Freedom of Science

I was wondering what kind of theory the Standard Model is. Assuming that theory and model are synonyms I drew this tree starting with Model:

According to this there are two species of models: rule based and simulation.

I thought there were three kinds of simulations: Axiomatic, algorithmic and trigonometric.

Then, I realized that axiom should be at the root, above model; all models are based on some definition, I believe.

Now the first branch is rule based and algorithm based models. Algorithmic models are divided into trigonometric and tabular kinds. Tabular models can be integrated to get a more precise database.

But I don’t think that the rule based and algorithmic models constitute a branch. I know that rule based must be one arm of the branch but what is the other? What about model and simulation?

Now rule based is below model. Simulation side stays the same.

But I wasn’t happy with that either. There is not enough meaningful difference between model and simulation to make them species.

The better branch is model and Database:

Tabular and trigonometric representations use the available data to make the database more precise.

I think I’ll put model on top again and change the branch to rule based and data based.

Ok. This is good. There are two species of models: Rule based and data based. Data based models can be expressed in tabular format or in terms of trigonometric expansions. And let’s add two species of rules: proportionality and definition.

The difference between proportionality and definition is that all terms of the proportionality are measurable quantities. By keeping one of the terms constant we measure the other terms with it. The terms are lengths, regardless of their labels.

Definition does not contain a measurable quantity. While proportionality is related to motion, a definition is static. Definition defines a unit. Proportionality is dynamic: as its terms vary the proportionality stays constant. Definition is proportional to the authority of the definer, nothing in it varies.

So what kind of model is the Standard Model?

Standard Model is a data based model. Physicists take a database of observations and apply extrapolation techniques to the database to make it more and more precise. As usual physicists are lying about what they are doing. They are selling the Standard Model as a rule based theory while it is a data based theory.

There is nothing exceptional about taking observations and integrating it. If you integrate observations, observations will agree with observations. It is obvious that Standard Model will always match observations. Standard Model is observations.

Like everything else in physics this method too has its roots in Newton.

Newton was a master of marketing trigonometric simulations as rule based (or as Newton preferred, law based) models. Newton defined a set of definitions as laws and marketed them as rule based theory that made good predictions. But Newton’s definitions never made any predictions. They cancel out of formulas used to make computations. This is not a problem for Newton. Newton takes a data based trigonometric model and markets it as rule based theory proving his doctrines and he is so successful that he becomes the genius deity.

Examples of trigonometric simulations marketed by Newton as rule based models proving Newton’s rules:

1. Newton takes Horrocks’ trigonometric theory of the motion of the moon and publishes it under his own name as a booklet and enforces it as the verification of his dynamical doctrines.

2. Newton uses a geometric algorithm to compute the orbit of a comet and then when the comet showes up as predicted he claimes this to be yet another proof of his occult doctrines. Again Newton is lying.

3. Newton uses Kepler’s proportionality to make astronomical calculations and markets them as calculations based on his definitions. This crime against humanity is at the core of Newton’s Principia.

Why is Newton obsessed with rule based model building?

Obsession with absolute rules is in the heart of scholasticism. Newton could not discover the philosophers stone in his alchemical studies but he discovered the astronomical philosophical stone. That is, he discovered Kepler’s Rule in a book and stole it and marketed it as the universal rule he discovered.

The ultimate goal of every scholastic doctor, present physicists included, is to find the secret rule of the universe. That’s why physics is still stuck in the pre-scientific state. And it will remain there as long as its practitioners look for ultimate rules in all the scholastic places such as the mind of God.

Newton is a true criminal. Newton’s rap sheet for crimes against humanity is a long one.

The above taxonomy of models also reveals why Newton’s force is not a measurable quantity. Definitions cannot be measured. No one but physicists would claim to prove an axiom. No one but physicists would claim to measure a definition in an experiment. They would do anything to save Newton’s authority.

All previous measurements of force has been faked by Newtonian physicists. My investigations of the Cavendish experiments also suggests that force never moved Cavendish’s pendulum. The equation of motion of the Cavendish experiment is non-linear. The only solution is numerical solution. In the case of numerical solution G is reduced to one of the constants of the apparatus. So, I, R, and G are defined as constants of the pendulum and their value is found by iteration. The only connection of G to the Newtonian force is its name. It is called “gravitational constant.” Other than its name G has no experimental relation with force in the Cavendish experiment. As usual physicists are faking an experiment to prove Newton’s authority.

I would appreciate your thoughts on all of this.

[Also available here.]amorazation loanpayday loan 800.00amortization afsc loan$30,000 loans personaladobe free reader downloana of type loaninvestor loans 1001st auto loans time Map

ShareThis