# G is the most political constant of physics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

# What is physical spacetime?

Space and time cannot be considered as separate entities, as Newton had assumed but

must be considered together as a four-dimensional spacetime. Three spacelike dimensions and one timelike dimension account for the four spacetime dimensions. In the above description we considered only the motion of the earth through space. To be completely correct we must also account for its motion in time, i.e., we must consider the earth’s path through spacetime, not just space.

Although it is true that any massive object like the sun warps space in exactly the way described, it also warps time. The end result is that the full story differs in one crucial respect: rather than the earth taking the shortest path in space, it actually takes the longest path in spacetime. Although our discussion above avoids this complicating aspect of the story, it accurately portrays the basic flavor of Einstein’s beautiful, geometrical theory of gravity.

Physics and polemics cannot be considered as separate entities, as non-physicists usually assume but must be considered together as a four-dimensional physicspolemics. Three semantic-like dimensions and one quantitative-like dimension account for the four physicspolemics dimensions. The three semantic-like dimensions are made of puns, tropes and puntropes. Puns and tropes cannot be considered as separate entitities, as physics noobies assume but must be considered together as a four dimensional puntrope that envelopes the entire physicosphere. Three pun-like dimensions and one trope-like dimension account for the four puntrope dimensions. The saying goes that in physics puns tell tropes how to pun and tropes tell puns how to trope. And this is the best definition of physics that you will ever get.

In general physics discussions we usually neglect the quantitative-like dimension until the last minute and discuss all the semantic-like possibilities while pretending to be absolutely quantitative-like. Once we reach the edge of our semantic-like brinkmanship we break the symmetry and switch instantaneously to quantitative-like mode and of course we tell the world that our quantitative-like results were all obtained from our semantic-like first principles. In physics both modes cannot exist together because any massively absurd semantic-like object such as “space and time cannot be considered as separate entities” warps puns and also warps tropes.

The result is that the full story differs in one crucial respect. Rather than our semantic-like argument taking the shortest path to puns and trops, it actually takes the longest path in puntrope. So it is always good physics to avoid this complicating aspect of the story and claim that our final quantitative-like picture accurately portrays the basic flavor of Einstein’s beautiful geometrical theory of gravity. You can never go wrong by asserting that you have portrayed the basic flavor of Einstein’s beautiful geometrical theory of gravity. As you can see, “the basic flavor” is a perfect quantitative-like quantity that all scientist-like physicists like. In fact, you should repeat that you have portrayed the basic flavor of Einstein’s beautiful geometrical theory of gravity even if you are computing your plain vanilla Newtonian force on a billiard ball.

To summarize, physics and polemics cannot be considered as separate entities which means that, just like the space and time cannot be considered as separate entities . . . but they always are. . . you should make a habit of believing what a physicist asserts with great authority as much as you believe what your Congressman tells you with great sincerity in election time. In physics and in politics double and speak can never be considered as separate entities.

# Physics and semantics

1. What’s wrong with semantics?

One of the most powerful scientific arguments physicists use to dismiss non-legal physics is to say “That’s just semantics.” In physics lingo this means

you have just stepped out of legal physics and if you continue to challenge legal physics with scientific skepticism I’ll call you a crackpot, so you’d better stop and listen to what I teach and learn legal physics, the only true science.

Semantics as defined in physics is similar to two other words — philosophy and metaphysics — and refer to the opinions of an unlicensed person on topics owned by physicists. These are propaganda words invented by physicists to defend their monopoly on human reason. But what is wrong with semantics?

2. Don’t confuse semantics with polemics

Looking at physics at the fundamental mathematical level I see that physics is semantics.

Physicists confuse, probably intentionally, semantics with polemics which means

the practice of disputing or controverting religious, philosophical, or political matters. As such, a polemic text on a topic is often written specifically to dispute or refute a position or theory that is widely viewed to be beyond reproach.

Indeed physicists view legal physics to be true beyond reproach. Otherwise physics would not work. Note that there are always legal open questions that physicists can work on but they cannot doubt the absolute veracity of legal physics and remain in the profession. Consequently, physicists will not tolerate any kind of scientific skepticism toward their profession from outsiders.

Semantics, on the other hand, is the “study of meaning in communication.”

3. If physics is meaningful it must be semantics

Unless physicists claim that physics is meaningless then physics must be semantics. The idea that academic physics may be meaningless and absurd or at least allows meaninglessness and absurd should not be dismissed out of hand. But let’s assume that physics is meaningful.

First we posit that physicists who have an absolute monopoly to define new terms with new meanings in the realm of physics have conveniently defined semantics to mean physics in the context of physics:

meaning = physics

So when they say “physics of a problem” physicists mean “the meaning of a problem.” Any meaning physicists will call physics.

4 . Mathematics has no meaning

Let’s look at a mathematical expression:

$E=\int&space;p&space;\:&space;dp$

Since this is a mathematical expression we have no idea what symbols E and p mean but we can manipulate it according to mathematical rules. In mathematics symbols are meaningless only rules exist. Mathematical reasoning

is formal in the sense that the meaning of propositions forms no part of the investigation. The sole concern of mathematics is the inference of proposition from proposition. The justification of the rules of inference in any branch of mathematics is not properly part of mathematics: it is the business of experience or of philosophy. The business of mathematics is simply to follow the rule. In this sense all mathematical reasoning is necessary, namely, it has followed the rule.

In mathematics symbols E and p have no meaning and the integral and equality signs are operational and dp is an integration unit.

Therefore, physicists must give meaning to these symbols if physics is to have a meaning different than mathematics. And the process of giving meaning to symbols is called semantics. Physicists call this process of giving meaning to mathematical symbols physics, ie. they defined semantics as physics.

Calling E, say, electric field, is semantics. The mathematical symbol E is given the meaning “electric field.”

4. Physical quantity and experiment are semantic operators

Physical quantity

In physics a symbol is endowed with meaning through physical quantities. Physical quantity is really about semantics because it is a unit with a number and has nothing to do with being physical or not. The adjective physical in front of quantity is a political symbol. So, again,

the justification of the rules of inference in any branch of mathematics is not properly part of mathematics: it is the business of experience or of philosophy.

And it is also the business of physics. And indeed physics is philosophy because it deals with meaning. But physicists consider semantics, philosophy and metaphysics to be all suspect endeavors because they are ultimately about questioning legal physics.

Experiment

What about the question of experiment, the interface between physics and nature? According to physicists they are not semanticists but experimental scientists who are merely modelling nature objectively by way of experiments. In reality, professional physicists themselves are the interface between nature and physics because they have authority over experiment, e.g., Coulomb experiment.

That physical laws are based on experiments is a professional propaganda. Physics is first semantic then experimental. Experiment in physics is an alternative way to endow symbols with meaning. So either a physical quantity or an experiment can give meaning to a symbol. In either case physics is semantics.

The unit of physics is physical quantity and a physical quantity does not have to have a correspondence in nature. The sign called physical quantity does not need to have a signified but it must be consistent with legal physics, that’s the only requirement.

Physical quantity can be, and most are, arbitrary definitions in agreement with the rest of physics. And in most cases a physical experiment is a definition with an oscillator.

5. Physicists are semantic philosophers who deny being semantic philosophers

Mathematical symbols do not have meaning, physicists give them meaning, usually by reifying them. But physics does not have mathematical rigor because physicists do not respect mathematical meanings of the operators, they endow them too with their own “physical” meanings. So the fundamental operator of physical equation, the equality sign, has at least four different meanings and it is not a mathematical but a polemical sign.

6. How come physics works? If it is semantics it should not work!

What works is not physics. Physics is just a rubric of a vast collection of different semantic fields. What works are “mechanics” that physicists painstakingly fit into observations one paper at a time. It would be really strange if physics did not work. By definition, all physics “theories” are models that are fit into observations. Therefore, by definition, they work. In other words, physics works because it is semantics. All these mechanics contain free parameters, semantic elements (quantity is meaning too), that fit the model to observations.

There is only one way we can know nature. We fit a database of observations into a model. And this is done through semantics. So the method of physics is right. The propaganda of physics is wrong.

It is also known that there is no essential difference between the semantics of natural languages like English and formal languages like mathematics. Physicists abuse this fact as well. What physicists do is to use the authority of mathematics to justify ideology.

What is unscientific is to try to project physics as an “objective” science that transcends ordinary meaning and reveals absolute truths about nature. In other words, religion.

# Hidden physics

As a summary of the Physical semantics here’s a table showing how physicists use semantic methods to hide information:

 physical quantity measurement of hidden physics physical meaning interpretation of hidden physics physical reason rationalization of hidden physics physical model container of hidden physics physical theory generally accepted container of hidden physics physical observable probability of hidden physics physical law legitimization of hidden physics

# Physical semantics

I noticed that physicists use the word physical as an adjective to modify many different types of words. I was curious to understand how physical modifies the words it is applied to as an adjective. It appears that physical is like a physical operator: it maps a non-physical word into physics:

$P\rightarrow&space;W=PW$

Physical takes a plain word W and it transforms it into a property of physics. PW is a new word, not a modified W. For instance, adjectives small and large may change the scale of the word but physical changes its meaning and effectively creates a new word. Since physics is immune to semantic arguments from non-physicists I am not worried that this article will cause any kind of harm to physics. Just for my own understanding.

I noticed that the most important difference is with quantity and physical quantity.

Quantity and physical quantity

There is a fundamental difference between quantity and physical quantity. Physics assumes as an unstated truth that what is measured is physical:

measured=physical

This is not true. The pun that what is measured is necessarily physical is a professional propaganda.

Measurement is defined like this:

measured quantity = a unit – measured multiple of the unit

There is no other way to measure and there is nothing in measurement that says that what is measured is physical or not physical . Therefore what is measured is quantity not physical quantity.

Meaning and physical meaning

Physical meaning is

physics that is hidden behind a mathematical construction.

There is something called physics and this thing is hidden behind a mathematical construction. This sounds a lot like mysticism to me. I thought that physics was a mathematical science and not metamathematical mysticism. The prototypical hidden meaning hidden behind a mathematical construction gracing physics has been the occult, i.e., hidden Newtonian force. As I understand it, physical meaning is not related to measurement, it is an interpretation of the hidden.

Reasoning and physical reasoning

Reasoning without the “physical” is rationalism. As rational scientists we treat the mathematical framework as a mathematical framework and do not assume that there is hidden “physics” in mathematics. In mathematics we look for mathematical objects, like patterns. Physical reasoning on the other hand assumes that nature is physical therefore there must be hidden physics behind the mathematics and looks for them. And finds them. How? By labeling mathematical patterns with colorful labels and calling them physical fields, physical particles, physical forces and physical anything. Therefore, if physical semantics is practiced by physicists it is legal physics. The world is only semantically physical.

Model and physical model

In this case model is called physical because it is a model that explains physical nature. So nature is physical pun again.

Theory and physical theory

Physical theories have hidden physics in them. Where are they? Again you can find them in colorful labels. A proportionality constant may be called “Newton’s universal constant of gravity” and because it is called “Newton’s universal constant of gravity” a proportionality constant is assumed to be a physical constant of nature. All these suggest that what physicists mean by physics is “label mechanics.” Or more correctly “legal labels mechanics.”

Observable and physical observable

Physical observable is a physics term of art. What is measured is not an observable what is measured is distance.

Law and physical law

Law legislate society. Physical law legislates nature.

Commentary and physical commentary

Personally I see nothing wrong that physicists fit measurements into an elaborate legal system called mechanics, pardon me, physical mechanics, because this is how nature works. Standard is the thing. As Buckminster Fuller said

There are no solids. There are no things. There are only interfering and noninterfering patterns operative in pure principle . . .

I would say “in pure definition” because the world is definitional. The world is physical only by definition. It’s not surprising that physicists’ Standard Model explains observations well. It is a fit to observations in which various mathematical patterns are labeled by physicists with ideological labels. Standard Model is a definition. If physicists dropped their search for hidden physics and saved phenomena with mathematics then physics will look more like a science. Shut up and fit, as Max Tegmark would say. But this is impossible. In physics Newton’s words are sacred. Newton decreed in the Principia that his disciples shall search for hidden qualities in nature by studying motion. This is the physical program Newton ordered his disciples to continue to do until the second coming of the Kingdom of Science. Don’t hold your breath. A bureaucratic habit can never be changed. And looking for hidden physics in nature is a strong physical habit of a huge bureaucracy. It will never change.

# The number of atoms in the cosmos

This is the view of physics by physicists as stated for instance in this paper:

The primary role of physics remains the deep insight and rational understanding of measurable, natural phenomena.

On the next page the author gives some big numbers used by physicists:

Number of electrons in a cm^3 of a metal = 10^22
Estimated number of atoms in human body = 10^28
Estimated number of atoms in the Universe = 10^80

This is how physicists are lying.

Human body is a well-defined entity and the number can be estimated. Let’s say electrons in cm^3 can also be estimated. But the number of atoms in the Universe cannot be known rationally and it cannot be measured. This physicist, like every physicist, is using the Universe-Cosmos pun. He means there is 10^80 atoms in the cosmos, an entity invented by physicists, then he secretly defines his cosmos to be the whole Universe, the Universe with initial cap.

Why is this important? For a physicist this is semantics. For a physicist lying is mere semantics because he is repeating what is legal. That’s all that matters for a physicist. He repeats what is legal physics. This is what separates a physicist from a scientist.