The great chain of absurd

pioneer1 — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 18:09:14 CST

What is absurd?

Absurd is the belief that nature is irrational.

Absurd is the conclusion you reach when you compare apples and oranges.

Absurd is what results when it is legal to use mixed proportionalities in science.

Like everything else in physics, the legalization of the absurd in physics can be traced back to Newton, the founder of physics.

I.B. Cohen, the eminent Newton commentator who translated Newton’s Principia more times than anybody else, has this to say about Newton’s legalization of the absurd in Physics:

“In the Principia Newton boldly set forth mixed proportions. Unlike his predecessors, he would state that a quantity is proportional to a quantity of a wholly different kind. That is, Newton did not restrict himself to propositions of the form: a given velocity is to a second velocity as the first time is to a second time.”

Cohen continues that Newton abandoned the traditional rules, writing such expressions as

“The force as the distance of the body from the center of the ellipse;”
book 1, prop. 10, cor.1

“The centripetal force is … inversely as the square of the distance
SP” book 1, prop. 11

“a centripetal force that is inversely proportional to the square of the
distance.” book 1, prop. 13, corol. 1.

Cohen concludes:

“In this way Newton freed the mathematical description of nature from the restricting bonds of ancient rules.”

In other words Newton invented the polemical physics equation and legalized the absurd.

What is this ancient rule that Newton freed us from?

This ancient rule is: Do not compare apples and oranges.

If you compare apples and oranges your result will be absurd. Newton made comparing apples and oranges legal.

I.B. Cohen is one of the greatest Newton apologists of all times, and predictably he praises Newton for legalizing the absurd and creating the first link in the great chain of absurd now called physics.

Newton freed physics from the shackles of rationalism. Newton legalized the absurd in physics. Therefore, Newton paved the way for the modern physics as a profession in the periphery of the entertainment industry. Newton was such a genius in so many ways!

How did Newton get away with comparing apples and oranges?

Cohen may have overlooked the simple fact that this ancient rule Newton violated is still valid today. If you compare apples and oranges you would get absurd results. Either there was a discontinuity in the validity of this ancient rule during Newton’s time, or more likely, Newton did not compare apples and oranges.

In the examples given by Cohen Newton is comparing force to distance.

F = 1/rr

would be awfully familiar to modern physicists. This would have been a comparison of apples and oranges only if this were a proportionality.

Note that a physicist is someone who is afflicted with a rare disease which afflicts only academic physicists: An academic physicist is distinguished by his inability to tell a proportionality from a definition. So a physicist would look at

F =1/rr

and see a proportionality.

F = 1/rr

is nothing other than a definition made by Newton. Why is this a definition? Because Newton cancels F to make calculations. Repeat: F cancels. In a proportionality you cannot cancel a term without destroying the rule.

How did Newton get away with comparing apples an oranges?

Is nature irrational and absurd because Newton says so. No. Nature is rational. Newton is a fraud. Modern physicists are fools who believe in Newton's absolute authority.

Newton is not comparing force to distance in the above examples. Newton is comparing nothing. He is making a definition. Newton is spinning his usual dynamical yarn in order to obfuscate that he is using Kepler’s law to make astronomical calculations.

Newton divided Kepler’s law in two and labeled each part F. Half of a proportionality is not a proportionality. Half of a proportionality is a definition. This is impossible to grasp for physicists who are afflicted with the aforementioned disease.

When Newton wants to fool us that nature is Newtonian, occult and irrational, he uses his definitions and claims they are proportionalities. When Newton wants to make astronomical calculations to fool us into believing that nature obeys “Newton’s dynamical laws” Newton cancels Newton’s force he added to Kepler’s law and makes his calculations without Newton’s force but still claims that he is using Newton’s force. Would you buy a used horse carriage from this low life British occultist doctor?

Newton’s disciples the modern physicists still do things exactly their master Newton told them to do 300 years ago. Physicists write down all those superfluous Fs and Ms as a prayer to Newton and then cancel them.

Nature is rational.

Physics is irrational.

What is irrational is absurd.

Academic physics is based on saving Newton's absurd authority.

Also see: Open letter to academic physicists

Physics and design

pioneer1 — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 20:19:42 CST

What is the relationship of physics and design?

Physicists use many design concepts such as symmetry but they call them physical concepts.

I argue that there is no need to study physics to use design concepts. In order to use design concepts well one must study design not physics.

What do you think?

Freedom of science

Big Bang and CMB

pioneer1 — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 22:53:27 CST

What is the relation between Cosmic Background Radiation and Big Bang?

It appears to me that CMB gives no information about Big Bang but cosmologists use it as the experimental verification of the Big Bang.

What am I missing? What do you think?

Physics and data analysis

pioneer1 — Sun, 14 Jan 2007 21:45:36 CST

Today physics education consists of teaching Newtonian doctrine mixed with data analysis techniques.

This is a strange mixture.

As the result of their education physicists truly believe that when they do data analysis they are doing Newtonian physics!!

To me data analysis and Newtonian doctrine are two different subjects with no relation.

I am trying to understand the relationship between data analysis and physics. I asked this question before but I did not get a clear answer.

Can any one who never studied physics do data analysis?

For instance do I need to know any physics at all to analyze the Cosmic Microwave Radiation?

Is Newtonism a religion?

pioneer1 — Sun, 14 Jan 2007 21:25:54 CST

The professionals whose job is to answer this question are the physicists and they are Newtonians.

A Newtonian cannot evaluate if Newtonism is a religion. Newtonian physicists are unable to answer this question because they are burdened by conflict of interest. Their answer would not be valid in a court of law.

What do you think?

Home

pioneer1 — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 20:41:41 CST