 points:

1. He doesn’t like the idea of regulating physics profession;
2. He thinks that physics needs more unprofessional name callers like Lubos Motl;
3. He mistakenly interpretes the original article as a proposal to “bring the totalitarian mommy state” into physics;
4. He thinks regulating physics is the most evil suggestion proposed in the history of mankind;
5. He perceives that lawyers are crooks but fails to realize that physicists as professional doctors are evil crooks that can teach lawyers a few tricks;
6. He evaluates physicists with a crackpot index, not with their work.

Here are my replies:

>> The problem with physics isn’t a profusion of rude Lubos Motls calling Lee Smolin a crackpot:
>> the problem with physics is there are not enough guys like Lubos Motl challenging other physicists.

Your observation proves that academic physicists are the old professional scholastic doctors who defined throwing mud at each other as doing “science.”

>> Your idea of bringing the totalitarian mommy state to a field of inquiry which is already choked
>> nearly to death with gasbags, orthodoxy and toadying is one of the most evil things I have ever heard of.

So, you think that a blog post that suggests establishing a formal system of professional behavior so that these scholastic bureaucrats called physicists can at least be raised to the level of lawyers is the most evil thing you have ever heard? Did you hear about a bomb designed and built by your favorite physicists and dropped on innocent people? According to you, to suggest that murderers who call themselves physicists must be regulated so that they behave themselves in public is evil. More evil than your favorite physicist Feynman celebrating in a bar when he hears that the bomb he built successfully annihilated innocent women, men and children. Either you must live in isolation in some Shangri La where nothing evil happens and the most evil thing that ever happened there is a suggestion in a blog post of cleaning up physics so that physicists don’t call each other crooks. . .

>> Do you have any idea how evil this is?

The article compares physicists and lawyers and finds that physicists are a lower species of professional scum than lawyers. The article then suggests that physicists should establish some kind of rule to be nice to each other and concentrate on defining every few years the new ultimate indivisible building blocks of matter instead of calling each other names. And you call this the most evil idea you have ever heard?

>> Lawyers are all crooks and sneak thieves; they should all be fed to the wood chipper.
>> Their “professional ethics” are an example for nobody but mafiosos.

Not only lawyers, but all professional doctors (physicists, medical doctors, doctors of jurisprudence, e.g., lawyers, bankers…) are collaborators of the unhuman against the human. They all behave the same evil way. The article says that physicists as doctors of philosophy differ from other professionals in one respect: physicists do not have a well defined constituency. Without a constituency physics remains a closed brotherhood and is not worth regulating.

>> Smolin is not a crackpot, but he does often get involved in crackpot ideas. Motl is not a crackpot,
>> but he is a rude git; and bless him for it.

Crackpot is a notion that exists in all professional fields under different names and it is invented by professionals to weed out non-conforming peers and amateur intruders to their professional monopoly. In other professional fields there exists an unwritten rule that a professional should not call another professional names in public. In fact, in New York state lawyers cannot even claim that they are better than any other lawyer. Don’t read this as lawyer being a nice bunch. Physicists are lowest of the low and they don’t even have the professional courtesy not to call their colleagues names.

Did Newton discover a law of nature?

A critique of Stephen Wolfram’s cellular automata by Steven Weinberg. But this quote caught my attention:

Unlike elementary particles, planets have historically seemed interesting for religious and astrological reasons. But it was the simplicity of planetary motions that allowed Newton to discover the laws of motion and gravitation. The planets move in empty space and to a good approximation under the influence of a single motionless body, the sun. Newton would never have discovered his laws by studying turbulence or snowflakes.

Newton discovered no laws. Newton defined axioms and he called his axioms laws of nature. Weinberg is a physicist and he must uphold Newton’s authority without question.

Reading list

My reading list as posted to Hacker News:

• Newton’s Principia as a masterpiece of marketing and for creating the modern scholasticism
• Descartes’ Geometrie where he declares that you can choose any line as a unit to measure other lines (your knowledge depends on what you already know, your unit) (p.1)
• Galileo’s Dialogues for the realization that real understanding of nature does not come from academic gibberish and research is actually fun
• Dana Densmore’s Newton book to understand Principia
• Slow burn to understand how human body deals with fat and sugar
• The Answer John Assaraf about habits
• Paul Graham’s essays on education and dropping out of school for early startup
• Ernst Mach’s The Science of mechanics for its incredible lucidity and classic simplicity
• Euclid for its complete lack of physics in it and its beautiful diagrams
• Aristotle for appreciation of curiosity
• Bertrand Russel for his humor and for his Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy. A really beautiful book so simple and fun to read…
• Tolstoy’s Confessions for his intellectual quest going in circles

I believe that if you continue long enough in your quest, your research and understandings will describe such a circle.

How does the world work? The world works the way you look at it. We see what we believe.

I appreciate your approach to the question from a wholistic view (including the social and human elements) by disregarding academic boundaries.

How the world works

I changed the name of the blog from “Science” to “How the world works” after reading this question at Hacker News.

• My answer.

The earth is owned by unhumanity

The earth is owned by unhumanity

Unfortunately, there is no more homestead law. All the land is owned by somebody or some entity and what land is available for sale is either way overpriced or land you could never grow anything on unless you trucked in loads and loads of good dirt. Not to mention the property taxes. It’s almost as if someone (either the government or someone else) is trying to keep people from doing such as this. It’s a real shame considering how many people would love to do this, how much better it would be for the environment, and how much happier and healthier those people would be

Unfortunately, there is no more homestead law. All the land is owned by somebody or some entity and what land is available for sale is either way overpriced or land you could never grow anything on unless you trucked in loads and loads of good dirt. Not to mention the property taxes. It’s almost as if someone (either the government or someone else) is trying to keep people from doing such as this. It’s a real shame considering how many people would love to do this, how much better it would be for the environment, and how much happier and healthier those people would be…

Water on Earth

Visualization of all the water and air on earth gathered into spheres and compared to the Earth.

It would be nice to do the same type of visualization for human body. Then, it will be the reverse with 70 per cent water.

Dear physicist. . .

Newton’s Principia is based on Kepler’s rule understood as the definition of density.

We postulate the density continuum defined by the rule R0³/T0² = R³/T².

The entire Newtonian mechanics, Newton’s laws and Newton’s equations of motion are nothing more than constants, units and labels Newton and his disciples attached to various permutations of R0³/T0² = R³/T².

Constants, units and labels do not perform the calculations, they serve to scale. Calculations are performed by the rule. And there is only one rule, Kepler’s rule.

Dear physicist, make peace with this realization. This is where the future is.

Reading

1/R = R²/T²

as the law of conservation of energy is so 19th century.

It’s the old Newtonian way.

Potential energy = kinetic energy

is the denial of the fundamental nature of the density continuum in order to uphold Newton’s atomic materialism. Density continuum is an observational fact, Newtonian atomic materialism is a revealed truth. As scientists we prefer observational facts to divine revelations of self-anointed prophets.

So, dear physicist, do you deny that the density continuum defined by R0³/T0² = R³/T² has its origin in observations and that its Newtonian version GM/R² = R/T² has its origin in divine revelation? Mass and force are the terms Newton appended to the density continuum because he claimed that his God revealed them to him.

This force was never observed by any physicist except in experimental hoaxes physicists call the Cavendish experiment.

Dear Doctor of Philosophy who calls himself physicist your professional ancestors sold their scientific soul to Newton and became members of his cult. They switched their allegiances from Aristotle to Newton. Newton was able to fool your professional ancestors because Newton the evil marketing genius got hold of the first and only astronomical rule discovered by humankind and branded it as Newton’s universal gravitation.

You still believe this Newtonian hoax because your ancestors believed it and because you are indoctrinated by Newtonian cult ideology during your interminable physics education.

This time around, dear physicist, do the right thing and switch to science. Reject the old and tired Newtonian force and its offshoots such as the General Relativity.

Ignore physics propaganda. Search for hidden assumptions in the physics propaganda you learned at school and find them and question them.

Question Newtonian atomic materialism. Think for yourself. It’s never too late.

An outsider cannot change physics. Be a hero and cause a paradigm shift in physics. The next scientific revolution is waiting for you

The end of the Newtonian cult?

The following have been established:

• Newton used Kepler’s rule to make astronomical computations
• Kepler’s rule is necessary and sufficient to compute orbits
• Orbits are independent of the Newtonian force

Physicists refuse to accept these facts in order not to violate Newton’s sacred authority.

Physicists are the professional descendants of Doctors of Philosophy who blindly believed in Aristotle’s authority. Blind faith is a tradition of physics. Physicists now defend Newtonian propaganda they believe by faith.

All evidence shows that orbits are independent of force. No force terms enter orbit computations.

Yet physicists blindly repeat Newtonian derivations from the 18th century to prove to themselves that orbits are forceful.

Physicists developed an elaborate rationalization scheme in order to prove to themselves that Newtonian force is unphysical yet orbits are powered by force.

So let’s repeat that the fundamental dogma of Newtonism is the assumption of atomic materialism. The profession known as physics is Newtonism.

In Newtonism Newton is the prophet to whom the Christian god revealed the type of universe he created.

Newton is a self-anointed prophet.

Newton claimed that God revealed to him that he created a Newtonian atomic materialist and forceful world that obeyed Newton’s laws.

I don’t know another self-declared prophet who was not exposed as a charlatan in due time.

It’s true that the faithful followers of self-anointed prophets will believe without question the dogma of their prophet and perpetuate the dogma.

But such cults have always come to an end.

Aristotelianism was not a cult like Newtonism because Aristotle himself was a true scientist. He never claimed divine provenance for what he wrote the way Newton did.

The Newtonian cult called physics will also end.

There is no justification or evidence for a Newtonian occult, forceful and matterful nature other than Newton’s own words who claimed that God revealed it to him,

There is no reason to believe or even take seriously self-serving pronouncements of a self-anointed prophet.

Therefore, as free thinking scientists, and not as Newtonian cult members who call themselves physicists, we reject the atomic materialism of Newtonism.

Physicists follow Newton blindly and do not understand Newton’s true achievement.

Newton must be credited as the first person who understood that Kepler’s rule was the definition of density.

Every physicist is free to believe the Newtonian propaganda that they are indoctrinated with. Physicists are taught to never question authority, especially Newton’s authority, and respect hidden and revealed knowledge discovered by dead physics heroes enshrined in physics textbooks.

I don’t have access to hidden knowledge and supernatural authors do not communicate with me, I just go to the source and read the original documents critically and decide for myself instead of following the cult creed blindly like physicists.

It’s easy to be a physicist. All you have to do is to conform and believe as faith that physics propaganda is truth.

It’s more difficult to question physics dogma.

I know physicists spend over two decades to memorize 18th century derivations that have gotten more and more complicated as every generation of physicists added some new decorations to it. But don’t think, as a physicist, that it is too late to question Newtonian dogma. Start now. It’s never too late.

G is the most political constant of physics

How come a quantity defined in terms of two conventional units as a conventional unit becomes a true constant of nature? Can two conventional units k² and the Astronomical Unit beget a universal constant of nature called G?

No. This is not possible. You can convert k² to British units and call it “Newton’s universal constant of gravitation G” but you will still have a defined unit.

What is changing in time is not the value of the constant G as some physicists claim but its meaning. This happens with all political constants. Proving once again that academic physics is more about semantic polemics than quantitative investigations.

If physicists call G a fundamental constant of nature this can only mean that in physics lingo a conventional unit is a constant of nature. We’ve discovered yet another physics pun.

The other possibility is that in physics naming a conventional unit a “constant” magically transforms it into a universal and fundamental constant of nature.

In physics there is no evidence that G is a fundamental constant of nature except that physicists decided to call it a fundamental constant of nature.

Such ideological puns invented to enforce and save Newton’s authority lowers physics to a level lower than astrology and to even lower than politics since G is called a constant of nature for political reasons.

What is left if you take math out of physics?

Newton was privy to the knowledge that his brethren the professional doctors of philosophy and theology made their careers by taking simple knowledge and corrupting it into incomprehensibility. Newton wrote that the primitive religion was

easily understood by the meanest people, and was handed down simplicity until men skilled in the learning of heathens Cabbalists and Schoolmen corrupted it with metaphysics, straining the scriptures from a moral to a metaphysical sense and thereby making it unintelligible.

Newton’s disciples the physicists the current representatives of the most learned doctors have been practicing the same corruption under the guise of physics.

Right after Newton’s quote the author added:

p.s. One thing that is of interest. One of the things that kept the Western Scholars from deciphering the Egyptian language is the belief that the figures were symbols with mystical definitions. However, as time progressed by the late 19th century this was seen to be false by German Scholars who completely decoded the temple script.

I don’t know why this is mentioned after Newton’s condemnation of professional doctors as the anti-science but in a way it makes sense.

The legal hieroglyphyics produced by academic physicists had been marketed as “symbols with physical referents,” however, as time progressed by the late 21st century this was seen to be false by historians who realized that “physical” simply meant as a pun and they were able to decipher completely the academic physics hieroglyphics by removing puns and physics promptly disappeared leaving behind nothing but the mathematical framework.

Physics turned out to be puns and labels added to mathematical framework by doctors of physics!

Historians were amazed that so much academic physics careers have been made in the 20th and early 21st century by “men skilled in the learning of Cabbalists and Schoolmen,” that is, by the Newtonian doctors of philosophy calling themselves physicists just by keeping busy writing commentary on each other’s puns.

The more scholasticism changes the more it stays the same.