# Densytics and physics

Can densytics explain all phenomena that physics tries to explain?

What are the phenomena that physics tries to explain?

- How many angels were dancing on a God particle three seconds before God created the universe by dividing infinity by zero?

- What is god thinking at a given moment stated mathematically with group theory, category theory and symmetry breaking in infinite dimensional string theory?

Densytics cannot explain these religious ruminations favored by the standing army of doctors of philosophy doing business as physicists but we can explain with densytics

- orbital motion.

Physics cannot explain orbital motion except as forceful and dynamical fantasy invented by Newton.

# Physics and fame

Sabine at Backreaction realized that in physics authority is proportional to fame. She does not say it in so many words, but she is obviously wondering why a physicist such as Lisa Randall who is a relentless marketer and promoter of herself has so much authority than Sabine herself. The answer is simple. Physics lives in symbiosis with Big Media, Big School and Big Government. The government pays the school who pays the physicist and gives physicist authority; physicists supply mythological  content to the media and the media gives back fame… This reminded me the following draft which I am publishing now…

* * *

Lisa Randall’s physical attributes, anatomical specifications and her affiliations with organized religion have no relevance in her work. Remember, all humans are human.

On the other hand, I may make a legitimate connection, for instance, with Newton’s appearance and his science, namely, the elaborate wig Newton wears and the kind of book he writes. The wig is an authority symbol symbolizing Newton’s grand master status in the scholastic hierarchy.

But today there are no such visible authority symbols. We are living in a more sophisticated society. In our society there is only one authority symbol: fame.

Why? Because the only unit the Big Media understands is fame. The only criteria the Big Media uses to judge and to evaluate human beings is fame. Consequently, the only unit the audience of the Big Media uses to judge other human beings is also fame. Most people who buy Lisa Randall’s book buy it because she is famous.

So someone with manufactured fame such as Lisa Randall, gets all the attention, while a physicist working in the trenches, or teaching and doing useful scientific work gets no credit at all. A previous commenter mentioned that he has been writing about extra dimensions without getting the recognition enjoyed by Lisa Randall.

And when you look at history, you would see that it was Newton who created the scientist as a deity institution. Before Newton only tyrants and rulers were allowed to deify themselves. Fame is deification for the people. Newton invented the category of the modern shaman to which both Lisa Randall and Brian Greene belongs. That’s why Newton is buried in Westminster Abbey in the most elaborately baroque tomb ever for a scholastic doctor to be buried in.

# Is academic physics a quantitative hard science?

if physics were a quantitative science, mathematics used by physicists should be strictly about manipulation of quantities. But physicists use the equations as vehicle for casuistry filled with qualitative terms. If an equation has more than one interpretation it is casuistry, not a relationship between quantities. This means that if an equation cannot be reduced to a proportionality (all terms in a proportionality are quantities) it is casuistry and sophistry. Therefore, it is clear that physicists corrupted mathematics and turned it into their vehicle of casuistry. The professional ancestors of physicists used Latin as their vehicle of casuistry, today’s scholastic doctors doing business as physicists use Mathematics as their vehicle of casuistry.

# How corrupt is physics?

Is it a coincidence that there are so many books about how corrupt physics has become?

Do you know others?

# Bankrupting physics

The state of physics as described in Bankrupting physics by Alexander Unzicker and Sheilla Jones:

A particularly worrying symptom of the current state of affairs in physics is the so-called discovery of the Higgs boson at CERN. The media-hyped announcement in 2012 has been followed up by a series of announcements each installment making the case that the big sensation is “increasingly more likely”. But what was actually discovered were a number of unexplained signals obtained by extensive filtering methods, raising many questions for everyone who takes a sober perspective. Nobody can claim to oversee the analysis of the massive pile of data produced by CERN’s collider experiments.

Nevertheless, these signals are pushed to serve as evidence for the long-theorized Higgs boson supporting the “standard model” of particle physics, although this standard model is not even a well-defined theory. Such an interpretation speaks more of desperation to validate the past six decades of research and to shore up a model that is wobbling precariously under the weight of all the bits and pieces glued onto it to make it work.

I can hear the protests of physicists who conveyed the message in good faith. But they had little choice. The CERN particle search is the most expensive experiment ever conducted, and the thousands of scientists doing high-energy research there had to celebrate any outcome as a breakthrough, if only to justify the billions of dollars of public money being spent.

# The limitless boundaries of physics

In the limits of science, Sabine Hossenfelder, a doctor of philosophy doing business under the trade name of “physicist”, reveals many interesting things about her profession, and since we had nothing better to do this weekend than writing a useless commentary on a useless academic apologia of physics, we wanted to highlight and comment on some of them.

* * *

Sabine wants to enlighten us by revealing to us the limits of science but all we learn from her article is that casuistry in physics has no limits.

Where are the limits of science?

I reread the article by paying close attention to sentences where the word science occurs and after a painstaking scientific analysis I figured that Sabine uses this absurd definition for science:

science is the absolute true knowledge with error bars

There are other hidden assumptions that Sabine assumes secretly but fails to reveal to us because probably she believes that they are self-evident truths known to all of her readers. Some of these self-evident truths not worth mentioning are these:

– science is practiced only in the academia

– in the academia science is ordered in a hierarchy defined by a scientific hardness coefficient

– physics has the hardness coefficient of 1 and it is the only hard science and therefore physics is the only true science that can reveal true knowledge about the world (but with error bars)

– the rest of all sciences have hardness coefficients which are only a fraction of 1 and they are all soft sciences.

– social sciences are the worst and they are called “softies” and they probably have a hardness coefficient of 0.000001 which can be safely considered to be zero as compared to physics

Considering all these self-evident truths, it seems to me that it is a waste of Sabine’s time to defend physics against softies in such a long apologia of physics.

Furthermore, Sabine is a practitioner of physics — the only hard science with the coefficient of 1 — and therefore Sabine is not a softie. But an investigation of the limits of science is not physics. One cannot talk about “the physics of the limits of science” because science is not a physical quantity and therefore it is outside of the realm of physics. So everything Sabine says here is her opinion and by trying to defend physics as a hard science against the softies Sabine lowers herself into the ranks of softies.

But even though Sabine is not qualified to give professional advice outside of her narrow field of physics where she obtained a license to practice and teach, she is writing with the pretense that her status as a physicist gives her the right to pontificate in every subject on earth as long as she strategically distributes the word science throughout her pontification. There are several words we can use for someone who is projecting her limited professional expertise to realms where she is nothing more than a layman. A charlatan comes to mind, but of course we don’t want to use that word in relation to a practitioner of the hard science of physics with the hardness coefficient of 1.

Physics has the hardness coefficient of 1 but it is still better to be a softie than to be a physicist because a physicist is an underpaid apparatchik in the hierarchy of the Brotherhood of the Vis and does not fit the definition of a free-thinking scientist as used in any field except in physics itself.

A soft scientist, defined as soft by physicists of course, is an academic who practices science with softer doctrines than dogmatic doctrines of physics faith, and consequently is a better scientist because he is open to think for himself and is also a better human being.

# Sabine the philosopher

In this article Learned Doctor Sabine Hossenfelder compares academic philosophers with academic physicists. She assumes secretly a cartoon stereotype of philosopher invented by Newton and she secretly assumes an idealized image of physicists as perfect scientists who never ever define a symbol in their equations multiple times. (The opposite is actually true. I dare Sabine to come up with one legal physics equation where all symbols are uniquely defined.) Then she arrogantly attacks philosophers as idiots who argue with “empty words”. Sabine’s problem is really with philosophers who dare to write on subjects physicists claim ownership. We are supposed to believe that this academic turf wars between two types of Learned Doctors is a scientific issue.

This stereotype of philosopher as scholastic sophist was invented by Newton. Why did Newton define philosophers as anti-science even though he himself was a Doctor of Philosophy? Well, of course, to define himself and his followers as true scientists.

How did Newton define philosophers?

When Newton entered Cambridge as a student the place like all educational institutions in Europe was ruled by Doctors of Theology. Their professional cousin, Doctor of Philosophy who were known as Peripatetics, were not as powerful as they are today. Sabine has in mind this cartoon stereotype of hair splitting peripatetic philosopher and uses it as her straw man. She is referring to a cartoon stereotype of philosopher invented by Newton and his disciples to glorify themselves and their profession. Sabine is trying to sell us this physics propaganda as history.

What is the historical fact?

Newton successfully combined philosophy and mathematics for the first time under the cover of the same book and created a new academic field called natural philosophy which morphed into physics in the nineteenth century.

Newton and his disciples and his successors are Doctors of Philosophy by profession. These Learned Doctors are nothing more than corrupt academics and professional sophists. They don’t even deserve the title of philosopher. Physicists are more like slick lawyers than philosophers.

After Newton’s successful coup to replace Aristotle with himself as the new master of the European scholasticism they defined Doctors of Philosophy they supposedly replaced during the scientific revolution as the anti-science who spent their time writing commentary with empty words.

And Newtonians defined themselves as scientists who did not deal with casuistry and sophistry but worked only with quantities expressed in mathematical symbols. We all know this claim is bogus. Newton and his disciples defined themselves as true scientists who modeled nature with the precise language of mathematics while continuing their philosophizing by using the authority of mathematics.

Today, these Learned Doctors corrupted even mathematics and turned it into their vehicle of sophistry and casuistry. Sabine is still trying to fool us into believing that academic physics is a quantitative science.

Newton also initiated the academic turf wars between DOT and DOP because Newtonians grabbed the right to philosophize on cosmogony and cosmology from the ownership of DOT. Today your creation mythologies are designed and served to you by DOP. The more important academic turf war is not between philosophers and physicists but between DOP and DOT. These two types of Learned Doctors are still fighting the same war with each other for the soul of recruits to fill their classrooms. In our time, mostly due to Newton’s authority and because Newtonism has become the state religion, education is ruled by DOP. Don’t forget DOP and DOT are teachers, they both want to increase their market share.

Sabine Hossenfelder like all academic physicists is a philosopher by profession and practices philosophy with the language of mathematics. She is the modern representative of scholastic philosopher Newton branded as the anti-science.

Newton and his disciples are the Doctors of Philosophy; they have always been DOP; DOP are philosophical sophists who spend their time inventing creation mythologies for the rulers who pay them through grants channeled through schools where DOPs are perched. That’s why Sabine is still trying to sell us the same physics propaganda she learned from Newton. She thinks that by insulting philosophers as wordsmiths she is elevating herself and physicists to the level of scientists. DOP invented the art of sophistry and doublespeak and physicists are DOP; physicists are expert sophists. Sabine and academic physicists are philosophical sophists and charlatans doing business as physicists. Not to mention that physicists build all the mass destruction weapons in the world. What a despicable people these physicists are!

# Why do physicists believe that particles are pointlike?

A.O. Tell is a theoretical physicist and this is how he answers the question Why do physicists believe that particles are pointlike?

Elementary particles don’t really have a shape or a size, these are emergent qualities that stem from interactions between particles.

physics is the study of shapeless and sizeless qualities.

So much for the physicists’ claim that physics is a quantitative hard science. I guess physicists study qualities quantitatively.

According to A.O. Tell

particle physics is the study of formless and sizeless emergent qualities that emerge from the interaction between formless and sizeless emergent qualities.

The study of the physical properties of shapeless and sizeless non-physical qualities is called academic scholasticism. Physicists reduced the old science of physics into academic scholasticism and turned it into sciencelike shamanism.

Physicists represent a particle as a mathematical point but endow that mathematical point with physical properties.

Just like their professional ancestors who called themselves “Peripatetics”, physicists are Doctors of Philosophy who are in the business of corrupting mathematics and physics to further their academic career.

# Hidden Philosophical Foundations of Physics

Physicists claim to reveal the deepest hidden secrets of the universe but will never reveal the secret philosophical assumptions in the foundations of physics. Physicists will never let us know that their “physical” universe is a product of their secret assumptions. Instead, physicists claim that they discover properties of the world by conducting experiments. This is one of the greatest frauds in the history of science.

* * *

Is a professional physicist qualified to write as an expert on a philosophical subject?

I have in mind this philosophical discourse written by Matt Strassler, an academic physicist.

Here are a few of the attributes defining an academic physicist:

$\\\textup{academic&space;physicist&space;=&space;Learned&space;Doctor&space;of&space;Philosophy}&space;\\\textup{academic&space;physicist&space;=&space;Professor&space;of&space;Secrets}&space;\\\textup{academic&space;physicist&space;=&space;Defender&space;of&space;the&space;Faith}&space;\\\textup{academic&space;physicist&space;=&space;Doctor&space;of&space;Casuistry}$

* * *

Is Strassler a qualified professional to write a philosophical commentary on one of the oldest philosophical topics, namely, the indivisible?

The answer is No. Even Strassler admits in his Rutgers website that he is an expert only in three academic fields: Particle physics, Quantum Field Theory and String Theory. Philosophy is not in this list.

Strassler is not a qualified professional who can lecture us as an expert on the indivisibility of the electron because the indivisibility is not a physics problem.

The question of indivisibility is a philosophical problem; it is not a problem that can be investigated or resolved by an application of legal physics equations. Here “philosophical” simply means “free of physics”.

Strassler is licensed to practice legal physics only on a very narrow field of academic physics; outside that narrow field Strassler is a layman like everybody else. He has no scientific authority outside his narrow specialty.

Furthermore, Strassler may call himself a “physicist” and define “physicist” as a synonym with “scientist” but he is really in the business of monetizing his absurdly long investment of time to learn the archaic methods of legal physics. The traditional method that Learned Doctors of all types have been using to monetize their academic learning is called the Professional Racket. What is Professional Racket? You know it very well, the method is used by all professional classes: Hide information wholesale, sell it retail:

Professional Racket == Hide information wholesale sell it retail

That’s why Learned Doctors are also called Professors of Secrets: they claim to “discover” knowledge they’ve hidden and sell it as absolute truth.

* * *

Did Strassler study philosophy during his long physics education? No. On the contrary, he was indoctrinated to despise philosophy and history. For Strassler, physics sits above all other academic fields and physicists have the academic authority to overrule historical facts.

Strassler’s education consisted of learning how to shuffle legal physics equations and learning how to reduce data by using antiquated statistical methods canonized in the legal physics code. In academic physics “reducing data” means using statistical sophistry on some white noise to suggest statistical exceptions that will be said to prove a theoretical physics scenario sponsored by a global power using academic physics as a cover for its military research.

* * *

Strassler is a fish in the legal sea of physics; the world outside the legal sea of physics does not exist for him. Unfortunately for us Strassler has the academic authority to enforce that the universe is limited to his sea of physics and that his sea of physics is the whole universe. This is yet another deception trademarked by Learned Doctors. These charlatans are masters of defining what they know as the only true knowledge. These charlatans don’t know the entirety of the universe, so they defined what they know as the entire universe.

* * *

These are Strassler’s true areas of expertise:

– Shuffling legal physics equations
– Reducing data by statistical methods
– Teaching elementary physics to new recruits
– Saving the doctrine by casuistry

None of which gives him expertise to discuss philosophical topics. As a physicist Strassler enjoys the absolute authority to define new words and redefine and corrupt existing words. It is a simple matter for him to define his casuistry to be “physics”. And so he does. Strassler claims to decide the question of the indivisibility of the electron by physical arguments while all he does is sophistry.

* * *

Strassler’s philosophical commentary on the divisibility of the electron is nothing more than propaganda in the service of the doctrine.

Therefore, not only Strassler is not qualified to write about a philosophical topic (which simply means a topic outside of legal physics) but he is incapable of analyzing properly a philosophical problem without corrupting it and turning it into casuistic, self-serving physics propaganda. This is proved by the article we referred to. We will expose Strassler’s polemical sophistry and casuistry by looking at his commentary sentence by sentence.

But how can Strassler get away with calling such blatant ideological physics propaganda a scientific argument? The answer is very clear. There is no independent authority in academic physics to check, inspect, audit, examine or supervise Strassler’s writings. He is a self-anointed Learned Doctor of Philosophy who claims to have absolute authority in everything he writes about, no matter what the subject is.

Strassler writes a philosophical commentary on a philosophical topic and presents it as physics. The deception is clear: Strassler claims that because he calls himself a physicist, and he defined the word “physicist” to be a synonym for the word “scientist”, everything he writes no matter what, must be considered scientific discourse.

But the contrary is actually true.

Nothing Strassler writes in the name of physics can pass the test of scientific logic, simply because Strassler is not bound by the scientific logic (i.e., Aristotelian logic) but he practices the legal logic of physics. Legal logic is the old art of casuistry based on the authoritative assertion that all contradictory meanings of a loaded word are true and false, case by case, as needed. The professional casuist decides which meaning is true in what context.

In legal logic there are no contradictions. For Strassler contradiction does not exist, that is why he can combine contradictory words such as “point particle” and use each of the contradictory terms casuistically and claim both meanings are true when he says so. That’s why he can call a wave a particle and write long casuistic polemics to justify why a wave is a particle… and why a wave is not a particle when Strassler says so.

* * *

The funny thing is that Strassler is a philosopher by profession. His professional title is Doctor of Philosophy. His professional ancestors are the Doctors of Philosophy who would not look through Galileo’s telescope. But Strassler is a “philosopher” in the worst sense of the word; he is a polemical sophist serving the brotherhood of physics.

Strassler is the personification of sophistry: He is a philosopher who denies that he is a philosopher but makes his living by philosophizing and calls his philosophizing physics!

* * *

Strassler’s writings are worth analyzing only because his writings are perfect specimens of casuistry and sophistry. Strassler’s posts read like material out of Aristotle’ On Sophistical Refutations. But there is nothing so special about Strassler’s writings, the same casuistry and sophistry is routinely used by all physicists. Here’s another good example. So what we say here applies to all academic physicists, not only to Strassler. He is more visible than the others and he’s been laying the groundwork to start a career as a Professor of Secrets to reveal the hidden secrets of the world supposedly by shuffling physics equations. This is the deception that needs to be exposed.

# # #