Freedom of Science

I wanted to reply as a new post to another one¹ of Flip’s statements in this comment:

History isn’t science.

I understand the distinction you make between history and research. For instance, here I am studying the equation of motion of the Cavendish experiment. You agree that this is good science. Here I’m looking at the history of one of the terms in the equation of motion, the constant G. For you this is not science but sociology best left to academic historians.

I understand that for a professional physicist practicing in the academia this ahistorical stance makes sense for two reasons:

1) Historical evidence will change nothing in the canon of physics. This is how academic hierarchy is set up. Physics is higher² in the hierarchy than history, so no matter what evidence historians uncover it will have no effect on physics. From the point of view of professional physicists investigating history of physics is a total waste of time.

2) Not only historical investigation is a stupid investment of time that brings no academic returns but it is also a dangerous career move. Professional physicists have no choice but ignore history of physics and limit themselves to professional mythology presented to them as physics history. It is illegal in physics to question historical experiments. If you don’t believe me, try it. Your career will come to an abrupt end. Your funding will dry up and your colleagues will label you a crackpot and discommunicate you.

For me there is no difference between looking at the history of G and G itself in the equation of motion. Both are histories. The foundation of research is history. Science is research. You cannot separate science from history.

History is science.

In the case of Cavendish experiment we are looking at the history of the pendulum arm as witnessed by Cavendish. This is our history.

In the case of G we are looking at the history of G as recorded in historical documents. There is no difference.

History tells us that prior to 19th century there was no G.³ There was k. In 1894 C.V. Boys, a fanatic British Newtonian, wrote k in British units and called it G, Newton’s universal constant of gravitation. Therefore, G is nothing more than a conventional unit defined in the 19th century by the British to own astronomy by filling it with British units.

Historical evidence overrules the results of the equation of motion that contains G. This would be against everything that was taught to you during your physics education.

Why is historical evidence stronger than mathematical evidence?

The reason is simple: Mathematics is meaningless. Mathematical symbols do not have meaning besides the meanings we ascribe to them. In other words, mathematics cannot tell us if G exists. We must tell mathematics what G is. Since you (as a physicist) ignore the history of G you are feeding mathematics misinformation. Mathematics does not care that physicists call G the universal constant of the occult Newtonian force acting between inert lead weights.

If we decide to define G to be Newton’s Soul mathematics cannot tell the difference and will still give the same result as before. Then you could go and measure Newton’s Soul acting between two dumb lead weights. For mathematics there is no difference between G and Newton’s Soul.

We must use history to set mathematics straight.

Thanks again for your comments. movie tgpfree hogtied moviesfree movies threesomefacts movie tv andmovie cartoon dementedlesbian samples free moviemovies holly bodydog triumph movie Map

1. Previous post was about derivation. [↩]
2. Actually physics is on top of the hierarchy. [↩]
3. Since they are ignorant of history physicists have been claiming that Cavendish measured G. Nowadays, a quarter of a century after this was pointed out to them physicists finally are saying that, “Cavendish did not measure G but we can compute G from his measurements.” Historical evidence will overrule physics doctrines sooner or later. [↩]

ShareThis