# Newtonism

This is the second post on Tom Levenson’s article on Newton’s Principia.

Levenson has attempted to read the Principia as literature

just like John Locke, who had to ask Christiaan Huygens if he could take the mathematical demonstrations on faith (Huygens said he could), I read to see what larger argument Newton was making about the ways human beings could now make sense of material experience.

This shows how much Newtonism has been successful in establishing itself as the true religion of humanity. The key word that I am looking at is “material.” The assumption that nature is matterful and forceful is the fundamental dogma of Newtonian religion. Physicists also successfully combined “matterful and forceful” with the word physical. This way Newtonism is encoded into our language and into our minds.

Newton got the news that the world was material from the Christian god. He boldly asserted that he knew that god created a material and Newtonian world. I guess that would make Newton a prophet. And the poetry that opens the Principia establishes the special relationship that Newton enjoyed with the Christian God who is said to have invited Newton and Halley to a banquet to honor their great scientific frauds.

From Levenson’s use of the word material without realising that it is a code word for Newtonism I conclude that human beings in general perceive nature as a Newtonian and physical place. In the European middle ages a similar intellectual would have perceived nature as a Christian place modelled by Dante.

What makes Newtonism a religion is the fact that human individuals do not realize that they’ve been indoctrinated with the British-Newtonian-Occult definition of nature and that they perceive nature as a British-Newtonian-Occult system.

Am I maybe reading too much into one incidental word that Levenson used?

I read to see what larger argument Newton was making about the ways human beings could now make sense of experience.

Without the word material the quote becomes ambiguous. It seems that we need to explain what kind of experience we are talking about.

• their natural experience
• their earthly experience
• their daily experience
• their Newtonian experience

I guess all of these are possible. But the point is that for Newton’s contemporaries nature was not a Newtonian experience. We are so indoctrinated with Newtonism that we no longer remember the pre-Newtonian non-Newtonian nature. Huygens who apparently certified the legitimacy of Newton’s proofs to Lock believed that Newton was guilty of reintroducing into science old scholastic dormitive virtues and active souls by calling them force. Huygens correctly identified that Newton meant force to be Newton’s Soul permeating the universe.

Others, including Leibniz and Berkeley, imagined a relational nature without matter.

Of course, in Europe cosmology has always been mixed with politics. In Newton’s time Cartesian plenum was the official model of the cosmos. Newton proposed to replace the French plenum with the British void. No wonder that the perpetual enemy of the British resisted Newtonian cosmos for about a century before Laplace and Coulomb developed the French version of Newtonism palatable to the French Academie. Eventually this British creed became the official cosmology of every European state and effectively replaced Christianity as the state religion. In other words, the British succeeded in unifying the European science under their own brand.

Newtonism even crossed the Atlantic in stealth mode. Founding fathers rejected the old British political institutions but they did not realize that Newtonism was the colonialism of the mind. They kicked out the British political colonialist but embraced with open arms the British colonialist of the mind.

What I mean is that Newtonian material and forceful occult view of nature was established by propaganda and very sophisticated marketing by the British as the official worldview of humanity and it is still enforced as such by states and governments all over the world. This is where we are today. And physicists as Newtonian faithful teach, polish and perpetuate Newtonism.

Regardless of what physicists say, Newtonism is still taught as absolute truth in introductory physics. The mantra that General Relativity subsumed Newtonism only helps strengthen Newtonian mythology. After all, every physics student believes that he has witnessed Newton’s Soul to set a pendulum in motion in a Cavendish lab.

# Dark side physics or semantic variations on the hermeneutics of the dark

Judging by this attempt to dark humor in Dark Photons that

we can imagine much more than a single species of dark matter; what if you had two different types of stable particles that carried dark charge? Then we’d be able to make dark atoms, and could start writing papers on dark chemistry. You know that dark biology is not far behind. Someday perhaps we’ll be exchanging signals with the dark Internet . . .

I am speculating that this article may qualify as a Sokalesque parody on the hermeneutics of the dark.

As I’ve predicted recently there will be a surge of dark papers in physics as more and more physicists realize how easy it is to translate their old papers into dark physics papers by modifying selected keywords with the adjective dark. This is good semantics.

In any case I’ve added light is dark to my list of legal physics puns. If it is hidden and if it is dark and if it is a pun that has already been converted into a legal trope you know that academic physicists will flock to it like insects to light.

Insects are attracted to light
Doctors of physics are attracted to equivalences

This latest dark paper is a prototypical standard physics bromide. It is not an innovation in physics to speculate on a new force and throw it on the arxiv wall to see if it will stick. The First Commandment of the founder to his disciples was

You shall find new forces in nature

and Newton’s disciples have been obeying Newton’s First Commandment ever since. Amazing that the authors think they are onto something new because they proposed a new species of force.

Besides the dark is light pun the writers make use of the universe is cosmos pun since they claim to know what they do not know, namely, they claim that 70 per cent of the totality is dark matter. It is a fact that these writers do not know one hundred per cent of the universe — they do not know the totality — how do they know the 70 per cent of totality? They don’t. They just use legal puns and tropes of physics to manufacture a new paper. No physicist will ever question another physicist’s excursion into the Absurdistan as long as it is legal absurd.

I don’t intend to belittle anyone’s work. I congratulate the authors for their new contribution to science and I wish many more. I just wanted to point out that in academic physics there is no standard of evidence, it is all done according to the book and what is legal is true by definition. The authors in this paper felt that they’ve now possessed enough authority to define the dark version of electromagnetism before someone else did and they decided to try their luck.

Physics is semantics. And semantics is very predictable. As I explained here, the adjective physical is used to turn any word into a property of physics. The adjective dark too can be used with any legal physical quantity to transform it into a dark physical property. If you search for “dark” in the arxiv there will be too many results to list. Hermeneutics of the adjective dark is a huge industry in academic physics.

Therefore, dark is a semantic operator that has been enjoying a good career in physics. Take a legal physical quantity and modify it with the adjective dark and embellish it with related standard equations alternating with your philosophical commentary, and that’s it, that’s all it is needed for a dark paper. Incidentally, to all ye dark physicists out there, “dark string” did not return any papers on the arxiv so someone please write one about dark string and open new vistas for experimental verification of string theory in dark extra dimensions.

Another automatic hidden assumption in this paper is the assumption of atomic materialism. This view too has its roots in Newton’s religious beliefs. Newton’s zeroeth law says that originally God created a Newtonian world made of material indivisible particles. This physical dogma is immutable. Dark matter is a consequence of this Newtonian religious ideology. Any new physics, dark or otherwise, is a commentary on Newton.

# Physics and semantics

1. What’s wrong with semantics?

One of the most powerful scientific arguments physicists use to dismiss non-legal physics is to say “That’s just semantics.” In physics lingo this means

you have just stepped out of legal physics and if you continue to challenge legal physics with scientific skepticism I’ll call you a crackpot, so you’d better stop and listen to what I teach and learn legal physics, the only true science.

Semantics as defined in physics is similar to two other words — philosophy and metaphysics — and refer to the opinions of an unlicensed person on topics owned by physicists. These are propaganda words invented by physicists to defend their monopoly on human reason. But what is wrong with semantics?

2. Don’t confuse semantics with polemics

Looking at physics at the fundamental mathematical level I see that physics is semantics.

Physicists confuse, probably intentionally, semantics with polemics which means

the practice of disputing or controverting religious, philosophical, or political matters. As such, a polemic text on a topic is often written specifically to dispute or refute a position or theory that is widely viewed to be beyond reproach.

Indeed physicists view legal physics to be true beyond reproach. Otherwise physics would not work. Note that there are always legal open questions that physicists can work on but they cannot doubt the absolute veracity of legal physics and remain in the profession. Consequently, physicists will not tolerate any kind of scientific skepticism toward their profession from outsiders.

Semantics, on the other hand, is the “study of meaning in communication.”

3. If physics is meaningful it must be semantics

Unless physicists claim that physics is meaningless then physics must be semantics. The idea that academic physics may be meaningless and absurd or at least allows meaninglessness and absurd should not be dismissed out of hand. But let’s assume that physics is meaningful.

First we posit that physicists who have an absolute monopoly to define new terms with new meanings in the realm of physics have conveniently defined semantics to mean physics in the context of physics:

meaning = physics

So when they say “physics of a problem” physicists mean “the meaning of a problem.” Any meaning physicists will call physics.

4 . Mathematics has no meaning

Let’s look at a mathematical expression:

$E=\int&space;p&space;\:&space;dp$

Since this is a mathematical expression we have no idea what symbols E and p mean but we can manipulate it according to mathematical rules. In mathematics symbols are meaningless only rules exist. Mathematical reasoning

is formal in the sense that the meaning of propositions forms no part of the investigation. The sole concern of mathematics is the inference of proposition from proposition. The justification of the rules of inference in any branch of mathematics is not properly part of mathematics: it is the business of experience or of philosophy. The business of mathematics is simply to follow the rule. In this sense all mathematical reasoning is necessary, namely, it has followed the rule.

In mathematics symbols E and p have no meaning and the integral and equality signs are operational and dp is an integration unit.

Therefore, physicists must give meaning to these symbols if physics is to have a meaning different than mathematics. And the process of giving meaning to symbols is called semantics. Physicists call this process of giving meaning to mathematical symbols physics, ie. they defined semantics as physics.

Calling E, say, electric field, is semantics. The mathematical symbol E is given the meaning “electric field.”

4. Physical quantity and experiment are semantic operators

Physical quantity

In physics a symbol is endowed with meaning through physical quantities. Physical quantity is really about semantics because it is a unit with a number and has nothing to do with being physical or not. The adjective physical in front of quantity is a political symbol. So, again,

the justification of the rules of inference in any branch of mathematics is not properly part of mathematics: it is the business of experience or of philosophy.

And it is also the business of physics. And indeed physics is philosophy because it deals with meaning. But physicists consider semantics, philosophy and metaphysics to be all suspect endeavors because they are ultimately about questioning legal physics.

Experiment

What about the question of experiment, the interface between physics and nature? According to physicists they are not semanticists but experimental scientists who are merely modelling nature objectively by way of experiments. In reality, professional physicists themselves are the interface between nature and physics because they have authority over experiment, e.g., Coulomb experiment.

That physical laws are based on experiments is a professional propaganda. Physics is first semantic then experimental. Experiment in physics is an alternative way to endow symbols with meaning. So either a physical quantity or an experiment can give meaning to a symbol. In either case physics is semantics.

The unit of physics is physical quantity and a physical quantity does not have to have a correspondence in nature. The sign called physical quantity does not need to have a signified but it must be consistent with legal physics, that’s the only requirement.

Physical quantity can be, and most are, arbitrary definitions in agreement with the rest of physics. And in most cases a physical experiment is a definition with an oscillator.

5. Physicists are semantic philosophers who deny being semantic philosophers

Mathematical symbols do not have meaning, physicists give them meaning, usually by reifying them. But physics does not have mathematical rigor because physicists do not respect mathematical meanings of the operators, they endow them too with their own “physical” meanings. So the fundamental operator of physical equation, the equality sign, has at least four different meanings and it is not a mathematical but a polemical sign.

6. How come physics works? If it is semantics it should not work!

What works is not physics. Physics is just a rubric of a vast collection of different semantic fields. What works are “mechanics” that physicists painstakingly fit into observations one paper at a time. It would be really strange if physics did not work. By definition, all physics “theories” are models that are fit into observations. Therefore, by definition, they work. In other words, physics works because it is semantics. All these mechanics contain free parameters, semantic elements (quantity is meaning too), that fit the model to observations.

There is only one way we can know nature. We fit a database of observations into a model. And this is done through semantics. So the method of physics is right. The propaganda of physics is wrong.

It is also known that there is no essential difference between the semantics of natural languages like English and formal languages like mathematics. Physicists abuse this fact as well. What physicists do is to use the authority of mathematics to justify ideology.

What is unscientific is to try to project physics as an “objective” science that transcends ordinary meaning and reveals absolute truths about nature. In other words, religion.

# Physical semantics

I noticed that physicists use the word physical as an adjective to modify many different types of words. I was curious to understand how physical modifies the words it is applied to as an adjective. It appears that physical is like a physical operator: it maps a non-physical word into physics:

$P\rightarrow&space;W=PW$

Physical takes a plain word W and it transforms it into a property of physics. PW is a new word, not a modified W. For instance, adjectives small and large may change the scale of the word but physical changes its meaning and effectively creates a new word. Since physics is immune to semantic arguments from non-physicists I am not worried that this article will cause any kind of harm to physics. Just for my own understanding.

I noticed that the most important difference is with quantity and physical quantity.

Quantity and physical quantity

There is a fundamental difference between quantity and physical quantity. Physics assumes as an unstated truth that what is measured is physical:

measured=physical

This is not true. The pun that what is measured is necessarily physical is a professional propaganda.

Measurement is defined like this:

measured quantity = a unit – measured multiple of the unit

There is no other way to measure and there is nothing in measurement that says that what is measured is physical or not physical . Therefore what is measured is quantity not physical quantity.

Meaning and physical meaning

Physical meaning is

physics that is hidden behind a mathematical construction.

There is something called physics and this thing is hidden behind a mathematical construction. This sounds a lot like mysticism to me. I thought that physics was a mathematical science and not metamathematical mysticism. The prototypical hidden meaning hidden behind a mathematical construction gracing physics has been the occult, i.e., hidden Newtonian force. As I understand it, physical meaning is not related to measurement, it is an interpretation of the hidden.

Reasoning and physical reasoning

Reasoning without the “physical” is rationalism. As rational scientists we treat the mathematical framework as a mathematical framework and do not assume that there is hidden “physics” in mathematics. In mathematics we look for mathematical objects, like patterns. Physical reasoning on the other hand assumes that nature is physical therefore there must be hidden physics behind the mathematics and looks for them. And finds them. How? By labeling mathematical patterns with colorful labels and calling them physical fields, physical particles, physical forces and physical anything. Therefore, if physical semantics is practiced by physicists it is legal physics. The world is only semantically physical.

Model and physical model

In this case model is called physical because it is a model that explains physical nature. So nature is physical pun again.

Theory and physical theory

Physical theories have hidden physics in them. Where are they? Again you can find them in colorful labels. A proportionality constant may be called “Newton’s universal constant of gravity” and because it is called “Newton’s universal constant of gravity” a proportionality constant is assumed to be a physical constant of nature. All these suggest that what physicists mean by physics is “label mechanics.” Or more correctly “legal labels mechanics.”

Observable and physical observable

Physical observable is a physics term of art. What is measured is not an observable what is measured is distance.

Law and physical law

Law legislate society. Physical law legislates nature.

Commentary and physical commentary

Personally I see nothing wrong that physicists fit measurements into an elaborate legal system called mechanics, pardon me, physical mechanics, because this is how nature works. Standard is the thing. As Buckminster Fuller said

There are no solids. There are no things. There are only interfering and noninterfering patterns operative in pure principle . . .

I would say “in pure definition” because the world is definitional. The world is physical only by definition. It’s not surprising that physicists’ Standard Model explains observations well. It is a fit to observations in which various mathematical patterns are labeled by physicists with ideological labels. Standard Model is a definition. If physicists dropped their search for hidden physics and saved phenomena with mathematics then physics will look more like a science. Shut up and fit, as Max Tegmark would say. But this is impossible. In physics Newton’s words are sacred. Newton decreed in the Principia that his disciples shall search for hidden qualities in nature by studying motion. This is the physical program Newton ordered his disciples to continue to do until the second coming of the Kingdom of Science. Don’t hold your breath. A bureaucratic habit can never be changed. And looking for hidden physics in nature is a strong physical habit of a huge bureaucracy. It will never change.

# Cosmological constant and hemlines

Physicists have turned the cosmological constant into a legal physical quantity. As such cosmological constant is open to speculations. Some even tried to tie the value of the cosmological constant to hemlines:

This is true in science as well. In the old days high authorities in the form of professional doctors designed a cosmogonic model for humanity to believe in and generations believed in the same cosmogony. Today there is a cosmological season tied to the semi-annual meeting of the industry in some paradise island. During the meeting the cosmologists unravel the latest state of cosmos and tell us the true value of the cosmological constant for that season.

Fashion industry regulates the hemlines, physics industry regulates the cosmological constants. [a nice graphic showing how hemlines and cosmological constant change over the years would go well here. There may even be a correlation!]

This may be an extreme idealization of the situation worse than associating hemlines and financial markets. But the story of the fluctuations in hemlines as told in Wikipedia is similar to the emancipation of the cosmological constant from being a constant of nature into being a variable constant of physics bureaucracy.

In the history of Western fashion, the ordinary public clothes of upper- and middle-class women varied only between floor-length and slightly above ankle-length for many centuries before World War I. Skirts of lower-calf or mid-calf length were associated with the practical working garments of lower-class or pioneer women, while even shorter skirt lengths were seen only in certain specialized and restricted contexts (e.g. sea-bathing costumes, or outfits worn by ballerinas on stage). It was not until the mid-1910s that hemlines began to rise significantly (with many variations in height thereafter). Skirts rose all the way from floor-length to near knee-length in only about fifteen years (from late in the decade of the 1900s to the mid-1920s). From WW1 to roughly 1970, a woman had to wear skirts near their currently-fashionable length or be considered almost hopelessly unstylish, but since the 1970s, women’s options have widened, and there is no longer really only one single fashionable skirt-length at a time.

Fashionable value of the Cosmological Constant

Is there a fashionable value of the cosmological constant? Is it true that

cosmological constant has been in and out of fashion; like an odd piece of plumbing pipe it has been found to be a useful cosmological tool on various occasions?

Is it also true that physicists have been debating philosophical aspects of the cosmological constant pretty much endlessly for the last hundred years? And that there

have been three occasions when it was introduced to explain some observational fact thought to be true at the time. But on all of these occasions subsequent observations have changed (or have been contrary to) the original observation and sent the cosmological constant back to the shelf waiting for its next appearance.

We see the great science of physical cosmology at work here. Maybe cosmologists’ option widened and nowadays there is really no one single fashionable value for the cosmological constant?

Hemlines v. physical constants

Cosmologists will argue that hemlines fluctuate according to social winds. There is no experimental and correct value of hemlines. For the cosmological constant this is not true, they will say. Cosmologists claim that they are searching the correct experimental value for the cosmological constant e.g., in the white noise they call WMAP. The fact is that there can be no experimental value for the cosmological constant as a property of the totality.

Cosmologists do not know the totality

Cosmologists trace the scientific origin of the cosmological constant to an offspring of Einstein equations called Friedman equations. Friedman equations assume homogeneity and isotropy therefore they assume that totality obeys Friedman equations. Evidence by fiat has been very fashionable in cosmology. But what real observational evidence are there that the totality obeys a 19th century Russian meteorologist’s particular choice of equations? None. Cosmologists do not know the totality and they will never know.

Whatever cosmologists derive from Friedman equations is mythology because Friedman equations assume the totality to begin with.

A comparison of scientific properties of Cosmological Constant and hemlines

Observational value of the cosmological constant is as fashionable and arbitrary as hemlines. But at least people who set the hemlines do not claim to base their value on observations and on science. But if you read the Wikipedia entry carefully, you’ll see that for a long time the male dominated society forced women to wear floor length heavy skirts and enforced this habit as if it were a law derived from the true laws of true society, i.e., male dominated society. Science is dominated now by the same kind of dogmatic professional doctors. The emancipation of science will reveal the true nature of authority constants such as the Cosmological Constant.

This table shows similarities and differences between the cosmological constant and hemlines:

 Property Cosmological Constant Lambda Hemline Constant Psi Legal Yes. A Legal Physical quantiy Previously was a legal social quantity. Now a free variable Observational No Yes Experimental No Yes Equational Yes. Friedman equations Yes. Social norms Theoretical Yes Yes Fashionable Yes? Previously not. Now yes Cultural Yes. Product of physics culture Yes. product of social culture Exists No. It’s an equational artifact of physics Yes. Its instances can be measured Owned by Physics industry Fashion industry

The table suggests that “hemline” is a more scientific quantity than “cosmological constant.” Hemlines exist and they can be measured. Hemlines are dependent on seasons, on society and on culture and they may just be an arbitrary quantity but they can be measured. In fact if we agree on a unit and reference frame for measurement and call it for instance Psi, hemlines will become a physical quantity.

$\Lambda&space;=&space;\textrm{Cosmological&space;Constant}$

$\Psi&space;=&space;\textrm{Hemlines&space;Constant}$

Furthermore, hemlines do not claim to give any deep, absolute and fundamental truth about totality by faking to be a scientific quantity. In this regard too cosmological constant looses to hemlines in terms of scientific character.

Also, is there really a place where the value of the cosmological constant is plotted as it varied since its creation a century ago to compare it with the hemlines? Since the same theory holds for financial markets maybe recently out-of-work quants may be of help here?

If the unit of archiving were to be numbered Physical Quantities instead of physics papers the story of the cosmological constant would not have been buried in specialized physics papers.

# Physics is not a synonym for science

• Science and religion
• Science and legal
• Science and physics
• Science and politics
• Science and not-science

Science + politics = physics

Legal unit + a legal language to manipulate legal units = A legal system

The legal unit of physics is the physical quantity. The legal language used to manipulate legal units is called Mathematin.

Physical quantity + Mathematin = Physics

The most important question that faces a criticism of academic physics is that physics appears to work.

Physics successfully describes the “physical” world, physicists claim.

Physics started as a reaction to the 18th century problems and it’s still stuck there. Because as a legal system physics must carry from generation to generation an immense legal baggage that continually grows. In science, what is found to be junk is dumped. In legal systems the junk is glorified. This is common knowledge e.g., in this video Leon Lederman talks about an 18th century physicist coming to our time and being shocked by everything except physics education. He would feel at home in a physics classroom.

One of the 18th century issues was the relation of science and religion. The Newtonian whig version of history of science defined a historical item called Scientific Revolution that was fought by Galileo and friends against religious doctors. In fact, Galileo and friends revolted against Doctors of Philosophy not against Doctors of Theology. They were against scholasticism and against professional doctors whose faith was Aristotle.

Such a problem does not exist anymore. Religion is no threat to science. But the same professional Doctors of Philosophy are still a threat to science. Today they call themselves not Peripatetics but physicists.

Today religion is clearly labeled religion and consumers are free to believe in it or not.

The opposite of science is not religion. The opposite of science is legal.

Legal includes law, medicine, religion and physics.

Science starts with the realization that axioms are independent of mechanics. Mechanics is the legal. The mechanics of Ptolemy could save both axioms of stationary earth and moving earth. Professional doctors make their living and gain their authority by claiming that their mechanics is the true mechanics that saves the axiom. Physicists still stuck in this pre-scientific state. They still claim that Big Bang is saved by observations.

The mechanics parts of physics will work. This is what mechancics means. Mechanics is curve fitting. It’s curve fitting in the sense that algorithms are adjusted, fine-tuned and new terms and processes and units and constants and physical quantities are added until the mechanics successfully saves the phenomena. It took Newtonian mechanics about 200 years of the best minds of European scholasticism to develop and perfect. It’s hard to think that Newtonian mechanics was once the cutting edge of research in physics. Now it’s textbook stuff and it’s closed for questioning. It’s become mechanics. It works. It is consistent.

Mechanics is modular. Physicists continue to work on modules that are still open. Open means that the module has not yet been made consistent with the rest of physics. Usually, it is enough to make a module consistent with a legal node. Since physics is consistent you can reach any node from any other node. But physicists have been trying to unify three inconsistent parts of physics for a long time. So there are inconsistencies? Yes. Those are inconsistent unit systems. Force is the overall standard of unit that converts every physical quantity into another. Just like money converts incompatible items into money and make exchange possible. Any physical quantity in physics can be converted into force. Or this was true before Einstein meddled with force and physicists had to invent a realm where force supposedly did not work as the universal conversion factor. Although, the unit of force G has been incorporated into Einstein’s supposedly forceless equations. Quantum mechanics or particle physics is also a problem because physicists invented new forces in that realm and they don’t know how to convert those to Newtonian force.

The origin of the problem is physicists’ misunderstanding of F = ma and F = GMm/r2. Physicists read F = GMm/r2 as “Force is proportional to one over r squared” and imagine that there must be a singularity at r=0. In order to solve this non-existent singularity physicists negotiated among themselves the philosophical polemics called Quantum Mechanics. In other words, physicists taught to get rid of the singularity they invented because they could not give up their absolute faith in Newton’s authority and tried to fake the singularity by blurring it. In the 1970s a new generation of physicists thought that instead of blurring they could postulate a vibrating string to solve the same self-inflicted singularity. So this is how the string theory was discovered. So these giant scholastico-philosophical edifices called Quantum Mechanics and String Theory have their root in physicists’ misunderstanding of force. The three incompatible parts of physics General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and String Theory are Newton’s gift to physicists. This is what happens if you carry all those 18th century baggage to the 21st century.

The singularity disappears when Kepler’s definition of density is accepted as fundamental. In other words, when Newton’s sacred authority is questioned. Physicists so far cannot do that. Instead they keep proving to themselves that Newtonian force works in ever shorter distances, they keep measuring Newton’s constant G to ever higher and higher precision making G the least known of all political constants. It’s just minor detail that none of higher precision measurements of G was ever duplicated by hostile parties as dictated by the physics propaganda. It just doesn’t occur to physicists to dump force and see 1/R2 = R/T2. If you are indoctrinated for over two decades with the Newtonian religion . . . what else do you expect.

# Dark flaw of physics

Scientists have found a Dark Flaw in physics!
This physical flaw is legalism.
The Dark Flaw of physics is the Physical Quantity
Physics is the study of Physical Quantities
A Physical Quantity is a legal entity
A Physical Quantity is defined the same way a legal clause in any legal code is defined
Then what is the relationship of a physical quantity with the physical world?
There is no physical world. The world is not legal. There is natural world.
Physical is a loaded word. Physical is physical doublespeak. Physical is physical corruption.
Physicists defined

physical = nature = newtonian

Physicists have put science in this semantic prison. Science must be freed from physicists’ corrupt monopoly.