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

The unit of spacetime

So, say the prof defines a new unit and names it after his other physics god Einstein. This unit of course, measures spacetime, and the prof uses it instead of an inch rule, e.g., he says a given length is 1 Einstein and because he defined a unit and he called it Einstein the prof now claims that any time (or any spacetime) he uses Einstein he proves Einstein’s General Relativity.

Now if you, naively (and honestly) measure the same given length with an inch rule and say that the length is 5 inches; the prof disagrees; he converts 5 inches to Einstein and declares that the length is

The speed of light c is the flag of Einsteinism and G is the flag of Newtonism; by planting the two flags of physics in the land of spacetime the prof claimed the universe and everything in it for his god of all gods Newtoneinstein. The other symbols in the unit do not matter.

By naming a unit after Einstein the prof now owns the concepts of space, time and spacetime; and uses his authority to claim that his unit Einstein is a law of nature proved by General Relativity which is the most frequently proved physical theory ever; physicists invented an academic discipline where the only business of the practitioners is to prove General Relativity over and over again and issue press releases for their latest proof; “Einstein Relativity passes another test” headlines read.

And you believe this charlatanism?

Of course you do. You believe that the prof is measuring the occult Newtonian force when he weighs an apple and says that the apple weighs 1 Newton, why not believe when he measures length with units named after Einstein?

***

Prof’s previous attempt to define a unit named after Einstein failed and the unit has been deprecated; but if he names Einstein as the unit to measure spacetime it may stick.

Is Newton’s constant a conventional unit?

I don’t understand this:

If Newton’s force has been proved to be unphysical and non-existent by physicists themselves why are we still bound by 18th century derivations involving force?

The only answer to this can be that Newton’s occult and non-existent force has pedagogical value because it is simpler to teach than General Relativity.

But does this justify experimental observation of the Newtonian occult and non-existent force in class with a Cavendish pendulum? If physicists proved Newtonian force to be unphysical how do they measure it in a physical experiment? Can you measure an unphysical force that exists only pedagogically in a physical experiment?

I say no. To me this suggests a bureaucratic habit. Schools continue to teach the Cavendish lab because they always have. This cannot be allowed to happen in an experimental science such as physics.

The other pedagogical advantage is, as physicists put it, “Newton’s laws and Newton’s mechanics work well in the solar system and in systems moving much slower than the speed of light.” In other words, Newton still works in its domain.

This claim is based on the assumption that

GM = \frac{R^3}{T^2}

is Newtons law or Newtonian mechanics or, when it’s written as a function of coordinates, Newton’s equation of motion.

I don’t see any terms that make

GM = \frac{R^3}{T^2}

a Newtonian expression.

As I’ve shown in my previous post

GM = \frac{R^3}{T^2}

is Kepler’s rule written with a conventional unit.

We know that even though G is called Newton’s constant it has no Newtonian content. G is Newtonian in name only.

G is a unit conversion factor that appears in various places in physics, for instance, in Einstein’s equations. The fact that G appears in Einstein’s equations does not make Einstein’s equations Newton’s equations. We don’t say Einstein’s equations are Newton’s laws or Newton’s equations because G appears in them.

I’ve shown here that G is what is now called the Gaussian constant of gravitation k2

k^2 = G

This substitution was made in the late 19th century. Therefore G added nothing new to Kepler’s rule.

The substitution

k^2 \rightarrow G

is a cosmetic and political substitution, a mere name change, effected by British physicists to claim ownership of astronomical constants by expressing k2 in British units and in a British/Newtonian name.

G is not a constant of nature without which physics will fail to work. On the contrary dropping G from equations or setting it to unity will have no effect in physics. It doesn’t matter if G is written or not because G is a political symbol not a constant of nature. Physics is independent of political symbols.

And mass M is defined as the constant term in Kepler’s rule

\frac{R_0^3}{T_0^2} = \textrm{Mass}

G and M always appear as a single constant in astronomy, so, one of them or even both must be decorative.

GM is physicists’ polemical solution to fix the unit term in Kepler’s rule cosmetically as a Newtonian constant of nature

\frac{R_0^3}{T_0^2} \equiv \textrm{GM}

Physicists defined the constant term in Kepler’s rule as GM and have been enforcing it as a true constant. This way of branding geometric elements or mathematical objects in order to own them has always been the method used by physicists.

In this case renaming k2 “G” and naming G “Newton’s constant of universal gravitation” did not make R03/T02 physical or Newtonian because

\frac{R_0^3}{T_0^2} \equiv k^2 \equiv \textrm{GM}

The fundamental quantity is Keplerian constant R03/T02.

k2 and GM are specific unit conventions that physicists at various times asserted as true units.

k2 and GM are only conventional units because any astronomical quantity that can be computed with k2 and GM can also be computed without them by choosing any unit for R03/T02.

And this is what Newton did. Newton did not use  k2 or GM or any named unit but he used his own unit for R03/T02.

Unit means that a given distance is kept constant and other distances are counted with that distance which is kept constant as a unit.

G is a conventional defined unit created by converting k2 into British units which was then established by propaganda as a true constant of nature.

Physicists reject this historical evidence because they consider experimental evidence stronger than historical evidence. But historical habits can only be refuted by historical evidence. Historical habits cannot be refuted by physical experiments. And experiments physicists use to measure G are historical and professional habits and not true experiments.

All Cavendish type experiments apparently measuring the value of G are circular experiments.

How can the true nature of G be decided one way or the other?

To summarize:

I say that G is a conventional unit defined in the 19th century and I offer historical evidence.

G was not observed in an experiment first. It was not discovered. G was defined to replace k2 then used as the value of R03/T02.

Then I show that physicists’ claim that G was first measured by Cavendish in 1798 and later with ever increasing precision in countless Cavendish type experiments of many sizes and shapes is wrong.

Cavendish experiment and all Cavendish type experiments claiming to measure G are circular. Physicists already know the value of G and build an oscillator that will oscillate with a natural period to give the known value of G. The rest is error analysis.

So if I put 10 peanuts in a bag, shake it, and count the peanuts, there will be 10 peanuts. Nothing of value can be derived from a circular experiment. In Cavendish type experiments physicists find what they put into the experiment.

I also noticed that physicists always offer the consistency of physics as proof that the branded labels of physics such as G are true and physical and natural quantities.

I reject this type of argument by authority.

The most that physicists will concede is that in simple circular orbits Kepler’s rule may be good enough but when perturbations must be included then Newton’s force and mass must be used.

To this I reply that Newton used Kepler’s rule in proposition III.13 to compute perturbations of Saturn’s orbit by Jupiter.

This makes sense because physicists themselves recognise that force is unphysical and dismiss it. If force is unphysical it can no longer be used as an explanation. But physicists keep using force as an explanation because force remains a valid professional habit.

No force terms ever appear in the operational formula which is Kepler’s rule and Kepler’s rule does not contain force.

Instead of starting directly from Kepler’s rule physicists write force terms and eliminate them to obtain Kepler’s rule. Strange behavior that appears to be a ceremonial professional habit devoid of any scientific content.

My proposition is that Newton’s laws, Newtonian mechanics and Newton’s equation of motion, Newton’s constant, Newton’s force and Newton’s mass are not needed and are not used in astronomy in practice.

If so, why do they exist?

How can physicists claim to measure in experiments the occult force they themselves found to be unphysical?

Can we establish an independent committee to define clear standards of evidence to find out if G is a defined unit marketed as a true constant of nature to save Newton’s authority or if it is a true constant of nature measured in true experiments?

###

If G were a “constant of nature” not merely a conventional unit by physicists we could compute astronomical orbits without using G as is done here.

DOP & DOT

Because we are created as personal beings

we reason that the Creator must also be a personal Being.

We are not created as personal beings. There is no absolute person. Human body is porous and there is no discontinuity with the environment. There is no reason to believe that human individual is created separately from the rest of stuff.

Here we see once again physics and theology converging.

Doctors of theology and doctors of philosophy think alike, reason alike and build similar self-serving theories. Only the names of their theories differ because both use their own professional lingo to brand their product.

Physicists come up with multiverse and call their anthropocentric reasoning the anthropic principle. Theologians too reason anthropocentrically and make human body a privileged object.

  • DOT says god loves humans
  • DOP says universe loves humans

Same difference.

These two species of professional doctors — the oldest collaborators of unhuman organisms against humanity — believe in the same religious dogma of atomic materialism and exploit it for professional profit.

  • DOP uphold atomic materialism so that they can divide and reveal the mysteries of indivisible atoms
  • DOT uphold atomic materialism so that they can define and reveal the mysteries of inaccessible spiritual realms

DOT and DOP have been perpetuating the same scholastic racket for millennia. They hide and monetize what they have hidden and call it true knowledge.

DOP will never question their professional creed formulated as Newtonian atomic materialism. Instead of investigating if indivisible particles exist or even if we can know if they do, DOP accept Newton’s zeroeth law without question and assert with their authority that nature is matterful by definition.

DOT too assume implicitly Newton’s zeroeth law, after all it was God who revealed to Newton that He created a Newtonian nature because He loved Newton and his disciples physicists so much. DOP and DOT are God’s chosen professionals.

Therefore, for DOT and DOP human body is a discontinuous object. And God or Universe or Unigod favored humanity so that he can exist.

DOP call conventional units that they defined themselves absolute constants of nature. DOP’s gods are the constant they themselves defined.

DOP define the so-called “constants of nature” themselves and then reason that if constants of nature were any different humanity would not have existed! This is not even pre-scientific anthropocentric reasoning. It is the standard self-serving professional legal doctoral polemics asserted as truth by doctoral authority. No wonder physicists deny historical evidence that they defined constants such as Newton’s universal constant of gravity themselves.

DOP know how silly they would look if it is proven that conventional units defined by the previous generation of DOP are always reified by the next generation of DOP into constants of nature so that they can study “physical properties” of standard units. Standard units do not have physical properties, they acquire them magically when physicists start to call standard units constants of nature. Physics is synonymous with reifics.

DOP is a more vicious strain of anthropocentric self-serving propagandist than DOT because DOP claim to use their mathematical cryptics and white noise map plotted by NASA and their crooked reason and their self-defined constants of nature to arrive at their grand anthropocentric conclusions.

Theologians uphold the authority of their book. They are the faithful. Academic physicists are the opportunistic institutionalized shamans.

Physics is not a synonym for science

  • Science and religion
  • Science and legal
  • Science and physics
  • Science and politics
  • Science and not-science

Science + politics = physics

Legal unit + a legal language to manipulate legal units = A legal system

The legal unit of physics is the physical quantity. The legal language used to manipulate legal units is called Mathematin.

Physical quantity + Mathematin = Physics

The most important question that faces a criticism of academic physics is that physics appears to work.

Physics successfully describes the “physical” world, physicists claim.

Physics started as a reaction to the 18th century problems and it’s still stuck there. Because as a legal system physics must carry from generation to generation an immense legal baggage that continually grows. In science, what is found to be junk is dumped. In legal systems the junk is glorified. This is common knowledge e.g., in this video Leon Lederman talks about an 18th century physicist coming to our time and being shocked by everything except physics education. He would feel at home in a physics classroom.

One of the 18th century issues was the relation of science and religion. The Newtonian whig version of history of science defined a historical item called Scientific Revolution that was fought by Galileo and friends against religious doctors. In fact, Galileo and friends revolted against Doctors of Philosophy not against Doctors of Theology. They were against scholasticism and against professional doctors whose faith was Aristotle.

Such a problem does not exist anymore. Religion is no threat to science. But the same professional Doctors of Philosophy are still a threat to science. Today they call themselves not Peripatetics but physicists.

Today religion is clearly labeled religion and consumers are free to believe in it or not.

The opposite of science is not religion. The opposite of science is legal.

Legal includes law, medicine, religion and physics.

Science starts with the realization that axioms are independent of mechanics. Mechanics is the legal. The mechanics of Ptolemy could save both axioms of stationary earth and moving earth. Professional doctors make their living and gain their authority by claiming that their mechanics is the true mechanics that saves the axiom. Physicists still stuck in this pre-scientific state. They still claim that Big Bang is saved by observations.

The mechanics parts of physics will work. This is what mechancics means. Mechanics is curve fitting. It’s curve fitting in the sense that algorithms are adjusted, fine-tuned and new terms and processes and units and constants and physical quantities are added until the mechanics successfully saves the phenomena. It took Newtonian mechanics about 200 years of the best minds of European scholasticism to develop and perfect. It’s hard to think that Newtonian mechanics was once the cutting edge of research in physics. Now it’s textbook stuff and it’s closed for questioning. It’s become mechanics. It works. It is consistent.

Mechanics is modular. Physicists continue to work on modules that are still open. Open means that the module has not yet been made consistent with the rest of physics. Usually, it is enough to make a module consistent with a legal node. Since physics is consistent you can reach any node from any other node. But physicists have been trying to unify three inconsistent parts of physics for a long time. So there are inconsistencies? Yes. Those are inconsistent unit systems. Force is the overall standard of unit that converts every physical quantity into another. Just like money converts incompatible items into money and make exchange possible. Any physical quantity in physics can be converted into force. Or this was true before Einstein meddled with force and physicists had to invent a realm where force supposedly did not work as the universal conversion factor. Although, the unit of force G has been incorporated into Einstein’s supposedly forceless equations. Quantum mechanics or particle physics is also a problem because physicists invented new forces in that realm and they don’t know how to convert those to Newtonian force.

The origin of the problem is physicists’ misunderstanding of F = ma and F = GMm/r2. Physicists read F = GMm/r2 as “Force is proportional to one over r squared” and imagine that there must be a singularity at r=0. In order to solve this non-existent singularity physicists negotiated among themselves the philosophical polemics called Quantum Mechanics. In other words, physicists taught to get rid of the singularity they invented because they could not give up their absolute faith in Newton’s authority and tried to fake the singularity by blurring it. In the 1970s a new generation of physicists thought that instead of blurring they could postulate a vibrating string to solve the same self-inflicted singularity. So this is how the string theory was discovered. So these giant scholastico-philosophical edifices called Quantum Mechanics and String Theory have their root in physicists’ misunderstanding of force. The three incompatible parts of physics General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and String Theory are Newton’s gift to physicists. This is what happens if you carry all those 18th century baggage to the 21st century.

The singularity disappears when Kepler’s definition of density is accepted as fundamental. In other words, when Newton’s sacred authority is questioned. Physicists so far cannot do that. Instead they keep proving to themselves that Newtonian force works in ever shorter distances, they keep measuring Newton’s constant G to ever higher and higher precision making G the least known of all political constants. It’s just minor detail that none of higher precision measurements of G was ever duplicated by hostile parties as dictated by the physics propaganda. It just doesn’t occur to physicists to dump force and see 1/R2 = R/T2. If you are indoctrinated for over two decades with the Newtonian religion . . . what else do you expect.