Densytics and physics

Can densytics explain all phenomena that physics tries to explain?

What are the phenomena that physics tries to explain?

- How many angels were dancing on a God particle three seconds before God created the universe by dividing infinity by zero?

- What is god thinking at a given moment stated mathematically with group theory, category theory and symmetry breaking in infinite dimensional string theory?

Densytics cannot explain these religious ruminations favored by the standing army of doctors of philosophy doing business as physicists but we can explain with densytics

- orbital motion.

Physics cannot explain orbital motion except as forceful and dynamical fantasy invented by Newton.

Sabine the philosopher

In this article Learned Doctor Sabine Hossenfelder compares academic philosophers with academic physicists. She assumes secretly a cartoon stereotype of philosopher invented by Newton and she secretly assumes an idealized image of physicists as perfect scientists who never ever define a symbol in their equations multiple times. (The opposite is actually true. I dare Sabine to come up with one legal physics equation where all symbols are uniquely defined.) Then she arrogantly attacks philosophers as idiots who argue with “empty words”. Sabine’s problem is really with philosophers who dare to write on subjects physicists claim ownership. We are supposed to believe that this academic turf wars between two types of Learned Doctors is a scientific issue.

This stereotype of philosopher as scholastic sophist was invented by Newton. Why did Newton define philosophers as anti-science even though he himself was a Doctor of Philosophy? Well, of course, to define himself and his followers as true scientists.

How did Newton define philosophers?

When Newton entered Cambridge as a student the place like all educational institutions in Europe was ruled by Doctors of Theology. Their professional cousin, Doctor of Philosophy who were known as Peripatetics, were not as powerful as they are today. Sabine has in mind this cartoon stereotype of hair splitting peripatetic philosopher and uses it as her straw man. She is referring to a cartoon stereotype of philosopher invented by Newton and his disciples to glorify themselves and their profession. Sabine is trying to sell us this physics propaganda as history.

What is the historical fact?

Newton successfully combined philosophy and mathematics for the first time under the cover of the same book and created a new academic field called natural philosophy which morphed into physics in the nineteenth century.

Newton and his disciples and his successors are Doctors of Philosophy by profession. These Learned Doctors are nothing more than corrupt academics and professional sophists. They don’t even deserve the title of philosopher. Physicists are more like slick lawyers than philosophers.

After Newton’s successful coup to replace Aristotle with himself as the new master of the European scholasticism they defined Doctors of Philosophy they supposedly replaced during the scientific revolution as the anti-science who spent their time writing commentary with empty words.

And Newtonians defined themselves as scientists who did not deal with casuistry and sophistry but worked only with quantities expressed in mathematical symbols. We all know this claim is bogus. Newton and his disciples defined themselves as true scientists who modeled nature with the precise language of mathematics while continuing their philosophizing by using the authority of mathematics.

Today, these Learned Doctors corrupted even mathematics and turned it into their vehicle of sophistry and casuistry. Sabine is still trying to fool us into believing that academic physics is a quantitative science.

Newton also initiated the academic turf wars between DOT and DOP because Newtonians grabbed the right to philosophize on cosmogony and cosmology from the ownership of DOT. Today your creation mythologies are designed and served to you by DOP. The more important academic turf war is not between philosophers and physicists but between DOP and DOT. These two types of Learned Doctors are still fighting the same war with each other for the soul of recruits to fill their classrooms. In our time, mostly due to Newton’s authority and because Newtonism has become the state religion, education is ruled by DOP. Don’t forget DOP and DOT are teachers, they both want to increase their market share.

Sabine Hossenfelder like all academic physicists is a philosopher by profession and practices philosophy with the language of mathematics. She is the modern representative of scholastic philosopher Newton branded as the anti-science.

Newton and his disciples are the Doctors of Philosophy; they have always been DOP; DOP are philosophical sophists who spend their time inventing creation mythologies for the rulers who pay them through grants channeled through schools where DOPs are perched. That’s why Sabine is still trying to sell us the same physics propaganda she learned from Newton. She thinks that by insulting philosophers as wordsmiths she is elevating herself and physicists to the level of scientists. DOP invented the art of sophistry and doublespeak and physicists are DOP; physicists are expert sophists. Sabine and academic physicists are philosophical sophists and charlatans doing business as physicists. Not to mention that physicists build all the mass destruction weapons in the world. What a despicable people these physicists are!

Hidden Philosophical Foundations of Physics

Physicists claim to reveal the deepest hidden secrets of the universe but will never reveal the secret philosophical assumptions in the foundations of physics. Physicists will never let us know that their “physical” universe is a product of their secret assumptions. Instead, physicists claim that they discover properties of the world by conducting experiments. This is one of the greatest frauds in the history of science.

* * *

Let’s start with this question:

Is a professional physicist qualified to write as an expert on a philosophical subject?

I have in mind this philosophical discourse written by Matt Strassler, an academic physicist.

Here are a few of the attributes defining an academic physicist:

* * *

Is Strassler a qualified professional to write a philosophical commentary on one of the oldest philosophical topics, namely, the indivisible?

The answer is No. Even Strassler admits in his Rutgers website that he is an expert only in three academic fields: Particle physics, Quantum Field Theory and String Theory. Philosophy is not in this list.

Strassler is not a qualified professional who can lecture us as an expert on the indivisibility of the electron because the indivisibility is not a physics problem.

The question of indivisibility is a philosophical problem; it is not a problem that can be investigated or resolved by an application of legal physics equations. Here “philosophical” simply means “free of physics”.

Strassler is licensed to practice legal physics only on a very narrow field of academic physics; outside that narrow field Strassler is a layman like everybody else. He has no scientific authority outside his narrow specialty.

Furthermore, Strassler may call himself a “physicist” and define “physicist” as a synonym with “scientist” but he is really in the business of monetizing his absurdly long investment of time to learn the archaic methods of legal physics. The traditional method that Learned Doctors of all types have been using to monetize their academic learning is called the Professional Racket. What is Professional Racket? You know it very well, the method is used by all professional classes: Hide information wholesale, sell it retail:

Professional Racket == Hide information wholesale sell it retail

That’s why Learned Doctors are also called Professors of Secrets: they claim to “discover” knowledge they’ve hidden and sell it as absolute truth.

* * *

Did Strassler study philosophy during his long physics education? No. On the contrary, he was indoctrinated to despise philosophy and history. For Strassler, physics sits above all other academic fields and physicists have the academic authority to overrule historical facts.

Strassler’s education consisted of learning how to shuffle legal physics equations and learning how to reduce data by using antiquated statistical methods canonized in the legal physics code. In academic physics “reducing data” means using statistical sophistry on some white noise to suggest statistical exceptions that will be said to prove a theoretical physics scenario sponsored by a global power using academic physics as a cover for its military research.

* * *

Strassler is a fish in the legal sea of physics; the world outside the legal sea of physics does not exist for him. Unfortunately for us Strassler has the academic authority to enforce that the universe is limited to his sea of physics and that his sea of physics is the whole universe. This is yet another deception trademarked by Learned Doctors. These charlatans are masters of defining what they know as the only true knowledge. These charlatans don’t know the entirety of the universe, so they defined what they know as the entire universe.

* * *

These are Strassler’s true areas of expertise:

– Shuffling legal physics equations
— Reducing data by statistical methods
— Teaching elementary physics to new recruits
— Saving the doctrine by casuistry

None of which gives him expertise to discuss philosophical topics. As a physicist Strassler enjoys the absolute authority to define new words and redefine and corrupt existing words. It is a simple matter for him to define his casuistry to be “physics”. And so he does. Strassler claims to decide the question of the indivisibility of the electron by physical arguments while all he does is sophistry.

* * *

Strassler’s philosophical commentary on the divisibility of the electron is nothing more than propaganda in the service of the doctrine.

Therefore, not only Strassler is not qualified to write about a philosophical topic (which simply means a topic outside of legal physics) but he is incapable of analyzing properly a philosophical problem without corrupting it and turning it into casuistic, self-serving physics propaganda. This is proved by the article we referred to. We will expose Strassler’s polemical sophistry and casuistry by looking at his commentary sentence by sentence.

But how can Strassler get away with calling such blatant ideological physics propaganda a scientific argument? The answer is very clear. There is no independent authority in academic physics to check, inspect, audit, examine or supervise Strassler’s writings. He is a self-anointed Learned Doctor of Philosophy who claims to have absolute authority in everything he writes about, no matter what the subject is.

Strassler writes a philosophical commentary on a philosophical topic and presents it as physics. The deception is clear: Strassler claims that because he calls himself a physicist, and he defined the word “physicist” to be a synonym for the word “scientist”, everything he writes no matter what, must be considered scientific discourse.

But the contrary is actually true.

Nothing Strassler writes in the name of physics can pass the test of scientific logic, simply because Strassler is not bound by the scientific logic (i.e., Aristotelian logic) but he practices the legal logic of physics. Legal logic is the old art of casuistry based on the authoritative assertion that all contradictory meanings of a loaded word are true and false, case by case, as needed. The professional casuist decides which meaning is true in what context.

In legal logic there are no contradictions. For Strassler contradiction does not exist, that is why he can combine contradictory words such as “point particle” and use each of the contradictory terms casuistically and claim both meanings are true when he says so. That’s why he can call a wave a particle and write long casuistic polemics to justify why a wave is a particle… and why a wave is not a particle when Strassler says so.

* * *

The funny thing is that Strassler is a philosopher by profession. His professional title is Doctor of Philosophy. His professional ancestors are the Doctors of Philosophy who would not look through Galileo’s telescope. But Strassler is a “philosopher” in the worst sense of the word; he is a polemical sophist serving the brotherhood of physics.

Strassler is the personification of sophistry: He is a philosopher who denies that he is a philosopher but makes his living by philosophizing and calls his philosophizing physics!

* * *

Strassler’s writings are worth analyzing only because his writings are perfect specimens of casuistry and sophistry. Strassler’s posts read like material out of Aristotle’ On Sophistical Refutations. But there is nothing so special about Strassler’s writings, the same casuistry and sophistry is routinely used by all physicists. Here’s another good example. So what we say here applies to all academic physicists, not only to Strassler. He is more visible than the others and he’s been laying the groundwork to start a career as a Professor of Secrets to reveal the hidden secrets of the world supposedly by shuffling physics equations. This is the deception that needs to be exposed.

# # #

Peddlers of Secrets

Scholastic doctors of philosophy have been the custodians of humanity’s theoretical knowledge base ever since the investigation of nature was coupled to education with the founding of first universities in Europe. Doctors make their living by teaching; this means that:

  1. doctors turn the knowledge base into a sacred secret doctrine
    1. so that they can teach it to generations of students without changing it;
    2. so that they can implement standardized tests that stay true through generations.

The business model of professional doctors is peddling the secret; or to hoard and hide secrets wholesale and teach it retail

    1. to new recruits in schools
    2. to laymen through “popular” books.

Doctors keep adding scholastic ideology and decoration to the doctrine by hair splitting the existing content in order to create more material for themselves to teach. It’s all about who controls the lucrative business of education. Previously it was doctors of theology who controlled education in the name of the global church; today we are being educated by doctors of philosophy doing business as physicists in the payroll of the state.

Furthermore, these professional teachers defined “science” to be this process of canonization and hairsplitting of the doctrine. Just in two generations, scholastic doctors of philosophy doing business as physicists hairsplitted Einstein’s few papers into the 1000+ pages of MTW. No one can deny that academic scholasticism is getting more efficient. Today more commentary on General Relativity is written in one semester than the sum total of Peripatetic commentary written in 2000 years.

The result is that every few hundred years physics and math need to be cleaned up from scholastic content. And this is one of those times.

How to philosophize with a physics equation

Given two physical quantities a and and a constant c with proper units, every physics equation apparently looks like this:

But, if you write the hidden terms explicitly every physics equation in truth looks like this:

Consider the most famous equation in physics

The above equation appears to state an equality because it uses the equality sign to relate the terms of an expression. But in physics no symbol can have just one meaning and the equality sign is no exception.

So the above equation can be read as an equality but it is not an equality, it is a sophisticated tool of casuistry called a “physics equation” which is a unique tool physicists invented to philosophize without appearing to philosophize. So

in fact contains the hidden symbols of equivalence, identity, proportionality and definition, among others:

It is very easy to prove this. A physicist would usually read this equation as “E equals m c squared”. If you ask “why is there a speed of light term in this equation?” The same physicist will say, “c is there just to make the units work, this equation really states the equivalence of energy and mass”.

There you go, physicist writes his physics equation with an equality symbol and reads it with the hidden equivalence symbol. Physicists have scholastic magic vision that lets them see hidden symbols that you and I cannot see.

If you ask more questions the same physicist will also say that “E is proportional to m and c is the proportionality constant”.

If you call more physicists into this discussion one of them will eventually read this same equation as a definition of energy in terms of mass or the other way around.

Same is true for the other famous double definition in physics:

In general, a physicist can read any given equation case by case as an equality, a proportionality, an identity, an equivalence or any combinations of these to assert his authority.

In physics the meaning of an equation can only be parsed by knowing who said it.

Every physics equation can only be parsed by applying to it the necessary scholastic authority of a physicist. Physics is casuistry. Physicists are master casuists who ply their casuistry by using their corrupt version of the equality sign.

How can this be? Is this how science works?

Physics is defined by physicists as science, therefore, this must be how science works:

science is the authoritative interpretation of polemical symbols that look like mathematical symbols to prove physics doctrines by using the authority of mathematics as false witness.

If physicists make their career by legislating nature with their supernatural and absurd equations supported with casuistry, lawyers make their career by using the same scientific method used by physicists to interpret case by case the law of the land. If one lawyer argues the letter of the law the other will argue the spirit of the law and they will fight over how to define each symbol to best benefit their case; at the end the judge will accept as true the definition of the lawyer who has the most authority hired by the party with most money.

Physics is a mathematical science so physicists argue the meanings of mathematical symbols they did not write on the equation. Professionals discussing hidden meanings of hidden symbols. . . mmm. . . this sounds familiar. . . yes, this was how scholastic philosophers have been practicing their trade for thousands of years.

Now it all makes sense. These professional doctors who do business as physicists are really scholastic doctors of philosophy doctoring mathematics and philosophy and physics and diligently corrupting human knowledge to further their career.

Anyone who reads the equality sign in the same expression with seven different ways and claims all of them are true is a charlatan.

So, next time a physicist starts talking about how mathematically precise his physics is, let’s tell him what he is doing is not mathematics but charlatanism practiced with his casuistic equation.

The most famous equation of physics

is not a mathematical expression, it is a physics equation. Physics equation is the crooked timber of physics;  or was it the loaded balance of physics? In either case, the physics equation is the scholastic vehicle physicists use to practice their art of casuistry. Physics equation  exposes physicists as what they really are — scholastic doctors of philosophy actively corrupting human knowledge by abusing their academic authority.

Stop teaching the occult doctrines of Newtonism in the classroom

In this interview Nancy Pearcey gives an example of how a children’s story that she wrote was changed by a television network to fit their “politically correct” worldview and concludes that children are bombarded by such distinct worldviews without their knowledge:

The example illustrates that even young children are bombarded with distinct worldviews. Ideas do not typically come neatly packaged with a warning label attached, so we know what we’re getting. Instead there is what we might call a “stealth” secularism that permeates society through images and stories that bypass our critical grid, override our logic, and hook us emotionally. We can be seduced into a set of ideas, a movement, or a worldview, sometimes without our even knowing it.

* * *

The same stealth programming of children happens in schools as well. Children entrusted to schools by their parents are indoctrinated from the earliest age with the Newtonian worldview. Parents are not aware that their children are being taught a distinct and particular way of perceiving nature; the state forbids teaching of “creationism” but the state itself teaches “Newtonism” as the only true knowledge.

The hidden assumption of Newtonism is the doctrine of atomic materialism. In no physics textbooks you will find what I call “Newton’s Zeroth Law”:

God in the beginning formed matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable movable particles.

In this case Newton is wrong because God did not “form matter” the way Newton describes it. I don’t know where Newton got this idea that God created a discontinuous nature but the way I read it, in Genesis 1 God appears to define the world by naming what he wants to create. Indeed, we are living in a definitional world, not in a Newtonian matterful world. If we can free ourselves from the materialist doctrines of physics we will be more in harmony with nature and better appreciate the way the Bible says God created the world.

For instance, all surfaces are definitional; a surface exists only when you define it and name it. A surface is defined by its density and density is frequency squared, therefore, there cannot be absolute surfaces as Newton claims.

The most dense a surface can be is

there cannot be a surface with infinite density because

cannot exist, because according to the speed limit imposed by physicists there cannot be infinite frequency.

So there are no absolutely hard, absolutely solid and absolutely impenetrable surfaces as Newton claims.

* * *

It is a well-established tradition in physics to overrule experimental results to save Newton’s authority. In this case, physicists claim to discover absolutely hard elementary particles in collider experiments by using Einstein’s equations that do not allow absolutely hard surfaces because no frequency can be more than 1/c. Only charlatans can declare the impossibility of absolutely hard surfaces and then discover them in experiments.

Like all other absurdities littering physics this one too exists because physicists must uphold Newton’s sacred authority at all cost by “normalizing” and “re-normalizing” experiments and equations until Newton’s sacred authority is saved.

* * *

The version of “Newtonism” taught in schools does not necessarily reflect the worldview of the historical person who lived in the 18th century, just like Peripatetic philosophy taught in Cambridge when Newton was a student there did not reflect the personal views of Aristotle. Newton replaced Aristotle by himself as the new master of European scholasticism and ever since then the same Scholastic Doctors of Philosophy now doing business as “physicists” have been writing commentary on Newton instead of Aristotle. In the case of Newtonism, the body of canonized sacred commentary is called “Newtonian mechanics”.

Newton caused three radical changes in European education:

  1. Doctors of Theology lost the control of education to their professional cousin Doctors of Philosophy;
  2. Newton became the new Aristotle; and
  3. Mathematics replaced Latin as the secret esoteric language taught in schools by scholastic doctors.

In other words, the mixture of scholastic Peripatetic philosophy and Christian learning taught in Latin by Doctors of Theology as true knowledge was changed to a mixture of scholastic Newtonian philosophy and mathematics taught in the language of mathematics by Doctors of Philosophy as true knowledge.

As the result of Newton’s coup shaking up the European scholasticism, Doctors of Philosophy updated the public name of their profession first to “Natural Philosophy” and then to “physics” because Newton effectively defined “scholasticism” as anti-science. What is called academic physics today is the old scholastic profession still practiced by the same Doctors of Philosophy doing business as physicists.

There are only two monetization options for scholastic doctors, teaching the canon to new comers and peddling supposedly secret knowledge revealed to them by their esoteric language. It is obvious that the profession remained the same, it is still the scholastic business in charge of education, but the control of education and the ownership of canon moved from Doctors of Theology to Doctors of Philosophy who named their new regime with ideological names such as “Enlightenment” and “Scientific Revolution.”

It is also obvious that Scientific Revolution was not a revolution that eliminated scholastic dogmatism from European science, but just a coup that eliminated Aristotle and replaced him with Newton. The scholastic profession merely changed its name to assert the authority of its new academic overlord.

* * *

There is what we might call a “stealth” secularism that permeates society through images and stories that bypass our critical grid, override our logic, and hook us emotionally. We can be seduced into a set of ideas, a movement, or a worldview, sometimes without our even knowing it.

Thank you for highlighting this process that also applies to education. Our perception of nature is instilled into us at the earliest age by this “stealth” secular state religion called Newtonism.

“Newton’s Apple” so innocently taught to us when we learn our alphabet is as powerful an image as any corporate logo or the flag we pledge allegiance to. Every children learns to pledge allegiance to the state as the protector and to Newton as the revealer of true knowledge.

Newtonism “overrides our logic” by presenting its occult miracles as scientific “experiments” such as the Cavendish experiment conducted in classrooms supposedly proving the existence of Newton’s occult force.

A well-polished Newtonian mythology describing Newton as the “mortal closest to gods” makes it impossible for us to even consider questioning the divine discoveries of this mortal branded as a demi-god whose name is synonymous with genius. Looking at the logs of my blog, every day there is someone searching for “Newton genius” and ends up reading my essay on the subject.

Education seduces us into believing that Newtonian atomic materialist and occult view of nature is the only true representation of nature. We do not even realize that we have been indoctrinated to perceive nature as Newtonian, material and occult. The secret mantra “Nature is Newton is Physics is Science” is instilled in us without our knowledge in every stage of our education. Physicists also corrupted our language making the word “physical” synonymous with “nature” so even if we tried we cannot conceive a world which is not material. The assumption of the materiality of nature is the source of matter/spirit duality. When we realize that nature is matterless and there are no absolute discontinuities in nature this old dilemma disappears.

We learn to perceive nature as a physical place where “Newton’s Soul” in the form of the occult force permeates the universe and acts between intelligent matter to set it in motion and to make nature the way it is.

Everyone believes that a stone falls because a force emanating from the center of the earth pulls it and that this force was discovered by Newton.

No scientific experiment ever proved the existence of such a force. That’s why physicists in the 19th century posthumously defined Cavendish experiment of 1798 as the first experimental verification of Newton’s occult force. When you look at Cavendish’s original paper it becomes clear that he did not measure force but computed the mean density of the earth from constants of the pendulum by using Kepler’s Rule.

Then, the question becomes, if there is no such occult force in nature how come Newton was able to compute planetary orbits correctly by using such an occult force?

It is very easy to prove that Newton did not use force to compute planetary orbits. There are only a few propositions in the Principia where Newton computes astronomical quantities and all of them are simple applications of Kepler’s Rule.

After Newton’s death his disciples developed a consistent system of units and procedures to facilitate computations that traditionally fell within physics and astronomy. They successfully hid Kepler’s Rule under calculus notation and branded units so successfully that it takes a while to see that the engine under the hood doing the work for the branded units and ideological labels displayed in mathematical looking symbolism that makes up Newtonian mechanics is Kepler’s Rule.

Once Newtonian ideology and branding is eliminated we recover Kepler’s Rule. This rule explains orbits with only two quantities, period and radius, and does not require mass or force or branded units of Newtonism.

I call this pristine version of physics without Newtonian branding “densytics” because density is definitional and it is the fundamental unit of nature. Absolutely indivisible matter and occult force are Newton’s inventions and do not exist in nature because they do not enter operational equations used in computations. Curiously enough, it was Newton who discovered that Kepler’s Rule was the definition of density and encoded this discovery in definition 1 of the Principia.

The New Revolution: A Scopes Trial Against Newtonism

I am planning to stage a Scopes-type trial against Newtonism which is taught in public schools in the United States as science under the name of “physics”.

The goal of the trial is to

  1. expose Newtonism as a British cult that impersonates science;
  2. remove Newtonism from the curriculum.

The first order of business is to find a trial lawyer who would take an interest in this case. (Or alternatively, to find supporters who would fund the project, including hiring a lawyer.)

This lawyer will

– translate the claim that Newtonism is a cult into the legal language understood by the US legal system;

– help choose the venue, the plaintiff and the defendant;

– help develop the marketing strategy;

– file the case with the court and see it through.


The following are my own thoughts as a layman about how such a trial may progress and why as an individual we must all take part in questioning Newtonism as a patriotic duty to our nation.


I have no experience with jury trials but I believe that in the US-type jury trials, the judge presiding over the case is responsible to apply the law and the jury is responsible to find the facts and discharge a decision.

I assume that in a case like this where the plaintiff claims that the defendent has been indoctrinating US pupils with unverified and unverifiable occult doctrines of a British cult; the judge will ask the parties to call expert witnesses to present their case to the jury.


The plaintiff claims that the fundamental doctrine of what is taught as physics in public schools is based on the religious doctrines of a British cult whose founder was a British subject called Isaac Newton.

The defendent rejects the plaintiff’s representation of physics as a British cult and conflates technology, engineering and practical astronomy with occult foundations of physics and claims that all of science is nothing but physics and the defendent is justified to teach physics as science in the United States. The defendent insists that the teachers of physics are licensed by the state to teach physics and no laws are broken by teaching physics.


I am not sure where the burden of proof lies in this case; but it appears that the plaintiff has the burden of proof and must prove that Newtonism doing business as physics is a British cult that crossed the Atlantic somehow and infected the scientific institutions of the new nation from the beginning. The Founding Fathers denied the authority of the tax-imposing British King; but they were fooled into accepting The System of the World of the British King of the Occult as the true science of the nation they formed.


In any case, it is obvious that the defendent will call an eminent professor of physics practicing in a brand-name “prestigious” university famous for its football team so that such a high-learning center will be recognizable to the jury as the cradle of science in the United States.

To the jury, the famous professor in the witness stand will appear to be the personification of science in the United States. In reality, such universities are the academic breeding grounds of Newtonism; universities endow the cult of Newtonism with its academic authority. There is perfect synergy between Big Education, Big Physics, Big Media, Big Finance and Big Government; they are the conspiracy against the little man.


Calling a professor of physics to defend physics in a trial against physics is like calling the Pope as an expert witness in the trial of Galileo. In fact, the proposed trial can be marketed as the “Revenge of Galileo”.

Would the judge allow such a biased witness to testify against the claim that physics is a cult?

Questions like this may best be answered by a trial lawyer (or tested by the actual trial).


And what kind of standard of evidence will the court enforce on the parties to prove their case?

Physics has no standard of evidence; in academic physics anything goes. Physics is an unregulated and corrupt-to-the-core professional industry where the practitioners have absolute authority over their professional legal code which they call –surprise! surprise!– “Newton’s Laws”.

Physicists can disprove any attack against their Newtonian doctrine by defining a new term and by inserting it into the existing legal physics equations. The physics equation which is sanctified by physicists as the only true representation of nature is in fact the most crooked timber in the collection of physical crooked timber called physics.


So, let’s get the trial going and let’s say Doctor A is a physicist called in to testify as an expert witness. Doctor A takes the stand and easily proves to the jury by using legal physics equations that Newton’s force is an experimentally proved fact of Nature; this is a well-known textbook fact, Doctor A says, and it is taught even in grade school (physicists are fond of circular reasoning). “Yes, Newtons force exists in nature” Doctor A testifies.

Next in the witness stand is another physicist, Doctor B, who has comparable rank and seniority and therefore the same level of academic authority as Doctor A. But Doctor B is hired by the plaintiff and has no difficulty proving by using equally legal and well-established physics equations that Newton’s force does not exist in nature; Newton’s force has long been superseeded by spacetime, Doctor B proves; or quantum gravity; or graviton or something or other; or all of the above. Doctor B testifies for the record that “No, Newton’s force does not exist in nature.”

To settle the issue the court calls its own witness, Doctor of physics C, who is yet another authority in matters of physics and equally endowed with academic credentials as Doctors A and B. Doctor C proves to the jury with unequivally certain physics equations that “there are no forces in nature because according to the M-Theory [sic] nature is made of strings”. This opens the can of worms called the String Theory on which no two physicists are in agreement; there is even a faction within the string theory community proving mathematically that the string theory is a special case of Newton’s Laws!


The judge is getting impatient now and he calls the great Doctor D who is a professor emeritus of physics at the University of Chicago; if Doctor D is not (yet) a Nobel laureate, it is not for his lack of lobbying the Swedish Academy through his agent who handles the contracts for his popular physics books written for the laymen; Doctor D is a living legend in physics establishment and has academic credentials dwarfing the credentials of Doctors A, B and C combined.

The eminent Doctor D wastes no time to impress the jury by filling the chalkboard installed in the courthouse just for this historic moment with precise physical equations revealing what the Lord God was having for breakfast 3 minutes before the Big Bang (2 eggs, hard boiled, with bacon and toast and orange juice). The great Doctor D then computes the density of an egg before the Big Bang and how long it took to hard boil an egg before the Big Bang, all in the plain language that the jury could understand.

The jury is awed by Doctor D’s magical talent not only to read the mind of god but his revelation of God’s culinary habits as far back as before the Big Bang just by writing a couple of physical equations on a blackboard.

The plaintiff counsel observes the excitement Doctor D’s revelations caused on the jury and considers this to be the breaking point of the case against his client’s claim that physics is a shamanistic personality cult where practitioners achieve impossible feasts by just rearranging some symbols in an equation; so he immediately objects:

Objection your honor! Doctor D has his signs mixed up! According to the Kerr Spacetime metric that he is using to extrapolate to the Big Bang his cosmological constant lambda must have a negative sign in front of it, otherwise it will lead to the Big Crunch not to the Big Bang; I have Doctor D’s monumental textbook Introduction to General Relativity in front of me; and I can prove that he is wrong. I am looking at page 2895 paragraph 705(a)(i)(A)(x) and equation number 2,987,551 where Doctor D writes this exact same equation he just wrote on the blackboard but with a positive sign in front of it! He is confusing Big Bang with the Big Crunch.

The great Doctor of physics D, is used to such amateurish objections to his physical authority and calmly instructs the jury that he is using a “pseudo-Kerr spacetime, not a regular Kerr-spacetime” as the plaintiff counsel claims and that his paper revealing the correspondence of pseudo and regular Kerr spacetimes will appear in the next issue of Physical Review Letters D; so his results are correct.

Plaintiff counsel tries again: “Objection! He just made pseudo-Kerr stuff up!”

“Overruled”, says the judge, who has no intention of going into the subtleties of a theory that requires over 3 million equations to calculate… what? Not sure, but it is not worth meddling with a physics professor who has the authority to define on the spot any pseudo anything to counter your argument. If you argue the letter of the law the eminent prof will argue the spirit; if you argue the spirit he will argue the letter; and given his immense authority supported by his fame gained through his popular books making loads of money for the publisher, he will win any physical argument.

The jury is in a scientific (physical?) trance induced by the academic authority of Doctor D who brings first hand news to the jury from the Bing Bang and their Lord God; the jury starts to applaud Doctor D’s great achievement; the judge is not amused and orders the jury to show no outside sign of emotion favoring one side or the other.


The physical authority of Doctor D and the magic of his physical equations succeeds in swaying the jury to a decision in favor of the defendant.


But the veteran judge who is presidening over our trial is used to the courthouse showmanship performed by trial lawyers more colorful than Doctor D and he is not fooled by Doctor D’s performance to demonstrate the authority of physics over the Lord God. On the contrary, the judge now realizes that the doctors of physics who came to his court as expert witnesses make it clear that physicists are expert in one thing and one thing only:

Physicists are experts in corrupting the ancient science of physics to save the authority of their master Newton.

The judge is fed up with these professional enemies of science and decides to enforce new rules of standard of evidence to be obeyed by everyone who takes the stand in his court.

After all, what kind of standard of evidence exists in physics that allows the revelation of what our Lord God was eating before he created the Big Bang that modern physicists discovered by reading the mind of God? Nil. There exists no such standard of evidence; in physics anything goes.


Would an academic physicist accept the authority of a legal court in matters of legal physics? Would a judge have the courage to impose legal standards of evidence on corrupt physicists who believe that they are the judge and the jury when it comes to matters of physics?

These are the questions that this case is aiming to test.


I realize that teaching Newtonism as true science is a well-established habit of society; social habits are very difficult to change; in this case it may take over a decade to expose Newtonism as a British cult colonizing US minds.

Consider your own immediate reaction when you read the claim that Newtonism is a British cult designed to colonize the minds of US citizens.

You instinctively thought

What nonsense! If Newtonism were wrong satellites would fall to earth; chaos would reign in the solar system; the cosmos as we know it would cease to exist; academic physics would collapse under its own weight as Peripatetic philosphy did; observations prove that Newton is nature and nature is physical therefore how can physics be wrong? This guy is wasting his time taking Newtonism to court; it is impossible to prove Newtonism wrong; Newton’s authority is infinite; Newton is the mortal closest to gods etc., etc.


But when you cool down, and reconsider your reaction as described in the above paragraph you will see that your reaction is not based on any scientific evidence that you systematically evaluated by using your own reasoning powers; no! you are just channelling the authority of Newtonian priests who indoctrinated you with the doctrine that Newton is a British demi-god who discovered the laws of nature in an orchard.

When you first heard the apple myth as applied to Newton, you were in grade school and you assumed that since it was such a well-known myth that explained both the ultimate human sin and the ultimate human discovery it must be correct; at the time you did not have the intellectual capacity to question the Newtonian cult and its myths; but now you can and you must question the doctrines of the Newtonian cult.


You might for instance start by questioning Newton’s Zeroth Law:

God in the beginning formed matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable movable particles.

then you may concede that you did not read and understand Newton’s original writings; you did not study the original writings of Newton’s famous disciples such as Cavendish, Lagrange, Laplace, Gauss, Hamilton and many others who successfully branded Kepler’s Rule as Newtonian mechanics over the course of two centuries after Newton founded his cult.

But worst, you may have taken a few physics course during your university adventure and still failed to figure out that the teachers who teach physics are Newtonian priests; this is how stealth Newtonian cult is at this point.


You can offer no evidence for your defense of Newtonism except the authority of Newtonian priests who wrote all the books that you may have read to form your opinion of the Newtonian cult.

If you take the time to study some fundamental physics experiments you will see that the same most respected Newtonian priests have been faking experiments to prove that Newton’s occult force exists in nature (occult force does not exist in nature); and faking physics equations to prove that orbits obey Newton’s laws (orbits do not obey Newton’s laws).


There is nothing new about the realization that the state teaches you and everyone else sanctified conventions as the only truth. Newtonism is one of many such sanctified conventions taught by the state.

The state knows nothing about Newtonism. The state outsources academic knowledge to the Doctors of Philosophy, also known as physicists, and they teach the cult of Newtonism as true science.


This is the standard method used by the state to teach citizens its own legal values. The state indoctrinates its citizens with its official doctrines presented to the citizens as the only truth. We all know this.

Another example of sanctified convention taught by the state as the only truth is the base-10 number system. The state teaches the base-10 number system as if it were the only true number system. Think about the moment when you realized that other number systems such as binary and hexadecimal systems were equally valid number systems and none of them were privileged or sacred.

Why was it that when the state taught you the base-10 system it was not made clear to you that base-10 system was just one of infinitely many number systems possible? The reason is that the state, more specifically its agents, the teachers, do not want you to know that there alternatives to what they are teaching and then question their authority.

The state, and its agents the physicists, do not want you think for yourself and find out that Newtonism is a cult.

Were you excited to learn that there were non-Euclidean geometries? Why was it that teachers taught Euclidean geometry as the true geometry for thousands of years?


The realization that Newtonism is a sanctified unit system served to you as the only true “system of the world” is the same kind of wonderful realization that will open up new intellecutal horizons for you.


We must expose and get rid of this last remnant of the British colonialism in the United States.


Notes for the curious:

  • Physical semantics: Physicists corrupted the good word “physical” to map any natural word into physics. The result is that whenever we use the word “physical” we are proving Newtonism as the only truth.
  • Five ideological physics experiments physicists corrupted to save their Master Newton’s sacred authority. It is a disgrace to call these polemics with a gadget “experiments.”