Freedom of Science

I believe that Nature is rational. Not surprisingly physicists too claim that Nature is rational. Physicists believe that nature is absurd and irrational but claim that nature is rational. It is irrelevant what physicists claim. Look at deeds not words. Look at all those absurd theories invented by physicists. Physicists’ allegiance is not with rationality but with the equation which is the root cause of all the absurd in physics.

Nature is rational means that Nature can only be represented as a ratio or a proportionality.

Definition: Nature is rational.

Definition: Nature can only be represented as an equality of ratios.

Therefore science is rational. What is irrational and absurd is outside of science. I believe that there is no other way to represent the rational nature except as an equality of ratios. If there could be another way Nature would not be rational contradicting our definition.

Physicists say they are rational but they represent nature as irrational.

Physicists believe nature is irrational. Physicists believe in the absurd.

What is absurd?

Absurd is the belief that nature is irrational.

Absurd is the conclusion you reach when you compare apples and oranges.

Absurd is what results when it is legal to use mixed proportionalities in science.

Physicists believe in the absurd but claim that they don’t.

Like everything else in physics, the legalization of the absurd can be traced back to Newton, the founder of physics.

I.B. Cohen, the eminent Newton commentator who translated Newton’s Principia more times than anybody else, has this to say about Newton’s legalization of the absurd in Physics:

“In the Principia Newton boldly set forth mixed proportions. Unlike his predecessors, he would state that a quantity is proportional to a quantity of a wholly different kind. That is, Newton did not restrict himself to propositions of the form: a given velocity is to a second velocity as the first time is to a second time.”

Cohen continues that Newton abandoned the traditional rules, writing such expressions as

“The force as the distance of the body from the center of the ellipse;”
book 1, prop. 10, cor.1

“The centripetal force is … inversely as the square of the distance
SP” book 1, prop. 11

“a centripetal force that is inversely proportional to the square of the
distance.” book 1, prop. 13, corol. 1.

Cohen concludes: “In this way Newton freed the mathematical description of nature from the restricting bonds of ancient rules.”

In other words Newton invented the polemical physics equation and legalized the absurd.

What is this ancient rule that Newton freed us from?

This ancient rule is: Do not compare apples and oranges.

If you compare apples and oranges your result will be absurd. Newton made comparing apples and oranges legal. I.B. Cohen is one of the greatest Newton apologists of all times, and predictably he praises Newton for legalizing the absurd and creating the first link in the great chain of the absurd now called physics.

Newton freed physics from the shackles of rationalism. Newton legalized the absurd in physics. Therefore, Newton paved the way for the modern physics as a profession in the periphery of the entertainment industry. Newton was such a genius in so many ways!

One is curious. How did Newton get away with comparing apples and oranges? Cohen may have overlooked the simple fact that this ancient rule Newton violated is still valid today. If you compare apples and oranges you would get absurd results. Either there was a discontinuity in the validity of this ancient rule during Newton’s time, or more likely, Newton did not compare apples and oranges.

The careful reader already noticed that in the examples given by Cohen Newton is comparing force to distance. F :: 1/rr would be awfully familiar to modern physicists. This would have been a comparison of apples and oranges only if this were a proportionality.

Note that a physicist is someone who is afflicted with a rare disease which afflicts only academic physicists: An academic physicist is distinguished by his inability to tell a proportionality from a definition. So a physicist would look at F =1/rr and see a proportionality. F = 1/rr is nothing other than a definition made by Newton. Why is this a definition? Because Newton cancels F to make calculations. Repeat: F cancels. In a proportionality you cannot cancel a term without destroying the rule.

How did Newton get away with comparing apples an oranges? Is nature irrational and absurd because Newton says so. No. Nature is rational. Newton is a fraud. Modern physicists are fools.

Newton is not comparing force to distance in the above examples. Newton is comparing nothing. He is making a definition. Newton is spinning his usual dynamical yarn in order to obfuscate that he is using Kepler’s law to make astronomical calculations. Newton divided Kepler’s law in two and labeled each part F. Half of a proportionality is not a proportionality. Half of a proportionality is a definition. This is impossible to grasp for physicists who are afflicted with the aforementioned disease.

When Newton wants to fool us that nature is Newtonian, occult and irrational, he uses his definitions and claims they are proportionalities. When Newton wants to make astronomical calculations to fool us into believing that nature obeys “Newton’s dynamical laws” Newton cancels Newton’s force he added to Kepler’s law and makes his calculations without Newton’s force but still claims that he is using Newton’s force. Would you buy a used horse carriage from this low life British occultist doctor? I wouldn’t.

Newton’s disciples the modern physicists still do things exactly their master Newton told them to do 300 years ago. Physicists write down all those superfluous Fs and Ms as a prayer to Newton and then cancel them.

Nature is rational. Physics is irrational. Physics is absurd. Physicists are fools.

Can you tell from the above discussion why theoretical physicists are pathetic fools? I’ll give you a clue. These fools labored the last fifty years to build one of the ugliest scholastic edifices ever built by any type of scholastic doctor. This is the string theory. And string theory arose because Newtonian physicists cannot tell a proportionality from a definition.

My advice to academic physicists: Newton has been fooling you for the last three centuries. Give up your blind obedience in Newton’s authority. Stop worshipping Newton. Start questioning Newton’s authority. There is no singularity at 1/rr. F = 1/rr is not a proportionality. Mixed proportionalities do not exist in nature. Combine what Newton split three hundred years ago and you will see that there is no singularity at r = 0.

Start asking questions about this polemical tool your master Newton gave you in order to corrupt science. You call this the equation. You sanctified the equation because Newton told you so.

Let me explain. If you agree that Nature is rational then nature can only be represented as an equality of ratios.

This means that, if what you call an equation, if it is a representation of nature, must be a proportionality.

Think about this for a moment.

Do you know what a proportionality is? I didn’t think so.

What is a proportionality?

A proportionality is a simple rule.

A proportionality such as A :: B (read as “A is proportional to B”) says that if A is increased a unit amount B will change as given by the rule.

Therefore, all physics equations can be simplified to this form. That is, if you were honest enough to use proportionalities in all of your calculations. As professionals no one expects you to be honest in your dealings. So this is okay. Since most of what you call equations are identities, once your decorative and superfluous terms are removed, your equation will simplify to an identity, not a proportionality. Only a theoretical physicist would claim to do calculations with an identity. In theory everything is possible for a theoretical physicist. It is theoretically true that an identity would work as a proportionality in some extra dimensions in some anything goes universe far far away.

As an exercise try to reduce physics to a simple equation. You might even claim to have found much sought after theory of everything. What do you get?

Do you get the String Theory? No.

Do you get general relativity? No.

Do you get Newton’s equations of motion? No.

Do you get conservation of energy? No.

Do you get quantum mechanics? No.

Do you get standard model? No.

Do you get any branded equation named after a dead physicist? No.

Then what do you get?

You get R3T2. You get Densytics. Density is the fundamental quantity in nature. Not mass. Not force.

Just open your master Newton’s famous book and read the first definition. What is Newton defining? Newton is not stupid. Newton knows what he is doing. Up to now, only Newton knew what he was doing. Now you can too.

Ask yourself. If Newton is not stupid why is he defining density as the fundamental concept of mechanics and then never mentions density ever again in Principia?

As an exercise, dear theoretical physicist, try to reduce Newton’s Definition 1 in the Principia into a proportionality. What is that proportionality? That proportionality is the fundamental rule of nature as far as we know. Let me know when you find out.

I have no doubt that you will call that Newton’s lost law or some such. Is there no hope for you?

Good luck to you, dear theoretical physicist, the dogmatic believer in Newton’s authority, poor scholastic doctor of philosophy living in the 21st century but still practicing atomic materialism as prescribed by the 17th century occultist from Cambridge. I like to believe that there is hope for you. All you have to do is to question Newton’s authority and become a scientist. All you have to do is try to read R3T2 as R3T2. Do you still see a G in R3T2? Try again. Practice until you see R3T2 as R3T2. I know you still see an M in R3T2, but try again. Practice until your Newtonian hallucinations disappear. You will then be a scientist. Welcome. And enjoy your new freedom. Freedom of Science is your right too. Free yourself from Newton’s authority. Be free. Be a scientist. I hope you will.

ShareThis