Freedom of Science

Money is the universal unit that allows the comparison of dissimilar products. Force is the universal unit of physics that allows comparison of dissimilar physical quantities.

What we know we know by comparison. In science quantities are compared by forming ratios and proportions. Since dissimilar quantities cannot be compared we may define a third quantity as a unit and compare dissimilar quantities to this universal unit. The result of comparison with money is value. The result of comparing physical quantities is quantity. Value is the relative worth of a product normalized by money and quantity is the relative quantity of a physical quantity normalized by force. In a monetary system everything can be expressed in terms of money, e.g., time is money. In physics everything can be expressed in terms of force, e.g., change in motion is force. Money creates exchange in society and force creates change in nature.

In order to compare two physical quantities you need to bring them on either side of the equals sign and form an equation. The equation is the scale physicists use to weigh physical quantities. Start from an existing equation and use legal steps called derivation to bring the desired quantities next to each other and then compare. As long as you obey the legal rules of derivation physics promises a solution to the problem you are trying to solve.

The language of equations that allows the manipulaton of physical quantities is not rational, or mathematical in the Galilean sense of the word, but legal and causistic. This is because the purpose of the language is to ensure consistency of units, not to solve problems. Problems are solved by the underlying rules. So, physics consists of two independent parts:

1. units and the language of equations to manipulate units
2. proportions or rules that model nature.

The consistent system of units allows physical quantities of different types to be compared via a universal unit called force; the legal language of equations allows manipulation of physical quantities in order to bring them side by side for comparison in an equation and the original proportion hidden in the equation takes these properly scaled and typed physical quantities and solves the problem. The language of equations acts like a preprocessor that makes sure that the physical quantities fed to the rule are all properly scaled with a unit and have the correct type for that rule.

Equations that allow comparison of physical quantities and solve problems are the ones that once were proportions that physicists converted to equations by adding units and constants in order to incorporate them into the legal language of physics. These equations solve problems using the rule. The problem is always solved by applying the rule, not by the unit system and not by the language of equations. Physics appears to be like a computer language where the language itself has been sanctified as the problem solver instead of being recognized as a tool to write rules that solve problems.

For instance, a simple problem about projectile motion, such as computing the height a toy rocket will reach when shot straight up, will always use Galileo’s time squared rule. Instead of starting directly from the rule physicists will write standard Newtonian equations with units of force for every quantity involved and then use the rule with their units and claim to have solved the problem by using Newton’s force. In practice, force enters this problem only as a unit conversion factor and after scaling the force of the rocket engine so that it can be compared to the force of earth’s gravity, it vanishes.

In general, force never appears in any solution to any physics problem. In every physics problem force makes sure that all physical quantities are legal and comparable and ready to be used with the rule and then it vanishes.

The rule is independent of the language of equations that allows physicists to manipulate physical quantities and it is also independent of the unit system. The rule is fundamental. The professional language of physicists is not fundamental. We can use the rule to solve the same problem without using the unit system and the language of equations. We cannot use the language and the unit system without the rule to solve any problem. The language ensures that every quantity is called “force” but labels do not solve the problem, the rule does, and rule does not contain force. Physicists claim that the language is fundamental not the rule.

Nature is rational not legal, therefore, any physics problem can always be solved without physics equations. As long as you know the rule hidden in the physicists’ equation you can use it directly to solve the problem. If you do that, you don’t buy the solution, you barter for it. If you use proportions, as in the case of barter, you need to negotiate a unit each time you want to solve a problem. Physicists defined force as the overall standard legal currency and as long as you abide by the laws of legal physics you can buy any legal solution you need. This is both the power and the limitation of physics.

The discovery of money may have been a progress from barter because it allowed easy exchange of dissimilar items by way of a universal standard. But the same method of using a legal standard to define changes in nature means a relapse to old scholastic philosophy. Using a legal language to legislate nature has been the defining characteristic of scholasticism. Science was born as a reaction to legal scholasticism.

Science is rational but professional physics, as scholasticism currently calls itself, is legal. Consequently, physics is not a science in the Galilean sense of the word. Galileo would have recognized today’s physics as the old scholastic legal system based on legal definitions used to fit nature into the Aristotelian doctrine. Galileo used rules, that is, ratios and proportions obtained from observations. Scholastic doctors of Galileo’s time used legal definitions to legislate nature. Modern scholasticism developed the language of equations to hide the rules in order to continue using legal definitions to legislate nature in the name of Newton. That’s why physics looks like a quantitative science.

So what’s wrong with the legal Newtonian approach to nature? Why not revere physics as the best system ever devised to model nature? My focus has been on the concept of force in physics. Is nature forceful? Or does physics assume force as a universal unit and fit nature into the legal physics? I believe the latter. In physics, force is defined as a physical quantity. Any number with a unit is a physical quantity, therefore, being defined as a physical quantity does not assure existence in nature. Physicists claim that the consistency of the unit system proves the doctrine of force. They say without the doctrine of force physics problems cannot be solved therefore force must exist in nature. This is wrong. Force makes physics work because it is the universal unit of physics but force does not make nature work because there are no units in nature. Nature is modeled with ratios and proportions, not with units and the language of equations. Units are arbitrary. Force is not a quantity that enters in any ratios in any known proportion.

Force is not a measurable quantity, it is a unit. It is the standard that measures all other quantities. That’s why force always cancels.

Force cannot be represented as a geometric line and as Galileo knew only quantities represented as lines can form ratios. Therefore, force is the product of a legal profession and has no place in a rational science. Force does not exist in nature.

ShareThis

Atomic materialism is the fundamental doctrine of Newtonism, not force. This fact is recognized in the SI system of units where force is a derived unit while mass is a base unit. But mass is derived too. When you eliminate forces by equating them you get mass. In definition 1 Newton defined R³/T² as mass, or mass = volume * density or mass = R³/T². Additionally, Newton defined mass as a measure of “quantity of matter.” The hidden assumption of matter comes from Newton’s belief that “God in the beginning formed matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable, moveable particles.” I call this Newton’s law of physics because it is the fundamental doctrine Newtonian physics is based on. Without the religious doctrine of atomic materialism a concept of mass does not exist. And without mass Newtonian physics does not exist.

Newton’s followers ignored Newton’s important distinction that mass was not a property but a measure of matter and they reified the label mass and made it a physical quantity distinct from R³/T². In physics, mass means specific values of R³/T² or M1 = R₁³/T₁², M2 = R₂³/T₂², M3 = R₃³/T₃² and so on. The mass of Sun would be M_s = R_s³/T_s² and the mass of Earth would be M_e = R_e³/T_e² and their ratio would be M_s/M_e = (R_s³/T_s²) * (T_e²/R_e³) = 338,116. The accepted value of M_s/M_e is 332,683. Therefore, a quantity called mass does not exist because mass is the name of the proportion R³/T².

By labeling R³/T² “mass” Newton branded it with his doctrine of atomic materialism and also obscured the fundamental nature of this proportion. Newton defined the observational rule R³/T² as Kepler’s planetary law, valid only in the solar system, and defined his superficial labels on R³/T² as universal laws discovered by him. What is general and fundamental is the observational rule R³/T² not Newton’s names for it. R³/T² is not a measure or property of something unobserved called matter but it is the mean density of the volume R³. R/T² is density at R.

Mass, therefore, is a product of Newton’s religious belief in the doctrine of atomic materialism. Atomic materialism is a religious doctrine because Newton invokes God’s authority to overrule observations. Physics is a profession based on Newton’s religious beliefs. Physicists share Newton’s belief in atomic materialism and perpetuate this religious doctrine by teaching it to new generations. R³/T² has its roots in observations, not in doctrine. Furthermore, R³/T² refutes Newtonian doctrine of atomic materialism and its corresponding massive and forceful Newtonian System of the World defined as true nature. This is so, because R has no privileged value. All values of R are equally valid. There are no absolute boundaries defined by a privileged value R_i where, R_i is the radius of indivisibility and R_i³/T_i² = M_i, is the mass of indivisibility or what physicists call “building blocks of matter.” This is wrong because all discontinuities are conventional. Physicists claim divine creation as the basis of physics and believe in indivisible particles. As rational scientists we uphold the observational authority of R³/T² and reject Newtonian doctrine of atomic materialism and its symbol mass. Professional doctors of physics still perpetuate the religious doctrines of Newton as true science.

ShareThis

This “Doc” linked to this blog making some good points about professional doctors.¹ So I posted a reply but it was caught by his spam filter because I included some nice links. I decided to post it here too:

Hi, I am the editor of the Freedom of Science blog. This is a nice post and I agree with your criticism of professionals’ narrow view of science by defining anything they did not learn in school to be illegal or wrong. When you write “I don’t think people who refuse to take scientist’s word on an issue are stupid at all” you use the word “scientist” to mean “professional.” In that case, your statement makes perfect sense. People refuse to take their lawyer’s or banker’s word as truth, why should they take self-serving theories of professional physicists as truth? But they do? Why? Because of the confusion physicists created about the meaning of the word scientist.

Professional physicists label anything outside legal physics to be stamp collecting or crackpotism. But despite physicists’ propaganda that they are the only true scientists, the fundamental physical quantity of physics, the Newtonian force, is like the missing ingredient in a placebo. Force terms do not enter computations of orbits. From this observation, as a scientist, I conclude that orbits are independent of force. Physicists, on the other hand, eliminate the symbol of force from orbital formulas but claim that force still remains in the formulas in spirit as the active ingredient of orbits. This is the old scholastic casuistry. I don’t see why my questioning of physicists’ casuistic practices should be classified as anything but science. Thanks for letting me see this from a new angle.

Doctors, even today, are among the most trusted of professionals.

This has not always been the case. In the 19th and early 20th century Doctors of medicine were unregulated professionals perceived as butchers who could not be held responsible for killing their patients for their own professional advancement. I recommend George Bernard Shaw’s The Doctor’s Dilemma, especially the author’s Preface, if you haven’t already read it.² Today physics is where medicine was in the 19th century. Instead of killing human beings for professional reasons, physicists corrupt human reason for professional gain.

It seems scientists can get just as rigid and dogmatic as the fundamentalist religionists for whom they express so much disdain.

Again your statement makes perfect sense if we understand your “scientist” to mean “professional.” In the case of physics, the war between physicists and religion is nothing more than the never ending academic turf wars between two types of professional doctors: doctors of philosophy and theology. They have been fighting to save the souls of the same constituency since the beginning of history. Doctors of Theology want to convert them to their organized religion and Doctors of Philosophy want to convert them to their own religion called Newtonism.

1. The title of this post refers to George Bernard Shaw’s observation that all professions “are conspiracies against the laity; and I do not suggest that the medical conspiracy is either better or worse than the military conspiracy, the legal conspiracy, the sacerdotal conspiracy, the pedagogic conspiracy, the royal and aristocratic conspiracy, the literary and artistic conspiracy, and the innumerable industrial, commercial, and financial conspiracies, from the trade unions to the great exchanges, which make up the huge conflict which we call society.” I include physicists in the sacerdotal conspiracy. [↩]
2. Another intersting quote by George Bernard Shaw. I just replaced his “doctor” with “physicst.” “ARE PHYSICISTS MEN OF SCIENCE? I presume nobody will question the existence of a widely spread popular delusion that every physicist is a man of science. It is escaped only in the very small class which understands by science something more than conjuring with retorts and spirit lamps, magnets an microscopes, and discovering magical cures for diseases. To a sufficiently ignorant man every captain of a trading schooner is a Galileo, every organ-grinder a Beethoven, every piano-tuner a Helmholtz, every Old Bailey barrister a Solon, every Seven Dials pigeon dealer a Darwin, every scrivener a Shakespeare, every locomotive engine a miracle, and its driver no less wonderful than George Stephenson. As a matter of fact, the rank and file of physicists are no more scientific than their tailors; or, if you prefer to put it the reverse way, their tailors are no less scientific than they. Doctoring is an art, not a science: any layman who is interested in science sufficiently to take in one of the scientific journals and follow the literature of the scientific movement, knows more about it than those physicists (probably a large majority) who are interested in it, and practice only to earn their bread.” I might as well type in the endnotes: “Hermann L.F. von Helmholtz (1821-1894) was a renowned German physiologist and physicist; Old Bailey is London’s main criminal court building; Greek Statesman Solon (c. 600 B.C.), one of the Seven Wise Men of Greece, was renowned as a wise lawgiver; Seven Dials, a meeting point of seven roads in London and a poor area in Victorian times, is an unglamorous locale; English inventor George Stephenson (1781-1848) invented the railway locomotive engine. [↩]

ShareThis

1. Kepler discovered a rule from observations.
2. Computational part of physics is an algorithm that takes given values of physical quantities and transforms them according to a rule.
3. Newton did not discover a new rule but defined metaphysical laws and causes.
4. Therefore, it is clear that physics is using Kepler’s rule to make computations.
5. The only difference is that physicists converted the rule into an equation by adding a unit to it to incorporate it into the existing system of units called physics.
6. The engine that drives Newtonian mechanics is Kepler’s rule.

Related:

• The origin of force
• Physical quantity

ShareThis

Scientific revolutions happen when people realize that algorithms are independent of axioms. In physics Newton’s axioms are still believed to be coupled to the algorithm called Newtonian mechanics because they are assumed to be laws of nature.

Scientific Revolutions

Name of school	Axiom	Algorithm	Revolution?
Ptolemy	Stationary Earth	Trigonometry	Yes
Euclid	Fifth postulate	Pythagoras theorem	Yes
Newton	Force laws	Kepler’s rule	No

This table shows that once the practitioners of a school realize that axioms are independent of algorithms a scientific revolution follows. A scientific revolution happened in astronomy when Copernicus realized that he could use the same trigonometric framework known as the Ptolemaic model to describe a system where the Earth was one of the planets. Before Copernicus, astronomers used the success of the algorithm to prove the absolute truth of the axiom.

In mathematics a scientific revolution occurred when Gauss and Lobachevsky realized that Euclid’s axioms were not absolute truths and the consistency of the Euclidean geometry did not prove the truth of its axioms. They realized that the fifth postulate was independent of the algorithmic geometry, e.g., Pythagoras theorem used to compute distances. This realization started a true revolution in mathematics.

In physics axioms are still called “laws.” Newton first defined his laws in the Definitions section of the Principia (or “anticipated” them as I.B. Cohen calls it) and then stated his definitions as “axioms, or laws of motion.” Gradually, Newton’s definitions gained more and more authority and evolved from definitions to axioms, to laws of motion and finally to absolute laws of nature.

The mechanics part of the Principia is very thin. In fact, there is no “Newtonian mechanics” in Newton’s Principia. This is true because Newton did not use units. Modern physics, on the other hand, is defined as a consistent system of units made of physical quantities. Newton’s astronomical computations in the Principia are independent of axioms and laws of book 1. They are simple applications of Kepler’s rule. Subsequent generations of Newtonians turned this tiny sample of proportional computations into a vast consistent system of units known today as Newtonian mechanics.

But Newton’s laws as the fundamental doctrine of the Newtonian school has survived without change. This doctrine is, as all doctrines must be, independent of computations. No computation contains doctrines. In other words, metaphysics is never a part of mechanics. Definitions, axioms, laws are metaphysics. Computation with physical quantities is mechanics. These are independent of each other.

Physicists, on the other hand, still believe that when they do computations with physical quantities they use Newton’s laws:

Newton’s laws == Newtonian mechanics

This is the pre-revolutionary view. For instance, astronomers using the Ptolemaic theory before the revolution argued that the trigonometric framework which made accurate predictions included the axiom that the Earth was stationary at the center of the universe. They defended the thesis that the trigonometric model was coupled to the axiom of stationary Earth and that the model would not work without the axiom, therefore, the axiom must be absolutely true. This is the same argument physicists still use to defend Newton’s laws: Newtonian mechanics works, therefore, Newton’s laws must be true.

Only after the scientific revolution people realize that axioms are independent of algorithms. Axioms are arbitrary. Axioms cannot be proved by algorithms or experiments.

The fundamental axiom of physics is the assumption of force as the universal cause of all phenomena. That’s why all derivations in physics either start with F=ma or assume it. But the unmeasurable force F can never be found in any formulas used in computations. This is why physicists call their derivations computation. In other words, physicists call symbolic manipulation of symbols associated with metaphysical laws of Newton computation. Instead of removing metaphysics from physics modern physicists call their metaphysics physics.

Physicists say that Newtonian mechanics works and it makes accurate predictions therefore Newton’s axiom of force as the universal cause must be true. When will physics abandon this pre-scientific belief and be ready for a scientific revolution? When will physicists realize that algorithm is independent of the axiom and that there is no Newton’s laws in Newtonian mechanics?

First step should be to establish awareness of the pre-scientific state of physics. Do you think in physics axioms are believed to be coupled to algorithms? And if so, would decoupling axioms and algorithms create a scientific revolution as it did in astronomy and mathematics?

ShareThis

From Imaginary Potential

. . . that the simple rules of cellular automata can somehow generate fundamental laws of physics.

To me such a claim does not make sense. How can one derive laws from other laws? Laws are definitions. Newton’s laws are definitions Newton called “axioms or laws of motion.” All “laws of physics” are such definitions unless they are derived from experiments, then they are not laws but proportionalities.

Physics does not deal with laws, fundamental or otherwise. Physics deals with physical quantities. To overrule physical quantities by citing laws of physics is metaphysics. Can cellular automata solve physical problems that are usually solved by physical quantities? This seems like a better question.

ShareThis

From Wikipedia:

Kepler’s laws challenged Aristotelian and Ptolemaic astronomy and physics.

Maybe. But that’s not our problem anymore. Newton replaced Aristotle long time ago as the head of the scholastic corporation. Our challenge and duty as scientists is to question the doctrine of a forceful Newtonian nature to be the legal and true doctrine of nature.

Related posts:

• Aristotle/Newton
• Scholastic corporation

ShareThis

In physics anything which is not a physical quantity is metaphysics. There is no exception to this rule. Example: “Newton’s laws” is not a physical quantity therefore “Newton’s laws” is metaphysics and does not belong to scientific physics. Laws, principles, axioms, definitions, conjectures and similar philosophical stuff are independent of scientific physics. If we define physics as the science that studies physical quantities then we must accept that philosophical stuff belongs to metaphysics and not to physics. A physical quantity is defined as

This definition of physical quantity is free of metaphysics. If physics is defined as the science that studies physical quantities and physical quantity includes nothing but a number and a unit, then, we must conclude that anything which is not a physical quantity does not belong to scientific physics. We can easily define a scholastic type of physics or metaphysics by defining physical quantity as

This metaphysical physics would allow deep philosophical discussions of laws, principles and conjectures of all kinds but will be unable to make predictions because nature recognizes only true physical quantities and ignores the rest. Metaphysical physics is a lot of fun but it is no different than pre-Newtonian Peripatetic philosophy. As is well-known Peripatetic philosophers endlessly discussed laws and principles of their own definition and published long commentary on them. Galileo noticed the corruption of physics and eliminated the metaphysical part by making geometry the language of physics. In the 18th and 19th centuries great scientists developed the concept of physical quantity and made physics a rigorous science based on quantities tied to a consistent system of units. There is no room in the quantitative scientific physics for qualitative philosophy expressed as authoritative laws, principles, conjectures and branded equations. Therefore, a set of rules and definitions and principles called “Newton’s laws” is not a part of the science of physics. Newton’s laws can be a nice topic to discuss in a scholastic discussion group but not in physics.

Physicists may use such philosophical arguments as heuristics and pedagogy the way Einstein did but metaphysical elements will always exist independent of physical quantities. This means that the authority of physics comes solely from physical quantities and never from heuristics and metaphysics. No metaphysical law can be offered as an authority over a physical quantity. A scientific physicist works strictly with physical quantities.

So, to say that “Newton’s laws predict planetary orbits” as one hears all too often, is to assert Newton’s authority over physical quantities. “Newton’s laws” is not a physical quantity. Doing physics by invoking “Newton’s laws” reduces physics to metaphysics. No orbit ever heard of “Newton’s laws.” All that orbit knows is its radius and period. But if you say “Newton’s force describes orbits” that would be a scientific statement because Newton’s force F is a legal physical quantity. Do you see how the point of view changes from a scholastic discussion on Newton’s laws to a scientific discussion about a physical quantity? It is possible to discuss scientifically if force describes orbits but it’s not possible to discuss orbits with “Newton’s laws” because “Newton’s laws” is not a physical quantity.

This distinction is usually lost on students who are attracted to physics after reading science-fictional philosophy the media associates with physics. Beware that if it is not a physical quantity it is not physics. It is metaphysics. No exceptions.

ShareThis

In Definition 5 Newton defines a new word to describe a new species of force he just invented: centripetal force. Centripetal force is a force that seeks a center. Newton gives four examples of this force: Terrestrial heaviness with which bodies tend to the center of the Earth; iron seeking loadstone; the force holding planets in their orbits and the sling motion. In the case of the sling, the centripetal force manifests itself as the tension on the string, and the stone stretches the string “the more strongly the more swiftly it revolves.”

Newton then projects the properties of the sling rotation to planetary orbits. These properties are radial acceleration, the “endeavor” to fly off and the tension on the string dubbed “force.” According to Newton all orbits are rotational and have the same properties as the sling motion.

Newton’s claim that orbits are rotational is wrong. Either Newton goofed, or more likely, he was spin doctoring rotation in order to make his occult force the cause of planetary orbits. Rotation and revolution are ruled by different rules and orbital motion is free of the tension on the radius. The tension in the string exists because radius is constrained. In orbital motion such a radial constraint does not exist and therefore, Newtonian force does not exist.

Rules for rot and rev

Rotation	Revolution

Rotation is ruled by radian motion, Θ = S/R or S = R Θ. According to this rule, for a given radius R, increasing Θ by turning the sling faster, will increase S and consequently, the radius R will want to increase proportionately, but since R is constrained and kept constant by the string, that additional motion belonging to R will manifest itself as tension on the string. The increase in S will be a measure of this tension.

Newton, on the other hand, interprets the sling motion in terms of the force he just defined. As the sling rotates, the stone stretches the string and endeavors to fly off and the centripetal force draws the stone back toward the hand to make the orbit happen. Newton hereby defines force as the cause of the sling orbit. Then Newton claims that the same mechanism creates all orbits because “all bodies endeavor to recede from the centers of their orbits.” For example, the Moon is a body in orbit, and just like the sling, it must be hurled by something, and in this case, that something is “the hand of God” or gravity. And like the sling, the Moon, too, endeavors to fly off along the tangent but it is held in its orbit by the centripetal force acting instantaneously.

Newton’s attempt to describe planetary orbits as rotational motion fails. The Moon’s orbit is not described by the radian rule. Increasing R does not increase the orbital arc the Moon describes in unit time. On the contrary, the Moon obeys Kepler’s rule and moves according to the rule S :: R^-1.5. Unlike the sling motion, increasing R decreases S.

In orbital motion the integrity of the radius is not respected because there is no material radius connecting the mover and the moved. In fact, there is no mover. Newton ascribes material qualities to orbital radius which is nothing more than distance created by the orbit. The orbital radius is not constrained because it does not exist. Without the sling the string will continue to exist but without the orbit there will be no radius. Therefore, in orbital motion, there is no radial or “centripetal” acceleration and there is no “endeavor” to fly off. Orbits are inertial, i.e., geometric and Keplerian, and not dynamical and Newtonian. This is proved by the fact that all of the rotational elements Newton projected to orbital motion by turning them into occult qualities must be eliminated in order to describe orbits.

These Newtonian elements, force F, mass m, and acceleration a, are always eliminated from orbital computations.¹ This cannot be otherwise because orbits do not obey the radian rule, orbits obey Kepler’s rule. Newton defined his centripetal force to define orbital motion as rotational motion. But Newton’s force fails to describe orbits and consequently it is eliminated from computations of orbits. Yet, following Newton blindly, physics textbooks still enforce Newton’s absurd explanation of orbital motion.

1. Keplerian part of acceleration, that is, R/T^2 = radius/period^2, remains, what is eliminated is the Newtonian label acceleration. [↩]

ShareThis

Not Even Wrong points to a paper by the string theorist Moataz Emam that asks the question So what will you do if string theory is wrong? As an answer he suggests that physics may divest itself from string theory and create a new academic department equidistant from physics and mathematics. I believe that my proposal put forth in this comment quoted below, is even better for all parties concerned: Divide physics into physics and fine physics.

Maybe something that I wrote in an earlier post can be useful here. I propose to divide physics into two distinct academic divisions: physics and fine physics. In fine physics, as in fine art, there will not be a requirement to conform to a standard of evidence. Already string theorists use fine art concepts such as elegance and beauty as fundamental concepts of string theory.

Also, just like art, string theory can only be defined by way of its practitioners: String theory is what string theorists do. There is no independent definition of string theory and this is how string theorists like it.

ShareThis