Freedom of Science

In his comment to my post “Natalie Jeremijenko Fan Club” Charlie Marcus of Harvard University disagreed that “the standard of evidence in academic physics is zero.”

Even though I agree with Prof. Marcus’ assessment that my “brush is too wide here” I still believe that the standard of evidence in physics in general is zero. Let me try to explain.

The fundamental tool of evidence in physics is the equation. And equation is no evidence but a polemical tool.

What is an equation?

Physicists split a proportionality n times and equate each split part to a label and call this polemical statement an equation. In physics, an equation is a split proportionality equated to a placeholder. Therefore, by definition, an equation is a mixture of philosophical labels and symbols which may or may not point to quantities. The symbols in an equation are written on either side of one of the most overloaded and meaningless symbols in physics, the equality sign.

Physics is a vast legal system which consists of these placeholders which are labeled and labeled again and again with ever more suggestive labels which are then reified by repetition. Time, force, potential, field, vacuum and their species are just a few labels physicists manipulate to perform their kind of polemical scholastic philosophy with the language of equation. Newton replaced Latin with the equation as the language of scholasticism.

Physics is label mechanics. Label mechanics is the new scholasticism.

In physics a derivation is the ceremonial ritual of eliminating superfluous labels physicists have attached to the split proportionality. Derivation is necessary because no calculation can be done with split proportionalities containing labels. This is true because Nature does not recognize scholastic labels.

Putting together the split parts of the proportionality in order to recover the original proportionality also serves the purpose of saving the authority of Newton. This way, for instance, instead of writing down Kepler’s simple rule and making calculations with it, physicists go through the ritual of writing the so-called Newton’s equations of motions and then they eliminate all the Newtonian terms and still call Kepler’s rule Newton’s law.

Question: Can all physics equations be reduced to simple proportionalities?

My answer is yes. But if this is true and all physics equations can be reduced to simple proportionalities then this is also a proof that physics is scholastic label mechanics of the worst polemical kind.

Scientific Standard of Evidence

When a statement written by physicists in the language of equations is simplied to a proportionality the resulting proportionality which contains no terms which can be simplified further is the scientific standard of evidence.

When physicists will accept this fact and establish proportionality as the only fundamental standard of evidence in physics then physics will move from its present state of alphysics to become science of physics.

At this point what is called physics is alphysics because there is no standard of evidence in physics.

The legalization of the absurd in physics

But there is more. Up to Newton mathematics was a rigorous science. Why? Because in mathematics mixed proportionalities were forbidden. Newton made mixed proportionalities legal. In effect, Newton invented the equation. By making mixed proportionalities legal Newton made the absurd legal in physics. Absurd is absence of standard of evidence. Absurd is anything goes. In academic physics today anything goes.

Scholastic derivation

The method of splitting proportionalities in order to attach them to suggestively named placeholders is the oldest scholastic method. Why are physicists still using this old scholastic method? The reason is simple. Academic physics is the continuation of European scholasticism.

Physicists still use scholastic methods because they are scholastic Doctors of Philosophy. Newton was a scholastic. Newton was the last of the Aristotelians and the first of the Newtonians. Newton never overthrew scholasticism, he overthrew Aristotelianism.

Newton is the founding scholastic master of modern school of physics and not surprisingly his disciples the physicists copy Newton to the letter. Academic physicists use Newton’s old scholastic methods blindly and with dogmatic fervor. This is what physics education teaches them to do.

Newton took Kepler’s rule, split it and labeled it force. He called this crime against humanity Newton’s laws. When he wanted to make computations Newton eliminated his labels but he still claimed to have made Newtonian dynamical calculations. Physicists still blindly copy Newton and write down superflous terms they know they will eliminate down the line during their derivation.

This method is perfect for scholasticism. This is how physicists prove that General Relativity (a meaningless label) is essential for the working of GPS.

Again there is no standard of evidence.

Standard of evidence means only the terms in the computation are relevant to the computation. In physics labels are like ghosts. Force remains in Newtonian equations long after it is cancelled. How can this be? This is possible only if there is no standard of evidence.

Dubious General Relativistic concepts such as species of reified time (clocks) invented by physicists to save Einstein’s authority remain in the equations long after they are eliminated. This way physicists compare the rate of oscillations of two oscillators and claim to have measured Time. And then they can justify their hallucination that they measured the rate of flow of Time. This philosophical Time has been a staple of scholasticism for millennia.

Such fantastical claims of measurements of non-existent labels such as Time also points how corrupted the concept of experiment in physics is. Without a standard of evidence physicists use freely any gadget as false witness to prove any doctrine they want to prove. Just look at the Cavendish experiment and any modern measurements of G, Coulomb’s experiment on which Coulomb’s law is based, and experiments purporting to prove fantastic labels invented by Einstein. There is not a definition of what experiment is in physics.

There are no terms in working GPS software which can be associated with General Relativity. If there are no terms in working software there is no GR in GPS.

In short, in physics there is no standard of evidence because physics is still done by authority of the practitioners.

In order to study the claims above I started this wiki and I would like to ask your contributions.

The case in question is physicists’ claim that without Einstein’s general relativity Global Positioning System would not work.

By looking at the physics papers making this claim I see that they can make this claim because there is no standard of evidence in physics. The practioners can make any claim by their authority and prove their claim by scholastic derivation as explained above.

I say that when the claims about general relativity’s relevance in GPS are reduced to simple proportionalities which do not contain terms which could not be simplified further, the relationship between GR and GPS will evaporate.

Is the above statement true?

Scientific method requires that in order to evaluate it we must test it experimentally. I am for the scientific method. I say let’s test it. Physicists say, “take my word for it. Without GR GPS will not work.” Which is science? “Take my word?” Or “let’s test it?”

In physics this question is answered by the authority of physicists not by a standard of evidence. There is no standard of evidence which will hold, say in a court of law.

GPS will not work without GR because “I say so” is the proof given by physicists. Of course, physicists don’t say it as simply as this. They offer pages and pages of polemical philosophy made of equations separated by philosophical commentary on the symbols on the equations. Once you simplify their philosophical polemics and their commentary, nothing remains as evidence. But you are forbidden to simplify because of the professional monopoly still enjoyed by the physicists over human knowledge. Physics is a closed knowledge scholastic realm where its practitioners still enjoy their millennia old monopoly on human knowledge.

I am presenting this as an award of $500. I realized this is a small amount considering the immense work involved to simplify the polemical papers offered as proof of the connection between GR and GPS. But I believe that students may be interested. I would like to ask you to contribute to the rules.

I think if there can be an agreement on the rules then this will set a standard of evidence in physics. Then all we have to do is to enforce this standard of evidence to evaluate the entries to find out if GR has anything to do with GPS.

ShareThis