Nature is rational

How do we know that nature is rational?

We know nature by measuring.

Measuring is counting the unit.

What is a unit?

All measurements are done with a rule. A rule is an equality of ratios of similar quantities. For example, Kepler’s Rule is a rule that measures orbits.

In order to measure with a rule we keep one of the ratios constant. This term that we keep constant is the unit.

Since we can choose any ratio as our unit, measurement is independent of chosen unit. There are no absolute true units.

There are no exceptions to the rule that measurement is independent of chosen unit. There are no absolute and true units in nature.

I cannot imagine any physicist to agree that nature is rational and that there are no true units in nature; that would be denying the sacred branded units of physics.

If you eliminate the sacred branded units named after dead physicists there will be no physics left.

Nature is rational; physics is legal.

Physics is legal because it tries to legislate nature with absolute true units defined by physicists. Physicists call the units they define “constants of nature”.

Rational = measured with ratios = science

Legal = measured with equations made of branded and sacred units = physics

Scenes from the Trial of Newtonism or Measurement is Independent of Measure

Plaintiff argues like this:

We respectfully ask the judge to grant us the following undisputed fact:

measurement is independent of the unit chosen to measure.

Undisputed fact: measurement is independent of measure.

What does this mean?

This means that we can measure any length with any unit of our choosing; no unit is the true unit; there is no true unit in nature.

This fact was first stated mathematically by Descartes.

The plaintiff may choose to measure a given length A with Unit-1; the defendant may choose to measure the same length A with Unit-2, which he named, very cleverly, “Newton’s Universal True Unit.” But neither Unit-1 nor Newton’s Universal True Unit is better or worse or more true or less true than the other.

Once the court upholds this undisputed scientific fact that no unit is the absolute true unit, and orders both parties to abide by this rule, plaintiff asks the court to designate a given length to be measured by both defendant and plaintiff; we call this distance to be measured “length A”.

Plaintiff takes a piece of string and lays it on length A and cuts the string when the edges of the string matches the edges of the length A, and tells the judge that the length A measures 1 string.

Defendant hired a physics professor to defend Newtonism and the prof brought with him a laser ruler and tells the court that length A is 10 inches as measured by his ruler and not 1 string as the plaintiff claims.

The judge overrules the assertion of the prof and reminds him that according to the court rules, measurement is independent of the unit and the plaintiff’s measurement of lenght A is as good as prof’s measurement.


The prof is used to assert ownership of any quantity he measures with his named units; but in the court of law his academic authority is overruled by the scientific rule upheld by the court; the prof cannot own the given length A simply because he measured it with his named units.


Then the plaintiff respectfully asks the judge to tell the parties each to weigh an apple.

The plaintiff uses an old style scale with a basket on each side and puts the apple on one basket and a stone on the other to balance the scale; and tells the judge that the apple weighs 1 stone.

The physics prof hired by the defendant to defend Newtonism brought with him an electronic laboratory scale and places the same apple on the scale and reads the dial which shows 1 Newton as the weight of the apple.

The physics professor tells the court that the apple does not weigh 1 stone but it weighs 1 Newton and because the prof named his unit “Newton” he wants the plaintiff, the judge, the jury and the entire world to believe that the earth attracts the apple with the occult force invented by Newton.

The judge once again dismisses the prof’s claim and tells him that no unit can prove any doctrine by association and orders him to heed the rules of the court and reminds him once again that measurement is independent of the unit chosen by the measurer.


The court does not accept guilt by association and the court does not accept proof of doctrines by rhetorical associations with strategically named units.


The prof is not used to this type of challenge to his academic authority and he still does not get that the measurement is independent of the unit he chooses to use.

The prof is used to assert the authority of physics through units he named after Newton. This is how physics has been done since Newton’s time. The authority of the physicist on the matters of legal physics cannot be challenged. If the prof says that an apple weighs 1 Newton that apple weighs 1 Newton as a law of nature. This is what the laws of physics require, and the prof asks the judge to obey the laws of physics as defined by the prof; not the rules of the court.

But judge overrules the polemical attempts of the prof to assert Newton’s sacred authority over the justice system of the United States. It does not matter what the prof named his unit; an apple weighs a stone, if you use the unit of stone to measure its weight, or an apple weighs 1 Newton, or 1 Einstein or 1 any-dead-physicist the prof chooses to name his unit to weigh the apple.


Pliantiff agrees with the court that, as granted by the judge, measurement is independent of the measure. The plaintiff is using a stone to measure the weight of an apple; the defendant invented a convoluted unit to save the authority of the founder of his profession and he is using standard units of kilogram, meter and second to weigh the same apple.

The prof named a combination of standard units of kg, meter and second “Newton”. He is using 4 conventional units to weigh an apple in order to save his Master Newton’s sacred authority.


Next the plaintiff respectfully asks the judge to let each party to measure an orbit, say the orbit of Mars around the sun.

There is no doubt that the physics prof will again come up with units he named after Newton and because he used units he named after Newton he will claim that orbits are Newtonian.

The prof has been indoctrinated during his long physics education that lasted over 30 years, to see the world with Newtonian blinders behind Newtonian glasses.


Plaintiff simply uses Kepler’s Rule which says that the cube of the radius R is proportional to the square of the period T:

In order to use this rule to measure an orbit we need to choose a unit. As in the measurement of the length A we can choose any unit for R and any unit for T. But we need to make sure that our units are consistent.

To use Kepler’s Rule to measure the orbit of Mars the plaintiff writes the rule with a unit term like this:

The term on the left hand side is the unit term, or the term which is kept constant during measurement to make the units consistent.

For R0 we choose the Earth-Sun distance and for T0 we choose the period of the Earth around the sun. Then knowing the Sun-Mars distance R we compute the period T of Mars around the Sun.

Once again, the plaintiff used no Newtonian units, no Newtonian force, no Newtonian so-called constants of nature, in order to save the authority of Newton or Aristotle or Marx or anybody else.

The plaintiff simply used a rule first discovered by Kepler with units of his own choosing. This rule contains nothing but the radius R and the period T neither of which was discovered by Newton and, as far as we know, [not yet] claimed by Newton’s disciples to be Newtonian quantities.


And now, here comes the professor of physics hired by the defendant to defend Newtonism. So, the prof writes Kepler’s Rule as

More correctly, the prof did not just write Kepler’s Rule as above; he can’t; the prof first “derived” Kepler’s Rule from “Newton’s Laws” which means that he first wrote Newtonian junk terms Force and Mass on each side of Kepler’s Rule and then carefully eliminated the junk terms to “derive” the above “equation” so that he could “own” Kepler’s Rule in the name of Newton.

Why is the prof going through this charade? Because it is illegal in physics to start writing Kepler’s Rule as is without Newtonian terms; such an act of heresy would be denying Newton’s sacred authority and no professor of physics can deny Newton’s sacred authority!


Can you imagine the immensity of this hoax perpetrated by the prof? Either he is a fool; or he thinks we are.


The prof knows very well that writing a term on each side of an equation means nothing, it is idiotic to write the same term on each side of an equation knowing that the terms will cancel. It is an elementary rule of algebra that the same terms on both sides of an equation must be cancelled; such terms written on both sides of an equation have no effect on the equation; they are as good as non-existent.

The prof may write $100,000,000 on both sides of an equation but he can never recover in any way that $100,000,000 because it must be eliminated.

But the prof writes Newton’s occult force F and Newton’s animistic mass m on both sides of his equation and then cancels them and claims that orbits are Newtonian! In business accounting it is a fraud to write $100,000,000 in the income column to fool investors that your company has an extra $100,000,000 and then eliminate that $100,000,000 in the expense column through fake invoices. The prof is perpetrating the same kind of fraud in the name of Newtonism.


So, after thus praying to his master Newton the prof writes Kepler’s Rule branded with Newtonian units:

GM = R3/T2 is nothing more than Kepler’s Rule written with Newtonian units; the prof just replaced our unit term R03/T02 with his ideological Newtonian unit GM. So as his habit

  1. the prof defined a unit
  2. named the unit he defined after Newton, and
  3. sanctified the unit he just branded with his Newton brand as the absolute true unit.


The prof still does not get that what is measured is independent of the units used to measure it.


The prof named once again some unit with Newton’s name and claims that he is calculating orbits with “Newtonian mechanics” because he named the letter G as “Newton’s Universal Constant of Gravitation,” and the letter M as “Mass” which is nothing other than R03/T02!


So this prof finds in himself the absolute authority to own any quantity by giving it a Newtonian name!


By the way, his unit GM, is not made up of 2 terms G and M, it is just one unit, neither G nor M makes sense separately in this equation. The fraud of Newtonism runs deep.


But first, where is the little m?


Because according to Newton’s doctrines, the all powerful big mass M which is supposed to be at the center sitting in his throne is attracting the little m which is going around the mighty mass M as set in motion and held in orbit by the Newtonian occult force F emanating from mighty mass M.

The formula GM = R3/T2 that the prof is using to compute orbits – Kepler’s Rule written with a unit named after Newton – does not contain a term for the attracted mass and does not contain a term for the attracting force.

The prof had to eliminate F and m because F and m do not exist in nature; orbits are independent of F and m, orbits do not care about Newton’s authority.


Why do we say that orbits do not care about Newtonian junk terms so much loved by the prof? Because we calculated the same orbit without using any Newtonian junk symbols.


So this prof named, as he did with everything else he measured previously, a unit after Newton and he is using Kepler’s Rule with a unit he named after Newton and he claims that he is using Newton’s laws and that Newton’s occult doctrines are proved because he is using units named after Newton.

Well, I don’t know what other name to call this prof but he must be a charlatan; I name this prof the unit of charlatanism.


What do you think?


Why is it that the prof does not get that the measurement is independent of the unit used to measure?


As a last resort the prof claims that G is not a unit but a constant of nature.

So the prof, objects and asserts that G is not a unit but a constant of nature.


The professional ancestors of the prof defined G in the 19th century as a unit and transformed it into a constant of nature by naming it as “Newton’s constant of universal gravity” and this prof is now trying to fool us into believing that G is a constant of nature and not a unit.


But plaintiff did not have to use G to compute the orbit. If G were to be a constant of nature defining orbits, we could not compute the orbit of Mars without using G.

G is not a constant of nature but it is a unit defined by physicists.


What will the jury decide? Will the jury believe that the physics professor’s sanctified units are laws of nature as he claims? Or will the jury recognize that prof’s branded units are bogus laws of physics rejected by nature?

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.”

Time in physics

A search for “gps general relativity” reveals all kinds of content claiming that without general relativistic corrections your GPS will not give correct results. The entire myth about this GPS and General Relativity has been started by a physicist called Neil Ashby who at the time worked for the government. There is no evidence, except Neil Ashby’s own word which cannot be verified independently that there are general relativistic corrections in the operational code used by GPS satellites. Neil Ashby writes about theoretical General Relativity and like all physicists his papers are yet one more iteration of boilerplate General Relativity fare.

Remember that physics is an unregulated professional industry practiced by individuals who lie and cheat regularly in their work to advance their career. Their lying and cheating is exactly analogous to the lying and cheating of lawyers; because physics too is a legal system. These professionals lie and cheat by selecting favorable legal statements from the official legal body. In the case of physics every statement comes in contradictory triplicates and the physicist can chose the one that works and dismiss the others.

So it is business as usual in physics to enforce an unverified legal speculation about GPS and General Relativity as a natural law discovered by physicists. But here I am concerned more about how physicists abuse the concept of time in the name of physics.

In this case we are against a scholastic army of Doctors of Philosophy aka physicists who spent a lifetime to rationalize that a clock has anything to do with Time, the time with capital T — a clock is an oscillator; nothing more; nothing less.

In other words, physicists are fools (or professional crooks, depending on your point of view) who confuse intentionally the measurement of time with the concept of time.

Such speculations about nature of philosophical Time are the oldest of scholastic speculations.

Why are speculations about Time are scholastic speculations?

Because operational equations used in astronomy do not contain a term for philosophical Time; time t, associated with clocks are for period; and period is essentially a length or an angle.

Physicists load a geometric angle with scholastic philosophy about Time and dilate it, contract it, and mess with it in every mystical and scholastic way possible.

So, a scholastic doctor of philosophy who plied his trade in the time of Galileo, made his career by loading the a geometric line with peripatetic philosophy; Galileo removed peripatetic philosophy and called a line a line. This started the scientific revolution.

Removing the branding of modern scholastic physics from geometry, once again, will lead to a scientific revolution.

Like their professional ancestors, modern scholastic doctors of philosophy aka physicists too use the language of mathematics to practice their trade in the speculative scholastic philosophy (and call what they do “science”. . . obviously).

Many names of Kepler’s rule

1. My research method according to Shubhendu

Shubhendu of Onionesque reality summarized my research method as he saw it thus:

Because if anybody says anything to you, you will say the following “well, you are blinded by legal physics. You won’t understand my points.”

One can find many examples in this blog where commenters have kindly shown mistakes and the author of the blog happily changed what was shown to be wrong without judging what the commenter could or could not understand in general.

As an amateur doing research for fun (not for career like physicists) the rank, seniority, affiliations and knowledge level of any particular commenter is of no interest to me. Only professional physicists need to know who the other party is in order to style their response accordingly. Without knowing their hierarchical relative position with respect to their interlocutor physicists will not respond.

I am not interested in the commenter. I only look at the content of what he has to say.

2. An example of my research method

Having said this let me analyze how I reasoned in the previous post about the form of the charge potential expression V(r) = qq’/r.

First some comments:

2.1. Physics expressions are the property of physics

Physicists have absolute monopoly on V(r) = qq’/r the way Apple has an absolute monopoly on its logo. No matter how absurd and decorative a legal physics statement is physicists will assert their authority and claim that it is a true statement.

2.2. Derivation is justification of doctrine

Physicists will write V(r), q, q’ or F, m and m’ and cancel these decorative terms and they will call the cancellation of the decorative terms “derivation.” This is the same method theologians use to justify their dogma. Physicists have been acting like religious zealots to save Newton’s authority.

2.3 Is the post-Newtonian physics imminent?

Can the legal nature of physics be changed? Yes, but not in the near future. Shubhendu also wrote

Science has a fantastic way of weeding out the nonsense, it might take time as all inertia of thought do. But it does. The person does not matter in the end.

I agree with Shubhendu even though he is using science is physics pun.

If we write his observation as

[physics] has a fantastic way of weeding out the nonsense, it might take time as all inertia of thought do. But it does. The person does not matter in the end

the meaning changes in an important way.

In physics it does matter who said what. Newton is the founder of the profession to whom his followers dedicated the unit of the occult. Therefore, the authority of the founder is sacred and Newtonian ideology cannot be changed without toppling Newtonism. This is the reason why change in physics occurs by legal method. Legal method is change by amendment which changes the meaning of a statement without changing its letter. Legal is the method of physics and legal is the opposite of science.

The post-Newtonian world will dawn when eventually opportunist physicists will realize that it is possible to topple Newtonism and get credit for instigating a scientific revolution and become a mythological hero in the pantheon of physics. Only then physicists will do to Newton what Newton has done to European scholasticism and Newtonism will collapse. But physics is not there yet.

3. Is it justified to dismiss physics because it is legal?

If I am understanding Shubhendu correctly he will criticize my evaluation of physics above in section 2 as a good example of dismissing physics in toto on the basis that physicists argue by legal slogans without questioning them.

Shubhendu will say that physicists are right to use V(r) = qq’/r and I am wrong when I identify V(r) = qq’/r as an empty physics form with no referent in nature. I’ve been calling such empty forms of physics legal slogans.

Maybe an independent third party or an arbitrator is needed to settle the issue but let me compare how I argue and how physicists argue regarding the electric potential form.

4. The meaning of the expression for electric potential

The question is about the meaning of the set of symbols V(r) = qq’/r.

What does V(r) = qq’/r mean?

I believe that Shubhendu will agree that this is the question.


4.1 Physicists argue by legal forms

Physicists do not question the form or the meaning of the V(r) = qq’/r, they take it as legally true. There are obviously exceptions as some physicists will question this form but let’s ignore this issue for now.


4.2. Meaning of terms

What are the meanings of each term in V(r)? Surprisingly, in this expression there is only one unambiguous (well-defined) term and that’s the mathematical symbol “/” denoting division.

Out of 6 terms (not counting parens and the prime) only one has unambiguous meaning and that’s the symbol for an arithmetic operation. Every term relating to physics is dubious.

4.3. Physicists call Kepler’s rule many names

Who wrote and developed V(r)? The answer is physicists.

Does V(r) have experimental basis? No. The ultimate origin of this expression is the Newtonian definition of force: F = mm’/r. The force definition is the half of Kepler’s rule 1/rr = r/tt.

When physicists write Kepler’s rule as 1/r = rr/tt they call it the law of conservation of energy. Physicists named 1/r the potential and rr/tt the kinetic energy.

4.3 Electric potential and Kepler’s rule

Why do physicists relabeled Kepler’s rule and then reified their labels? Because physicists blindly follow Newton who branded Kepler’s rule by naming each permutation with his own labels.

Force, mass, potential and kinetic energy, Lagrangian and Hamiltonian are all labels and higher level notation on Kepler’s rule.

The engine underneath Newtonian notation is Kepler’s rule.

This is true because labels are cancelled while the proportionality remains.

Therefore, V(r) = qq’/r can be traced to Kepler’s rule. Kepler’s rule has its origin in observations. Newtonian labels associated with Kepler’s rule do not have experimental origins.

Physicists claim that V(r) = qq’/r is an expression which has an experimental origin. The story they tell is that physicists reasoned by analogy and said that if the potential between two masses is mm’/r then the potential between two charges must be qq’/r.

Note that it would have been correct to argue by analogy from Kepler’s rule that orbital motion is described by R3/T2 = constant and that this may also describe electrical motion. But arguing from Newtonian labels is wrong.

4.4 Physicists have been using Coulomb’s experiment as false witness

Failing to verify their Newtonian doctrine with experiments physicists faked an experiment and used it as false witness to justify their Newtonian doctrine.

In this case the faked experiment is Coulomb’s experiment. Physicists repeat without questioning the physics mythology that Coulomb’s experiment proved Coulomb’s law. V(r) = qq’/r does not have an experimental origin in the Coulomb experiment.

5. Questions to Shubhendu and readers

Here’s the main difference between physicists and me regarding the subject in question.

I start from Kepler’s rule which is solidly founded on observational evidence.

Physicists start from a faked experiment in order to justify their Newtonian doctrine.

Physicists fit observations into their doctrine by adding decorative labels to valid geometric statements such as 1/r.

I eliminate physicists decorations to recover the original proportionality.

Coulomb experiment is based on the dubious analogy between mass and charge. Dubious because mass is a label invented by Newton. Mass is R03/T02 which is the constant of density in Kepler’s rule. Physicists, as usual, reified this constant by asserting that their choice of unit is the true unit. The analogy should be between R(mass)3/T(mass)2 and R(charge)3/T(charge)2.

Physicists do not question Coulomb’s experiment. I do.

For physicists what is legal is unquestionably true. Physicists are not supposed to and they never will question a legal statement. In rare cases when physicists question a legal statement they can only do so legally, that is, by amending it. They can never change its letter, they can only corrupt its meaning.

Dear reader, am I reasoning here by authority and dismiss physics by saying “you don’t understand what I’m talking about because you are blinded by legal physics?”

Or am I reasoning scientifically from available evidence to reach my conclusions?

Was I able to show that in this case physicists argue by slogans and legal forms of physics without questioning them?

Who is reasoning scientifically? Me or physicists?

Physicists go by legal physics and I question legal physics.

Physicists look at V(r) = qq’/r and say that Coulomb experiment proved this statement. I say that Coulomb experiment did not prove this statement because Coulomb faked his experiment.

Additional note: Since I start from Kepler’s rule I see that V(r) is not a function even though physicists write it as if it were a function. This is a very good example of how physicists use and abuse mathematical notation and corrupt mathematics in order to prove their Newtonian doctrine.

Please take a look at this table comparing my method of research with physics way of doing research and to this list of propositions mentioned in this post. I would like to hear your comments. Thanks.

Inverse square law

Dear reader,

Yesterday a commenter with an agenda, probably a disgruntled physicist, started a systematic and vindictive attack on the person of the author of this blog and went into a long tirade to defend the inverse square law of physics.

His attack and his defense of the inverse square law was uncalled for because I clearly stated here and then to him that I was not questioning the inverse square law.

This is important because the inverse square law is a good example of how physicists appropriate and corrupt old geometric concepts by branding them with the word “physical.”

Indeed, inverse square law is a well established geometric rule. There is no reason to dispute it. Sound waves disperse as 1/rr. In general, any quantity that disperses as volume will change its density according to 1/rr.

Kepler’s rule is the definition of density and it includes 1/rr.

What I am against is calling the geometric quantity 1/rr to be a “physical” quantity called force and endowing this force with occult qualities. Physicists transform geometric quantities into physical quantities by labeling them.

Force is nothing more than a label that always cancels out of operational formulas.

This is how physicists use experiments as false witness to prove labels that they’ve associated with geometric quantities such as 1/rr.

My understanding is that there is no way to break free of physicists’ legal semantics.

Physicists’ semantics apply to experiments as well. Physicists will measure the distance r, or period t, and will claim to have proved their doctrine by experiment. Physics is semantics.

I also want to add that force is indeed a physical quantity. But force is not a physical physical quantity. This is a perfect example of how physicists use semantics and puns to make concepts their own property.

Physical quantity simply means a symbol defined as a unit with a number. Therefore, the definition of physical quantity does not require that the physical quantity must be physical.

As you can see, physicists created a masterful pun with the word physical. It is impossible to break free of it.

What I mean is that a physical quantity may or may not refer to a natural quantity. Any definition of a unit with a number is called a physical quantity. But physicists assert that a quantity they called a physical quantity is always a natural quantity. Yet another professional propaganda perpetuated by physicists.

Physics studies physical quantities. So physics at its core is a legal system and not a scientific system.

What do you think?

Academic physics is alternative science

Continuing my comments from the previous post. . . I notice that physicist ZapperZ compares academic physics to alternative medicine. It goes without saying, in his view, that academic physics is a quantitative science and contradiction is respected. My observations show that in physics only legal reasoning is valid.

Ignoring this fact ZapperZ gives us in that self-righteous tones that affect all physicists a lesson in scientific reasoning:

I think that is a very important [to understand the placebo effect], something that the “alternative medicine” community seems to want to ignore. This is what we call careful, scientific study.

This quote shows how physicists have a totally mistaken view of their profession and themselves. They fail to realize that physics is not a synonym for science.

This physicist compares physics to alternative medicine and finds alternative medicine lacking because it does not conform to what

we the physicists call careful, scientific study.

And what is that scientific study that physics obeys but alternative medicine does not? Let’s find out:

If you claim that B causes A, then there must be a clear connection between A and B, and that A can only be caused by B in a controlled manner. In other words, A can not have been caused also by C, or D, etc. In alternative medicine, the effect is VERY small, and small enough that it can’t discount not only the placebo effect, but also random chance.

If this “clear connection” rule were to be enforced in academic physics 99.9 per cent of academic physics experiments would have to be filed as alternative physics experiments. And indeed they are.

Take the modern measurements of G, as I mentioned earlier. Compared to such measurements alternative medicine shines as the epitome of science.

There must be a clear connection between A and B? And this is written by a physicist?

Physicists routinely fake, cook and doctor experiments to further their careers.

Clear connection between A and B in physics? ZapperZ must be joking. Either he is a fool or he is lying.

In physics clear connections do not exist. Here’s an example of scholastic sophistry written by the same ZapperZ violating his own rule of clear connections:

If you look at the definitions of what a “photon” is, you’ll notice the lack of “size” as being a part of it. It was never defined as a “particle” in the classical, ordinary sense. Einstein only referred to it (in translation) as the “corpuscular” of light.

However, there is a characteristic length that is associated with photons, and that is the wavelength of the light that we measure. But this should not be construed as being its physical size.

Note that clear connection means a unique connection. There are no unique connections in physics because physics is legal not science. As is done above by ZapperZ physicists will always define any A to be A and not-A simultaneously.

There is only one thing very clear in physics:

physics is doublespeak.

Physical quantities are connected not uniquely but legally. In other words, ZapperZ will repeat any and all contradictory and absurd legalisms that his predecessors have cooked up and filed as legal physics.

Then he’ll go ahead and post articles glorifying legal physics by comparing it to alternative medicine or religion or the occult . . .