# A tangible solid material in the physical world of corporeal substances

There are several words related to materiality

material
physical
tangible
corporeal
substance
solid

Wikipedia definition of matter

matter is a general term for the substance of which all physical objects are made

sounds circular.

# Physical cosmogony

A Study of origins: or, the problems of knowledge, of being, and of duty By Edmond de Pressensé

M. Littre adds: “Man, like the little globe he inhabits, is thus brought to take his true place in the universe. As soon as he ceases to pose as the center of the world, he is lost like a point in boundless space. When the natural philosopher is once convinced that the essential nature of things,–the origin and destination of the universe, and the causes of phenomena,–are insoluble problems, positive science begins. Accepting only the results of experiment and observation, the mind gives over the vain search after absolute notions beyond the reach of either.

The charlatans here, mostly academic physicists, made a business of the vain search for absolute origins in the name of science. They claim to discover absolute origins by physical cosmogony.

# Fleas in Newton’s wig

Imagine the fresh air that will fill physics if Newton and his occult furniture is removed from physics! Newton’s elaborate wig was full of fleas. Over the years those scholastic fleas have reproduced like rabbits and have grown into gigantic dinosaurs. This is physics today.

Science is traditionally contrasted to religion.

Science must be contrasted to tradition. The real enemy of science is tradition.

Tradition conquers scientific knowledge from inside.

Physicists believe as their faith that the traditional derivations that make physics self-consistent also make physics true.

No matter how strong the evidence is against a material nature; academic physics will never question its assumption of the material nature. Tradition has conquered and corrupted science from inside.

# Con men of cosmology 2

It’s becoming a common knowledge that cosmologists are con men. Here’s an article promoting another philosophical sophistry pretending to be physics on the oldest scholastic topics of space and time by a physicist, in this case Raphael Busso at the University of California. Read the comments, commenters shred Busso’s argument into pieces. I am quoting below a comment by mitchellporter where he emphasizes what I’ve been writing in this blog, that cosmologists truncate the totality and market it as the totality:

They are using a theory in which space and time are infinite. But they don’t know how to count observers in that infinite universe. So they draw a circle around a finite part of it, and say that nothing outside that part actually exists.

This is the well-known cosmological con. Why do you go along with it instead of exposing these charlatans?

# Matter and force in physics

The two most important “cultures” in the field of quantum gravity are the relativists and the particle physicists.

The assumption is that the relativists consider the Einsteinian tradition of classical general relativistic theories to be more important and want to add the quantum features as a detail while the particle physicists build on quantum field theory –that’s been very useful to describe particle physics– and want to properly add gravity to it.

Maybe professional physicists will eventually realize that there is no need to add gravity to anything. Force was invented by Newton to justify his religious belief in atomic materialism. Two hundred years after Newton’s invention of force it was still not observed or measured in a properly designed experiment. Instead of dropping force and accept that nature is not forceful physicists defined the Cavendish experiment conducted a century earlier to compute the mean density of the earth to be the first official measurement of the Newtonian occult force. This must count as one of the greatest scientific frauds perpetuated by physicists to save Newton’s authority.

About a century later physicists finally, as the result of the efforts of a semi-outsider, Einstein, conceded that force was occult, unphysical and most of all unnecessary.

At this point any scientist would have eliminated force from physics. But physicists are not scientists. Physicists are slaves of the profession. Physicists are powerless to change any physics dogma. Any professional physicists doubting a Newtonian tenet will be called a crackpot and his career will end.

So what physicists do? They keep force with the excuse that it is pedagogical only. But no. In truth physicists still believe by faith to Newtonian atomic materialism and Newtonian force.

So Lubos Motl’s observation is correct. Take a look at this talk by Nobelist Frank Wilczek. He is a particle physicist. For him nature is made of indivisible atomic matter. This dogma, invented by Newton, because, he said he got word from God that he created an atomic materialist word, still persists in physics because physicists, even Nobelists like Wilczek, fail to question it. The physics indoctrination called physics education does not allow them to question the most sacred of all sacred Newtonian dogma. A physicist who will dare to question the atomic materialist dogma of Newtonism will be no different than a Catholic priest who dares to question transsubstantition.

Physics is based on Newton’s religious preferences. Physicists as Newton’s disciples are indoctrinated in Newtonian temples called physics departments. They get to brag that they are not Newtonians because they also believe in General Relativity. Even General Relativity is a Newtonian theory. General Relativty is a Newtonian theory that physicists use to speculate about space, time and spacetime and cosmos in the unreacheable past and future and inherently unmeasurable and unobservable. When they need to compute actual orbits they revert to Newtonian mechanics. What they call Newtonian mechanics is Kepler’s rule branded as Newton’s laws.

All these prove that physics is a religious and political brotherhood who owns brands such as space, time, spacetime, Newtonian mechanics, General Relativity. This Newtonian monopoly on human reason has had devastating effects on our understanding of nature. We are bound by physicists’ Newtonian doctrines leftover from the 18th century. Physicists still study a celestial mechanics last designed by Lagrange or Laplace. The celestial mechanics used by NASA is different.

So if as an independent researcher trying to investigate concepts owned by physics we have no luck. Physicists built a \$6 billion machine to verify once again their Newtonian doctrine that of atomic materialism. It doesn’t even occur to them that matter and force do not exist. They are Newton’s religious inventions. Physics experiments have been telling physicists as such. Experiments are telling, are yelling, at physicists, “MATTER DOES NOT EXIST!” What do physicists do? You would expect that they would hear nature’s cries and say maybe nature knows better, let us ask “Does matter exist?” Let’s design an experiment to test if matter exists?”

No. Instead, physicists do the same thing they did with force. They keep the established Newtonian dogma at whatever cost, and invent a notion of “matterless matter.” They won’t drop the concept of matter. Physicists will define instead a new type of matter: Matterless matter.

So if you are an independent researcher investigating matter what would you do?

# Nature is not unitful

The fundamental unit of study of physics is the physical quantity.

Physical quantity is defined as a unit with a number.

This means that physics is the study of units.

Units makes physics consistent and this is the strength of physics. But scaling nature with absolute units poses a problem when it comes to studying fundamentals.

Fundamental rules of nature do not come with units. Nature is not unitful. Physics is.

Units are professional artifacts of physics.

What physicists call laws of physics or laws of nature are proportionalities without units.

In physics lingo a proportion is called a symmetry. Symmetry too is independent of units.

Newton worked with proportionalities not with units.

Before physicists started to split proportions into equations scientific research was done strictly with proportions.

The method of physics is to split a true proportionality into as many equations as needed and add to each equation units and constants and then name each equation with ideological and suggestive labels.

This practice designed to make physics a consistent system of units has many unfortunate side effects.

First of all, units and constants invented by physicists obscure the underlying rule.

It’s true that units are necessary at the fundamental level of measurement. Measurement means counting the unit in the observations.

But the choice of unit is irrelevant. There are no absolute and true units.

A rule (the symmetry or the law as physicists call it) such as the Kepler’s rule, is free of units.

Kepler’s rule ties the radius R and period T of an orbit as

$\frac{R^3}{T^2}&space;=&space;\frac{R_0^3}{T_0^2}$

The term R03/T02 is the constant term. We can choose any unit as our constant and the rule will still work.

Physicists chose

$GM&space;=&space;\frac{R_0^3}{T_0^2}$

This is fine. What is not fine is that physicists defined the conventional unit G as an absolute constant of nature.

I realize that astronomical constants have always been political properties.

In the 19th century British physicists defined G as a British unit to replace the “German” constant k2 that astronomers were using at the time as the value of R03/T02.

The British has been very successful in establishing G as a constant of nature. No physicist today remembers that G was a defined unit. But historical record leaves no doubt that G was a unit not a constant of nature.

The importance of the origin of G as a defined unit becomes clear when we observe that physicists claim to measure the experimental value of G in Cavendish type experiments.

Clearly, if G is a conventional unit it cannot be an experimental quantity. It makes no sense to measure the experimental value of say the inch, a conventional defined unit.

If G is not a measurable quantity how do physicists measure it?

They don’t. Physicists build their oscillators to give the correct value of G. Their experiment is circular. No pendulum was ever set in motion by Newton’s occult force and no physicist ever measured the experimental value of the political unit G.

I believe that physicists’ claim to measure the political unit G in physical experiments defines physics as the Newtonian cult. The sooner the physicists realize this the better.

# Big bang assumes a knowledge of totality

As humans we cannot know the totality.

This means that we cannot assume the totality as a closed system obeying known formulas as all cosmologists do.

This can be tested experimentally.

Here is a set of three numbers: 1, 2, 3 . . .

Can you complete the set? No. You cannot. You have no idea how many numbers there are in the set.

Or, let’s assume that we have N voters and we want to poll them to predict the election.

Can you tell me who will win the election?

No. You can’t. You don’t know N, you don’t know the names of candidates, you don’t know when the election will happen or where and for what position.

In the case of the universe the situation is infinitely worse because we know that there is a section of the universe that no information will ever reach us. This makes any assumption of the totality unscientific. More than unscientific. Cosmologists are charlatans and crooks because they assume what they do not know and then offer evidence to justify their assumption supported by their own authority.

# Infinity in physics

It seems that there is no end to physicists corruption of mathematical concepts into philosophical absolutes. Infinity is such a notion.

What is infinity in physics? It is division by zero. So another semantic illusion.

# Smoot knows nothing about totality

In the press release for learned doctor Smoot‘s Nobel Prize we read the following:

Smoot [analyzed] the data from the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite and produced maps of the entire sky which showed “hot” and “cold” regions with temperature differences of a hundred-thousandth of a degree. These temperature fluctuations [were] produced when the universe was smaller than a single proton….

How does Smoot know that at some point “the universe” was smaller than a proton? He does not know. He is lying.

We must clarify that the word “universe” is a standard equivocation in physics and can either mean “the observable universe” or “the universe as a whole”. In this sentence it refers to the universe as a whole or the totality.

Smoot admits that he does not know the totality; we know this because all physicists and cosmologists accept that there is no light coming to them from beyond the observable universe.

Therefore, Smoot does not know the totality; he does not know the history of the totality; he does not know the content of the totality; in short, he knows nothing about the totality. There’s no technology available to him that will let him know the history of the totality. When Smoot claims that “the totality was smaller than a proton” he is lying. Smoot knows nothing about totality.

This is a huge lie because if Smoot admits that he knows nothing about the totality, his analysis of the ambient radiation will be just that, an analysis of a local radiation. The U.S. government pays Smoot to establish by fiat, by equivocation, by doubletalk or by whatever deception that local ambient radiation he measures is a cosmological radiation that reveals the history of the totality. The U.S. government pays Smoot and other cosmologists to establish the creation myth called the Big Bang as a scientific theory proved by observations conducted by the government agencies.

There is a well-known synergy between government agencies, universities and the media. Physicists and cosmologists make this racket work — yes, this is a racket more than a synergy. NASA needs the physicists to define a local radiation as a cosmic radiation so that they can budget it as a science payload. NASA can easily get approval from the Congress if the project is marketed as a fundamental science research to reveal the origin of the universe. Congress will not give NASA millions of dollars to analyze a local radiation. NASA then creates beautiful graphics and feeds it to the media. The media loves such fantastic stories and with each retelling the story acquires an aura of truth and the lead physicist becomes a celebrity usually hyped as the next Einstein or as “one of the greatest minds of our time”. The universities love celebrity physicists in their roster. Nobel too loves celebrity physicists. The general public love stories about the creation of the universe because they believe that unlike the creation myths marketed by traditional book religions these are scientific theories revealing the true history of totality. Everyone is happy. But this is still a scientific fraud and physicists are the perpetrators. In this case, physicists are Smoot and Co. who take the money from the government, fame from the media and their academic authority from the schools where they teach.

Smoot gets away with his lie because no one questions him. His research is paid for by the government, it is supported by the university he works for, he gets the Nobel prize for his lying, the media perpetuates his lie as a scientific truth… yet Smoot does not know anything about the totality.

And you, dear reader, why do you accept Smoot’s lies without question? Probably because Smoot is a professional and we are taught since childhood to never question professionals and yield to their authority. And Smoot is not an ordinary professional, he is backed up by the U.S. government, by a well-known university and by the media. I urge you to think for yourself in this case and question Smoot’s lies. Only we can expose him as a crook.