Plaintiff argues like this:
We respectfully ask the judge to grant us the following undisputed fact:
measurement is independent of the unit chosen to measure.
Undisputed fact: measurement is independent of measure.
What does this mean?
This means that we can measure any length with any unit of our choosing; no unit is the true unit; there is no true unit in nature.
This fact was first stated mathematically by Descartes.
The plaintiff may choose to measure a given length A with Unit-1; the defendant may choose to measure the same length A with Unit-2, which he named, very cleverly, “Newton’s Universal True Unit.” But neither Unit-1 nor Newton’s Universal True Unit is better or worse or more true or less true than the other.
Once the court upholds this undisputed scientific fact that no unit is the absolute true unit, and orders both parties to abide by this rule, plaintiff asks the court to designate a given length to be measured by both defendant and plaintiff; we call this distance to be measured “length A”.
Plaintiff takes a piece of string and lays it on length A and cuts the string when the edges of the string matches the edges of the length A, and tells the judge that the length A measures 1 string.
Defendant hired a physics professor to defend Newtonism and the prof brought with him a laser ruler and tells the court that length A is 10 inches as measured by his ruler and not 1 string as the plaintiff claims.
The judge overrules the assertion of the prof and reminds him that according to the court rules, measurement is independent of the unit and the plaintiff’s measurement of lenght A is as good as prof’s measurement.
The prof is used to assert ownership of any quantity he measures with his named units; but in the court of law his academic authority is overruled by the scientific rule upheld by the court; the prof cannot own the given length A simply because he measured it with his named units.
Then the plaintiff respectfully asks the judge to tell the parties each to weigh an apple.
The plaintiff uses an old style scale with a basket on each side and puts the apple on one basket and a stone on the other to balance the scale; and tells the judge that the apple weighs 1 stone.
The physics prof hired by the defendant to defend Newtonism brought with him an electronic laboratory scale and places the same apple on the scale and reads the dial which shows 1 Newton as the weight of the apple.
The physics professor tells the court that the apple does not weigh 1 stone but it weighs 1 Newton and because the prof named his unit “Newton” he wants the plaintiff, the judge, the jury and the entire world to believe that the earth attracts the apple with the occult force invented by Newton.
The judge once again dismisses the prof’s claim and tells him that no unit can prove any doctrine by association and orders him to heed the rules of the court and reminds him once again that measurement is independent of the unit chosen by the measurer.
The court does not accept guilt by association and the court does not accept proof of doctrines by rhetorical associations with strategically named units.
The prof is not used to this type of challenge to his academic authority and he still does not get that the measurement is independent of the unit he chooses to use.
The prof is used to assert the authority of physics through units he named after Newton. This is how physics has been done since Newton’s time. The authority of the physicist on the matters of legal physics cannot be challenged. If the prof says that an apple weighs 1 Newton that apple weighs 1 Newton as a law of nature. This is what the laws of physics require, and the prof asks the judge to obey the laws of physics as defined by the prof; not the rules of the court.
But judge overrules the polemical attempts of the prof to assert Newton’s sacred authority over the justice system of the United States. It does not matter what the prof named his unit; an apple weighs a stone, if you use the unit of stone to measure its weight, or an apple weighs 1 Newton, or 1 Einstein or 1 any-dead-physicist the prof chooses to name his unit to weigh the apple.
Pliantiff agrees with the court that, as granted by the judge, measurement is independent of the measure. The plaintiff is using a stone to measure the weight of an apple; the defendant invented a convoluted unit to save the authority of the founder of his profession and he is using standard units of kilogram, meter and second to weigh the same apple.
The prof named a combination of standard units of kg, meter and second “Newton”. He is using 4 conventional units to weigh an apple in order to save his Master Newton’s sacred authority.
Next the plaintiff respectfully asks the judge to let each party to measure an orbit, say the orbit of Mars around the sun.
There is no doubt that the physics prof will again come up with units he named after Newton and because he used units he named after Newton he will claim that orbits are Newtonian.
The prof has been indoctrinated during his long physics education that lasted over 30 years, to see the world with Newtonian blinders behind Newtonian glasses.
Plaintiff simply uses Kepler’s Rule which says that the cube of the radius R is proportional to the square of the period T:
In order to use this rule to measure an orbit we need to choose a unit. As in the measurement of the length A we can choose any unit for R and any unit for T. But we need to make sure that our units are consistent.
To use Kepler’s Rule to measure the orbit of Mars the plaintiff writes the rule with a unit term like this:
The term on the left hand side is the unit term, or the term which is kept constant during measurement to make the units consistent.
For R0 we choose the Earth-Sun distance and for T0 we choose the period of the Earth around the sun. Then knowing the Sun-Mars distance R we compute the period T of Mars around the Sun.
Once again, the plaintiff used no Newtonian units, no Newtonian force, no Newtonian so-called constants of nature, in order to save the authority of Newton or Aristotle or Marx or anybody else.
The plaintiff simply used a rule first discovered by Kepler with units of his own choosing. This rule contains nothing but the radius R and the period T neither of which was discovered by Newton and, as far as we know, [not yet] claimed by Newton’s disciples to be Newtonian quantities.
And now, here comes the professor of physics hired by the defendant to defend Newtonism. So, the prof writes Kepler’s Rule as
More correctly, the prof did not just write Kepler’s Rule as above; he can’t; the prof first “derived” Kepler’s Rule from “Newton’s Laws” which means that he first wrote Newtonian junk terms Force and Mass on each side of Kepler’s Rule and then carefully eliminated the junk terms to “derive” the above “equation” so that he could “own” Kepler’s Rule in the name of Newton.
Why is the prof going through this charade? Because it is illegal in physics to start writing Kepler’s Rule as is without Newtonian terms; such an act of heresy would be denying Newton’s sacred authority and no professor of physics can deny Newton’s sacred authority!
Can you imagine the immensity of this hoax perpetrated by the prof? Either he is a fool; or he thinks we are.
The prof knows very well that writing a term on each side of an equation means nothing, it is idiotic to write the same term on each side of an equation knowing that the terms will cancel. It is an elementary rule of algebra that the same terms on both sides of an equation must be cancelled; such terms written on both sides of an equation have no effect on the equation; they are as good as non-existent.
The prof may write $100,000,000 on both sides of an equation but he can never recover in any way that $100,000,000 because it must be eliminated.
But the prof writes Newton’s occult force F and Newton’s animistic mass m on both sides of his equation and then cancels them and claims that orbits are Newtonian! In business accounting it is a fraud to write $100,000,000 in the income column to fool investors that your company has an extra $100,000,000 and then eliminate that $100,000,000 in the expense column through fake invoices. The prof is perpetrating the same kind of fraud in the name of Newtonism.
So, after thus praying to his master Newton the prof writes Kepler’s Rule branded with Newtonian units:
GM = R3/T2 is nothing more than Kepler’s Rule written with Newtonian units; the prof just replaced our unit term R03/T02 with his ideological Newtonian unit GM. So as his habit
- the prof defined a unit
- named the unit he defined after Newton, and
- sanctified the unit he just branded with his Newton brand as the absolute true unit.
The prof still does not get that what is measured is independent of the units used to measure it.
The prof named once again some unit with Newton’s name and claims that he is calculating orbits with “Newtonian mechanics” because he named the letter G as “Newton’s Universal Constant of Gravitation,” and the letter M as “Mass” which is nothing other than R03/T02!
So this prof finds in himself the absolute authority to own any quantity by giving it a Newtonian name!
By the way, his unit GM, is not made up of 2 terms G and M, it is just one unit, neither G nor M makes sense separately in this equation. The fraud of Newtonism runs deep.
But first, where is the little m?
Because according to Newton’s doctrines, the all powerful big mass M which is supposed to be at the center sitting in his throne is attracting the little m which is going around the mighty mass M as set in motion and held in orbit by the Newtonian occult force F emanating from mighty mass M.
The formula GM = R3/T2 that the prof is using to compute orbits – Kepler’s Rule written with a unit named after Newton – does not contain a term for the attracted mass and does not contain a term for the attracting force.
The prof had to eliminate F and m because F and m do not exist in nature; orbits are independent of F and m, orbits do not care about Newton’s authority.
Why do we say that orbits do not care about Newtonian junk terms so much loved by the prof? Because we calculated the same orbit without using any Newtonian junk symbols.
So this prof named, as he did with everything else he measured previously, a unit after Newton and he is using Kepler’s Rule with a unit he named after Newton and he claims that he is using Newton’s laws and that Newton’s occult doctrines are proved because he is using units named after Newton.
Well, I don’t know what other name to call this prof but he must be a charlatan; I name this prof the unit of charlatanism.
What do you think?
Why is it that the prof does not get that the measurement is independent of the unit used to measure?
As a last resort the prof claims that G is not a unit but a constant of nature.
So the prof, objects and asserts that G is not a unit but a constant of nature.
The professional ancestors of the prof defined G in the 19th century as a unit and transformed it into a constant of nature by naming it as “Newton’s constant of universal gravity” and this prof is now trying to fool us into believing that G is a constant of nature and not a unit.
But plaintiff did not have to use G to compute the orbit. If G were to be a constant of nature defining orbits, we could not compute the orbit of Mars without using G.
G is not a constant of nature but it is a unit defined by physicists.
What will the jury decide? Will the jury believe that the physics professor’s sanctified units are laws of nature as he claims? Or will the jury recognize that prof’s branded units are bogus laws of physics rejected by nature?