December 5, 2011

Golden advice to Steven Weinberg

In a commencement talk you advised students to

learn something about the history of science, or at a minimum the history of your own branch of science. The least important reason for this is that the history may actually be of some use to you in your own scientific work.

Steven Weinberg: “Reading” history is a good start but it is not enough. You have to understand that you need to uphold the authority of history over the authority of physics in order to become a scientist. One historical fact overrules thousands of physics equations.

Coulomb’s experiment

Start by reading Coulomb’s experiment. Physics tells you Coulomb’s experiment is a great scientific experiment; history tells you Coulomb’s experiment is junk. As a faithful physicist you will never ever contradict physics and admit the historical truth. History does not lie; faithful physicists always lie to defend their Newtonian faith.

Coulomb’s experiment is ideological junk because Coulomb made just three (3) measurements and he was part of the experiment because he never bothered to ground himself.

Do you still think against the overwhelming historical evidence that Coulomb’s experiment is a good experiment? Yes, you do; because you are a faithful physicist, not a scientist bound by historical facts.

If you think Coulomb’s experiment is a good experiment you are a faithful physicist but you are not a scientist because you uphold physics mythology over historical truth.

A physicist is bound by the authority of legal physics no matter how absurd; a scientist is bound by data; historical data overrules polemical physics equations.

As a physicist you cannot ever admit that a physics experiment is junk; your colleagues will dub you a crackpot. So why are you advising poor physics students to read history? Any student who reads more history than offered to him in little snippets in sidebars of textbook pages as physics mythology mascarading as history will be expelled at no time.

Cavendish Experiment

Next read the Cavendish experiment of 1798. Will you advise your students to read Cavendish’s original paper and question the current physics mythology that Cavendish experiment was the first measurement of force? Will you?

What happens if a student with scientific curiosity who does not believe physics mythology and Newtonian occult doctrines that you are teaching him and starts reading original sources to expose your lies? This student tells you that according to historical evidence Cavendish never measured the Newtonian occult force; Cavendish assumed force and never measured it; Cavendish used Kepler’s Rule to compute the mean density of the earth.

Imagine such a student questioning the physics mythology and Newtonian occult doctrines that you and physicists like you have been teaching in physics classrooms. Will you give that student good grades for being an inquiring scientist or would you think he is too intelligent and curious to be a physicist and does not belong to the brotherhood of the cult of the vis. The latter; am I correct?

Academic physics is charlatanism

I advise you to read history and learn that physics is pre-scientific charlatanism; it is the cult of Newton; physics is an 18th century occult cult and you and physicists like you are corrupting young minds of the world with this British cult of the occult.

I advise you to read history. But reading history is not enough. You must put the authority of history above the authority of physics and the sacred authority of Newton. Can you do that? Can you advise your students to put the authority of history above the authority of Newton and physics?

One historical data overrules all of your physical polemics.

Can you advise your students to read the tragicomical history of G and question why physicists invented this unit and branded it as “Newton’s Constant of Universal Gravitation”?

Can you advise your students to uphold historical evidence over physics mythology “proved” by faithful physicists like yourself by your “crooked timber of physics”.

If so, I congratulate you. You have just become a scientist.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Physics

Tagged as , , , ,

November 30, 2011

The real face of physics

Bob Berenz wrote:

I’m hoping that physics, as she is taught today, falls into disgrace or becomes recognized for what it actually is — a religious entity.

I don’t see physics falling “into disgrace” anytime soon. What is called “physics” today is the profession that’s been around for thousands of years. This is the profession that has its origins in the professional scribes of ancient Egypt and before. In Newton’s time the same profession was called “scholasticism.” Then, after Newton took over the European scholasticism these academic doctors changed their professional name to “natural philosophers” to indicate that they no longer worshipped Aristotle’s books but Newton’s book. When Newton will finally be gone, these same doctors will change their allegience again to whomever is the new master of scholasticism and worship that book.

Academic physics, is a protected monopoly like the other legal profession. To free science from the monopoly of doctors of physics we need to expose physicists as cultists, charlatans and fringe entertainers, in short, as the current representatives of the scholastic profession. And this can only happen if we take legal action against physicists and their teaching of the cult of Newtonism as science.

4 Comments

Filed under Physics

Tagged as , , ,

November 27, 2011

Newton’s Secret: Newton’s own discovery hidden in the Principia unravels the Newtonian world

The main problem for my research has been to understand how Newton could compute orbits with this occult quality he called force. I believe that nature is not occult; therefore, Newton could not have used the occult force in his operational formulas to compute orbits. It took me a long time to unravel the scholastic deceit Newton weaved around Kepler’s Rule to establish himself as the new master of European Scholastic tradition.

Below is an earlier version of the slides with slightly different wording:

* * *

1. I started by asking the question “What is force?”

2. Eventually, I learned that force is a placeholder for the parts of Kepler’s Rule, that is, 1/RR and R/TT.

3. I prefer to call the orbit rule discovered by Kepler a “rule” rather than a “law” because Kepler’s discovery is a proportionality tying the radius R and period T of the orbit.

4. Kepler’s Rule describes orbits and it is fundamental; Newton’s force is superfluous; force cancels out and does not enter the operational rule used to compute orbits.

5. There is no “underlying dynamical cause” to Kepler’s Rule; Kepler’s Rule itself is the underlying rule that describes orbits. Orbits need a “cause” only if Newton’s force is assumed to be true.

6. Newton used Kepler’s Rule to “legalize” his assumptions.

7. The three fundamental axioms on which Newton built his “System of the World” are Newton’s answers to three oldest philosophical questions.

8. Newton’s three axioms,

1) Natural motion is rectilinear
2) The indivisible is the unit of nature
3) The cause of motion is occult

are Newton’s answers to the philosophical questions

1) What is natural motion?
2) Are there indivisible units of nature?
3) Is nature occult?

Newton stated his preferred answers as axioms and successfully established them as “true laws of nature”.

9. Newton was able to establish his three initial assumptions as true laws of nature because his computations gave good results. Newton obfuscated the fact that he was using Kepler’s Rule to make his orbital computations.

10. Newton claimed that he used his dynamical laws and occult force acting between intelligent matter to compute orbits; a study of Newton’s calculations show that he simply uses Kepler’s Rule to compute orbits.

11. Newton first learned about Kepler’s Rule in Thomas Streete’s Astronomia Carolina.

12. Before his discovery of this rule, Newton could not make the orbital calculations in theorems III.4, III.8, and I.57-60, in the Principia.

13. Kepler discovered the rule of orbits as the result of his stubborn search for harmonies of nature and he knew the importance of his discovery.

14. But Kepler did not realize what Newton understood about the rule of orbits; Newton was the first to realize that Kepler’s Rule is the definition of density.

15. Newton chose to hide this discovery — arguably his greatest — in definition 1 of the Principia.

16. Newton scholars have been puzzled why Newton started his book with a definition of density but apparently never used it or referred to it again.

17. It all makes sense when we read definition 1 as a cryptic statement of Kepler’s Rule and theorems III.4, III.8 and I.57-60 as simple applications of Kepler’s Rule.

18. Newton discovered the true “law” of nature, namely, that Kepler’s Rule is the definition of density but instead of building his System of the World on someone else’s discovery Newton invented a fantastical world based on his three false premises.

19. The Principia contains the secret that once revealed will make the Newtonian world described in the Principia obsolete.

20. Henry Cavendish, too, knew about “Newton’s Secret” because his famous experiment of 1798 is a computation of the mean density of the earth by using the constants of the pendulum with Kepler’s Rule. In the 19th century British Newtonians fed up with their inability to measure the Newtonian occult force experimentally after trying for 200 years defined the Cavendish experiment posthumously as the first experimental verification of force.

# # #

2 Comments

Filed under Force, Kepler, Newton, Newtonism, Occult, Physics, Rationality

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

September 13, 2011

The mission statement for a non-profit: Love over law

Watch this video before reading further:  http://www.ted.com/talks/philip_howard.html

***

Our mission is to recover natural rights of human body that our ancestors sold to the legal organism.

Humans lost their right to

  • travel freely on earth
  • form couples freely and reproduce freely
  • raise own offspring
  • resolve disputes among themselves
  • judge and punish the guilty
  • live by love not by law

We aim to recover these lost natural rights of human body by challenging the legal organism in the court of law.

***

Love Over Law

Any entity born of a legal contract is a living legal organism. A legal organism is a form of life without a well-defined surface visible to human senses. Legal life form includes flag states, logo corporations, brand religions and color sport clubs. In order to perceive the legal organism humans must make it visible by representing it with a flag, logo, brand or color.

The relationship of humans with cats can enlighten us about the relationship of humans with the legal organism.

Humans and cats

Human species is the owner of cats. Cats entered into a covenant with humans and with this covenant cats gave up most of their natural rights including the right to reproduce, freedom of mobility, freedom to form couples and the right to practice and perpetuate their own natural habits and the right to educate and own their offspring. Cats have none of these freedoms that actually belong to them by birth and by being a cat. Cats sacrificed their natural freedoms for protection by humans. Cats became humans’ pets.

Mules, on the other hand, were not as intelligent as cats to draw a contract that allowed them to sleep all day and be fed for free. In addition to giving up all their natural rights mules became beasts of burden. If cats are pets, mules are slaves with no rights.

Owner has no accountability towards its property

Human individual as the master and owner, have no accountability for his actions towards pets and beasts of burden. The owner can sell them, throw them away, make fun of them, treat them as objects and work them to death or keep them at minimum survival rations and the animals cannot bring their owner to justice in any court of law.

Legal organism owns the human body the way humans own pets and beasts of burden. The relationship is the same.

Love against law

Humans impose on cats human habits by forcing them to live by the rules of the human house; the legal organism forces human body to live by the rules of its house, that is, by the law of the land.

Therefore the never ending war between human body and the legal organism is the war between love and law.

***

Humans perceive their environment by their five senses; human body has a surface. The legal organism does not have a surface that can be perceived by any of human senses. The legal organism exists as a legal entity; it can only perceive the law; it can distinguish what is legal and what is not legal and nothing else makes sense to it. The legal organism does not know what love is, in the sense humans use that word. What humans call “war” is the lovemaking of the legal organisms called flag states.

***

Humans are forced to live in the prison of law and yearn to live freely in love.

***

Love is human; law is unhuman

Law alienates human body from itself and from its natural environment. An organism which is alienated to itself and to its natural environment (and who learned to love its alienation) is easily controlled.

Legal organism perceives the world as a legal place. Therefore, this bodiless human, the legal organism, is not good or bad; it has no feelings, it has no passion; it has no reason; it does not see or hear the way we see or hear; it has no eyes or ears. The legal entity reacts to a challenge to its authority from an individual only if it is challenged in a court of law with proper jurisdiction.

Only when its interpretation or enforcement of the law is challenged in a legal venue that has jurisdiction over the legal organism that the legal organism feels the challenge to its authority by an individual.

Therefore the only hope for human body to change the world for his benefit is to fight the legal organism through legal channels. This is exactly how Gandhi freed India from the British rule.

***

Take New York City. The City Hall and the city government is the owner of the city and it is our landlord. The City Hall manages the city for the flag state who owns the land. New York City government is a legal organism and it is not good or bad. “Good government” makes no sense. Calling a government “good” is to give an unhuman organism human qualities.

Don’t try to make the government good. Good is a human quality it does not apply to the government.

The government enforces the law; nothing more, nothing less. The government has no human morals, it knows nothing else but enforce the law.

Law is unilateral

Government enforces laws of his own definition to rule over human body. Do not complain that laws are not just. Why would the legal organism who defines these laws to rule over the human body make the laws just so that the human body can have equal rights to retaliate against the government by using the same laws?

Laws are not made to benefit or serve human beings; laws exist to benefit the ruler (your landlord) and the collaborators of the ruler, the professional classes, such as bankers.

The law is the habit of the legal organism

The older the law the harder it is to change and the more legitimate it looks. New York City just updated for the first time noise control laws drafted 40 years ago. For a bureaucracy of the size of New York City government 40 years is not such a long time. For citizens noise control is the most important quality of life issue; they complain about noise all the time. For the government noise control is not a priority.

But the government does not take 40 years to collect taxes. Is this surprising? The fact that the government collects taxes diligently but does nothing about noise control to help citizens live a comfortable life does not mean that the government is being bad. The government does not have ears. Why should it worry about noise.

Rulers rule in the name of law not love

Human body has been ruled by law for a long time. First it was in the name of the law of god… then it was in the name of the law of the king… and now it is in the name of the law of the legal organism. Finally, the legal organism claimed what belongs to it: the law of the land. Is it surprising that the law belongs to the legal organism who defined it?

Initially the owner of human species was the god because humans were told that they had a covenant with the god. Then kings and tyrants took over and claimed to have their power given to them by god. And then the legal organism took over the ownership of land on earth and anything who lived on the land including the humans. Today the living legal organisms we call flag states are the landlords of the earth. We are seeing the completion of this transfer of ownership of the land as the flag states are pressuring the last human owners of land to give up power as in Libya and Syria.

Why are humans get so excited because they are replacing a human landlord with an unhuman landlord? Maybe because they are programmed from birth to despise their own and love the legal organism.

***

Humans as sentimental and reasonable beings project human values to legal organism and try to fight it by trying to reason with it. Or by appealing to its feelings or justice. This won’t work.

To project human characteristics to an organism which is not human is like explaining thunder by Zeus; this is the pre-scientific way. Do you fight a virus by calling it “bad” or by trying to reason with it? No. You fight a virus with the language it can understand. Both the virus and the legal organism prey on the human body – but at different scales. The virus uses the human body as host; human body uses the legal organism as host. Human body loves good viruses; the legal organism loves good humans. The relationship is the same.

***

The legal organism does not understand anything which is not law. Proof: The only way an individual can communicate with the government is through printed forms prepared by the government. If the government does not want to discuss a matter with its subjects it does not print a form for it. The individual as the property of the legal organism is bound to remain always a petitioner at the mercy of the legal organism.

Only legal action can change the wrongs of legal organism against human body.

To change the law you need to challenge the law. Some believe that in order to change the law you must first break the law. Civil disobedience has a long tradition in our society. But civil disobedience works only as marketing; change, if it occurs, only occurs in the court of law.

Once the law is changed the government starts to enforce the new law and the same government elevates the breaker of the old law into a hero and inserts a new holiday into the legal calendar of the state named after the hero who the state killed earlier as an outlaw for breaking the law. Why go through this process! Don’t break the law. Go directly to the court and challenge the law through the court system.

Legal logic has no logic

You can tell that the legal organism has its own peculiar logic: first it kills somebody for breaking the law and then defines him as the greatest hero of the state. This is the legal logic. Legal logic has no morals and it has no contradictions. In legal logic every legal statement is true by its letter, by its spirit and/or by precedent. In other words, what is legal is true; what is not legal is not true and does not exist. Legal logic is not Aristotelian logic.

The legal organism makes changing laws as difficult as possible because legal entity too, just like humans, lives by its habits; and its habits are bureaucratic procedures based on laws.

We must yearn for good laws not for good government. We must yearn to put in every law a bit of love. The law must leave room for individuals to solve problems among themselves. We must fight to put the authority of love over the authority of law. Love means lack of law.

Human cooperation against the legal organism will take generations because humans are taught to hate each other and obey the legal organism who is their landlord and master. Or human unity may never happen because none of us as an individual has an incentive to sacrifice our happiness today for the well-being of next generations. Why should anybody sacrifice his or her happiness in this brief life for someone they do not know?

***

Just like cats humans have given up the right to educate and own their offspring. Human mother sacrifices her offspring to the legal organism who indoctrinates the human child to obey the laws made by the legal organism.

***

It is stupid and misguided to fight the government or state by destroying its property (including its most valuable property, the human body). There is nothing which makes the legal organism angrier than damage to its property; by causing damage to its property you are challenging the legal authority of the legal organism; you are striking the very soul of the legal organism. This is not acceptable.

Don’t do it. Don’t become a romantic revolutionary. The only way to recover human rights taken by us by the legal organism is to take legal action against the legal organism. The legal organism took our natural rights from us by a legal contract made by our ancestors. We can only get our rights back by making a new legal contract with our present landlord and master and overlord the legal organism.

Never be confrontational. Be legal.

Our mission is to change the law by arguing with the legal organism in the court of law.

***

The legal organism needs humans more than humans need the legal organism.

***

When we accept that the legal organism is a living organism without a body and with no senses, we observe that just like a human being this organism too lives through its habits. Just like human beings and other living organisms, just like cats, legal organism too enjoys living its habits; this legal organism is a creature of habit. What defines life is habits; not body, because motion defines surface. If it has habits it is a living organism.

The habits of the legal organism obviously are legal habits formed by repeating what is legal and then locking them in as the only truth. Written law is the DNA of the legal organism. It is all about habits. This is not about good or bad. We are faced with an organism with no feelings with no human qualities but who can emulate human functions like writing and whose soul is law and whose actions are defined by habit. And just like humans, the legal organism hates when its habits are challenged.

Consider how difficult it is for you to change a well-established habit. For an organism of the legal organism’s complexity changing a habit requires a colossal bureaucratic effort. Like all creatures the legal creature hates the unknown and resists change to the last possible legal brink. This is why it is so difficult to change an existing law. But once the law is changed; the legal organism will then enforce the new law.

***

Legal organism is a living organism. Law is the habit of the legal organism. Legal organism is the landlord of the individual and we must be in good terms with our landlord and when the landlord impinges on our rights we must discuss the issue in a court of law with proper jurisdiction because the process of the law is the only language our landlord understands.

***

The mission of the non-profit is to uphold the authority of love over the authority of law; to include in every law a “love fuse” that will “short circuit” the law as soon as the law starts to hurt the human individual.

###

Leave a Comment

Filed under Authority, Habit, Humans, Law, Legal, Legal organism, Society, The Org

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

September 10, 2011

Physics is a Punzi scheme

Physics appropriates concepts that are in public domain by defining units for them. Physicists then use puns to establish their defined units as laws of nature.

***

Speed of light is the ratio of two lengths; length is not a “physical” concept; but physicists stole the speed of light concept and corrupted it with their scholastic polemics.

Doctors of Physics make their living by doctoring and corrupting our language. You cannot talk about “speed” and “light” without also thinking “physics.”

***

All of science defer to physics. Here’s a case where computer science defers to physics:

PRELIMINARIES: THE PHYSICS
The speed of light in a vacuum is exactly 299,792,458 meters/second. This is as fast as you can move a bit of data, and according to our current understanding of physics, it is a fundamental constraint of the universe we live in.

Consider the title of the article: Fighting Physics: A Tough Battle.

The headline writer does not say “Fighthing the speed of light” he says “Fighting Physics”. He is using the physics pun “physics is nature”.

Fighting physics –the modern name of scholasticism– is a tough battle but fighting physics puns like physics==nature is almost impossible.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Physics, Puns

Tagged as , ,

September 10, 2011

It’s official: Physics is the new religion

Or: Religion is the new physics.

There is no doubt that now religion makes scientific predictions that can be tested and verified. As you know, Harold Camping predicted the end of the world and now it was verified that he was wrong.

Physicists on the other hand no longer bother with verifiable predictions. Instead physicists make unverifiable declarations about the universe in unverefiable future or unverefiable past or unverifiable universes of their own invention.

More and more people are realizing what academic physics really is: a scientific fraud.

When religion makes verifiable prediction and physicists cannot and will not . . . what does this mean?

10 Comments

Filed under Cosmogony, Cosmology, Doctors of philosophy, Physics, Religion, The world, Universe

Tagged as , , ,

September 8, 2011

Habit is the greatest motivator

Habit is the greatest motivator for all organisms. This is how nature works; water chooses the path of least resistance. Habit is the path of least resistance; the new is the path of greatest resistance. In order to choose the new the organism must be convinced of the greater reward than going with the habitual.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Habit

Tagged as