Alphysics Home | Freedom of Science | Alphysics | ___ | Densytics | Polls

Comments

Latest comment by Pioneer1

Pioneer1 Says:

May 19th, 2007 at 12:40 pm

RB–

I believe physics is lost too. Can you please give specific examples about Nobel prizes awarded on experimental physics which are ignored by conventional science?

angryphysicist —

What is the connection between tensor notation and the orbits? I don’t think NASA uses tensors to compute orbits. All you need is period and radius of the orbit.

Thanks.

May 20th, 2007 at 3:37 pm

Okay, I’ve now visited the referenced website. The problem is that it has no numbers. But there is something to be said for the philosophy.

Carl,

Thanks for visiting Freedom of Science. I checked your site and I value your work. I put a link in my blog and I hope to continue reading it. Please comment there too. That would help me develop those ideas or debunk them.

Yes, you are right, most of what I write has no numbers in them. But using numbers is not a requirement to make a scientific statement. And using numbers does not guarantee scientific content. Physicists routinely make statements with numbers in them but since they define any number to have any value they want their numbers are corrupted and mean nothing. In physics zero can have any value. Infinity can have any value. G can have any value. Pysicists routinely set G = 1 = 0.0000006. In a field where 1 = 0.0000006 or anything physicists want it to be there can be no science. Numbers in physics are corrupted.

But, more to topic, if we are talking about General Relativity, where are the numbers in Einstein Equations? Einstein equations is a definition. You cannot use “Einstein equations” in any calculations. You need solutions. And there are an infinite number of solutions. A physicist can pick and choose a solution and attach to it a suitable geometry or algebra and define a world scenario.

When there are infinite solutions for the equations those equations cannot give a valid description of the world.

Thanks for your comments. And thanks again to angryphysicist for starting this blog. I think he hit a nerve in the physics community whether he realizes it or not. I hope he would keep posting.

May 21st, 2007 at 7:43 pm

Um, G isn’t a number, it’s a constant with different values in different scale systems.

Yes, you are right. G is not a number. Thanks for pointing this out. My apologies also to physicists for bringing up corruption while it was my stupidity not recognizing that different values of G are just unit conversions. So, instead of having different labels for different units, like foot and inches, physicists keep the label G constant and change the number.

But the strange thing is that I knew about this! For instance, I have written here that G is k in British units.

But more importantly I disagree that G is a constant (of nature). G is a defined unit, just like foot or meter. Would you say that meter is a constant of nature? OK, I agree that there is a lot of evidence that meter looks like a constant of nature as can be shown with this scenario: Consider an alien trying to understand the earth. He would soon notice that in what we call Europe most lengths are multiples of meter. Then he would notice that in North America most lengths are multiples of a different unit. These two units would indeed look like some kind of position dependent constants.

But G is not a constant of nature, it is a defined unit. G is simply the proportionality constant in Kepler’s rule. Newton in his Principia used Earth-Venus distance as this constant. Then it became Kepler’s constant tied to Earth-Sun distance then in the 19th century hard core British Newtonists converted k into British units and called it G in order to make astronomy British. This is the greatest scientific fraud in history of humanity. Since the British and the Europeans lost the control of astronomical constants to the US in the 1960s I expect that in the next stage of G the US Bureau of Standard would set G to unity and call it the universal constant of stars and stripes. I think that sounds really good. And this would be great for physics. Theoretical physicists would no longer worry about setting G to unity. G will be officialy unity.

No reason to worry, the rest of physics will not be effected. G is independent of the rest of physics. Again, proving my point that G is a defined unit.

Thanks again for pointing this out. I am not such a fast thinker as you are so it will take me some time to reply to your other points.

May 23rd, 2007 at 3:40 am

G is a constant of nature.

I see where you are coming from when you say that “G is a constant of nature.” But there is no evidence for this. It is a physics mythology that G is a constant of nature.

And Cavendish could not have discovered G because he was dead when G was defined. It is well documented that G was defined by Sir Vernon Boys in the 19th century about 100 years after Cavendish died. He simply converted Kepler’s constant k then in use in astronomy into British units and called it G, Newton’s universal constant of gravity.

You can check for yourself Cavendish’s paper and see that there is no mention of G in it. G is neither discovered nor invented but it was defined as a unit. You can also take a look at Einstein’s original equations where Einstein is still using k, not G. This also proves that G replaced k by unit conversion.

So it is not true that G is a constant of nature. The fact that physicists are inflicted with institutional amnesia and they have forgotten that they defined G as a unit does not mean that G is a constant of nature.

Physicists must get their act together and start questioning Newton’s ancient authority marketed to them by the 19th century British dogmatic Newtonians as truth. Physicists themselves defined G as a unit for convenience and as “ease of measurement” as you say, (and also for political reasons) and then they forgot that they did. G is no different than the Astronomical Unit. AU is not a constant of nature. Neither is G.

I think it is a big joke to call G a constant of nature. The sooner physicists correct this mistake the better. I first thought that physicists looked like old scholastic doctors when they reified a defined unit into a constant of nature. But now I think that physicists look more like fools who mistook a unit they defined for a constant of nature.

Wikipedia even quotes Nobel Laureate Frank Wilzeck reiterating his belief that G is a constant of nature. So this is not something that you can brush aside as a minor textbook mistake that should not be taken seriously. On the contrary physicists are in deep delusion about Newtonian nature of the world and must take this problem seriously. In physics Newton’s authority is sacred and the reason G exists as a constant of nature with a grandiose Newtonian label is to save Newton’s authority. The sooner Newton and his authority is dumped from physics the better.

I think free physics blogs such as yours is doing a great service to physics by revealing the hermetic nature of physics. Only in a hermetic and cabalistic closed brotherhood such as physics defined units would become absolute constants of nature to save the authority of the founder.

Thanks against for taking the time to reply. I appreciate it.

May 24th, 2007 at 4:33 am

Thanks for your comment. This has been helpful.

You are right I may be confused about the word “constant” as used in physics because it has many different meanings. I started a page in my wiki to disambiguate the word constant and I would appreciate if you care to look at it and help edit the page.

Let me say that I am not talking about the numeric value of G. I agree with angryphysicist’s correction to my original comment. I understand that G as a defined unit may have different values the way different length units may be called meter, inch, foot etc.

But do you agree that there is a difference between a defined unit such as a meter and a constant of nature? Can you please explain the difference?

I am saying that G is a defined unit.

I believe that what is called “Kepler’s constant” is a defined unit even though it is called a constant. Kepler’s constant is just the Astronomical Unit expressed in conventional units. In the nineteenth century British astronomers converted the defined unit k to defined unit G. Does this make sense? There is no “constant of nature” here. (Unless you believe that Astronomical Unit is a constant of nature.)

Kepler’s constant is the conventional proportionality constant for Kepler’s rule. For political reasons, British physicists made a unit conversion on k and gave it a fancy Newtonian name.

They also associated G with Cavendish experiment. Then Cavendish experiment entered physics textbooks as the first measurement of G. Since the nineteenth century physicists have been studying physics textbooks asserting that G is an experimental quantity which was observed by Cavendish. This way textbook propaganda transformed the defined unit G into an experimentally proved constant of nature. This is what physicists believe. There is no historical truth to this. G was defined 200 years after Cavendish’s death.

I would appreciate your comments about where the historical analysis above goes wrong. I haven’t yet checked the references given by Urs Schriber above so there may be relevant information which may be helpful. I’ll post a reply after I read it. Thanks.

May 24th, 2007 at 6:44 pm

John says:

A unit is a convention.

John:

Thanks so much for the comment. I have to read it carefully before writing about it. Today I read the references given by Urs so let me comment on that.

Urs:

That’s a great forum and a great discussion and I enjoyed reading it. I learned a lot. But, as quoted above, I believe that “a unit is a convention.”

So, for instance, Astronomical Unit (Earth-Sun distance) is a unit. AU is not a constant of nature. I believe everyone agrees to this. If I use Venus-Sun distance as unit, astronomy will remain the same.

I am saying that G, the *unit* of Newtonian force, is such a conventional unit. It doesn’t matter in what unit system we express G, it is still a conventional unit.

If it is a unit it is conventional. G is a unit therefore it is conventional. If it is conventional, then it is not a constant of nature. What is wrong with this reasoning?

Thanks again for the references.

May 26th, 2007 at 8:35 pm

Hi Urs,

I don’t understand how a unit is a choice of “a one-to-one correspondence between two mathematical sets” is a better description of “a unit is a convention,” or that they are equivalent.

I searched n-category cafe for related posts but nothing more than the ones you referenced showed up. I would appreciate some pointers to relevant literature. Would your terminology help understand if G is a unit or a constant of nature? Thnx.

May 27th, 2007 at 5:01 am

Pioneer how do you define a constant of nature and a conventional unit?

Angryphysicist–

I am not sure. I am trying to understand myself the difference between a conventional unit and a constant of nature.

This appears to be more specifically about G. Is G a constant of nature or a defined unit? My personal opinion is that a “constant of nature” is an artifact of the system of units. I labored all day yesterday and created these slides. I would appreciate it if you could look at them and let me know what you think. That’s my present understanding. It may change at any moment! Thanks.

May 27th, 2007 at 5:05 am

Sorry, link for the slides: http://www.alphysics.com/Slides/UnitStates_files/frame.htm

May 27th, 2007 at 1:09 pm

Slide 2: What you’re calling “rational unit” and “conventional unit” are really the same thing.

Can you explain why they are the same? I want to correct the slides.

But, personally, I think there is a difference. In rational units we are using the terms of proportionality as units. R1 and T1, in my example. We keep one of the terms constant and measure others with it.

In conventional units, we add an additional layer of units and measure rational units R1 and T1 with outside unit.

In rational units the terms do not have dimensions. They are the dimensions. When conventional units are introduced the original terms become dimensions under new units.

But going back to your example of measuring your height with a rod. In this case, you created a unit. You are the only one who uses that unit but still that’s a conventional unit.

If you take your own height as unit and measure everybody else as shorter and taller than you, you would be using rational units. The kind of information both units reveal are different.

May 28th, 2007 at 9:35 pm

…but that’s very much not how physicists derive G…. G is a very specific property of physical reality, independent of all choices of coordinates.

Ok, thanks for reviewing the slides. I think the distinction between rational units and conventional units may be trivial and it does not help understand if G is constant or a defined unit.

But how do physicists derive G? I believe that G is not derived from measurements but it is defined. G was defined in the nineteenth century as a replacement to k which was then used in astronomy. British physicists converted k into British units. The same British physicists defined an experiment conducted a century earlier as the posthumous measurement of G. The experiment referred to never measured G.

Do you agree on these historical facts? If you do then we have to look at k and discuss if k is a constant of nature.

For instance, let me label Archimedes’ constant Newton’s constant. Since Archimedes was an early Newtonian this makes sense. Archimedes’ Constant is now called Newton’s Universal Constant of Geometry G.

Would you agree that it is silly to discuss this G whether it is constant or defined unit? G is a defined unit. I just defined it. If we want to understand what Newton’s constant of Geometry G is we have to eliminate Newton’s authority and we have to look at Archimedes’ constant which came before it.

Similarly, if G is k in British units, G is a defined unit. G is just another name for k. So we need to look at k.

Thanks once again for the comments.

May 29th, 2007 at 9:24 pm

To just wave your hands past it as if I haven’t said it at all marks you out as being more interested in your own pet theory than the physical truth, and that’s the first sign of a crackpot.

Yes, actually, I was thinking the same thing. Maybe what I am saying is not correct. I would be the first one to give it up. angryphysicist pointed out that G was not a number and I have no problem with that. You pointed out that my distinction of units was trivial in practice. No problem with that. This is why I appreciate your comments. For me the important thing is to understand if G is a constant or defined unit, not being right or wrong.

I had actually written a reply to your previous comment about the definition of G but I never got around to posting it. I haven’t been ignoring it. There are lots of good comments in this thread.

To an excellent degree of accuracy in daily experience, any two bodies experience an attraction to each other that is proportional to each of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them, and depending on no other properties such as their materials. Do you agree or disagree?

I definitely disagree. You are describing an occult world with animistic intelligent matter endowed with Newton’s soul you call force. Such an “attraction” between matter has never been observed. And force is not necessary except to save Newton’s authority. The Newtonian force does not exist in nature. As you wrote before, definitions cannot be observed. Force is the fundamental definition of Newtonian physics and it must be taken by faith.

Now, this means that when I double the mass of one object (doubling makes sense independently of picking a system of units) or the other I double the force they experience.

This is not true. Your initial assumption is not correct. F :: 1/RR is not a proportionality. F is a placeholder for R/TT. Placeholders are labels and they don’t vary with other variables.

Please not that F::1/RR is comparing apples and oranges. This is Newton’s gift to modern physics. Newton legalized the absurd by making mixed proportionalities legal in physics. For thousands of years before Newton mathematicians knew that it was absurd to use mixed proportionalities. Newton’s authority notwitstanding it is still true that comparing apples and oranges will lead to absurdities. As is the case here.

1/RR is half of a proportionality. 1/RR is not a valid statement on its own. When you double R, R/TT does not double as you state. In the true proportionality, when you vary the distance the period varies as the power of 1.5.

Note that F cancels. It is a placeholder. So whatever you say about force is irrelevant. And when you cancel F, why do you keep G, the unit of force, in the equations? The force vanishes its unit stays! And what do you mean by multiplying two pieces of matter? m1 times m2 is a meaningless statement. Also please not that G on its own is a purely theoretical and useless concept, in astronomy only GM is used. As its name makes it clear G is a political slogan, not a constant of nature.

Please take a look at this article http://www.densytics.com/wiki/index.php?title=History_of_G . Comments as always appreciated. Thanks.

May 30th, 2007 at 5:50 pm

angryphysicists wrote on May 27:

Suppose you had a ruler, and it had some length say a meter. Suppose you want to measure your own height with it, then the length of your ruler is kept constant in order to measure other quantities with it; so a meter (the length of the ruler) is a “rational unit”.

angryphysicists: No, I meant to keep constant a term in a proportionality. Not to choose a unit which is already constant (like a rod) and keep it constant.

So, let’s say A is a term in a proportionality. A is a variable because each term in a proportionality varies. When we keep A constant it sets the scale. In this case there are no conventional units and there are no dimensions.

Then let’s measure A with a conventional unit, like meter. Then, convert A from meter to inches, to parsecs and so on. A remains invariant under unit transformations. Physicists look at A and say it is a constant of nature because it stays invariant under unit transformations. Does this make sense?

June 2nd, 2007 at 7:57 am

angryphysicist said:

Then I fail to see how any arbitrary length is not a constant of nature as when one changes the units one measures with it is the same length.

Yes! Exactly my point. None of the units are constants of nature. But physicists pick one unit among infinity of possible units and define it as a constant of nature.

Consider the speed of light. SOL is not a constant of nature. SOL is proportional to the medium. But physicists chose SOL in vacuum and defined it by authority to be a constant of nature. Physicists could have chosen the SOL in medium x and defined it as a constant of nature, but they chose the SOL in vacuum and they established it as a constant of na-ture by authority. The SOL in vacuum is no more privileged than the SOL in crystals.

The same is true for G. The constant G points to the constant term in the proportonality not to the proportionality itself.

Whoever defines a constant obtains power. That’s why when Stalin comes to power he changes the name of Tsaritsyn to Stalingrad. That’s why Newtonists define a unit of force Newton which is as superfluous as Aristotle, the unit of impetus.

Here’s a page discussing the problem by exploring your idea about all conventional units not being constants. If we take that as an axiom than we see that constants of nature are standardized units.

http://www.densytics.com/wiki/index.php?title=Unit_or_constant_of_nature_%28mathematical%29

June 2nd, 2007 at 8:19 am

John Armstrong wrote:

You can argue philosophically all you want, but at the end of the day nature has the last word, and these pro-portionalities are borne out in experiment after experiment.

It is clear from your usage of the word experiment that we have different understanding of what an experiment is.

An experiment has three parts:

If the experimental equation contains the terms A and B, the results can only contain the terms A and B. In other words, if

equation(A,B)

and

result(A,B,C)

this is not a scientific experiment.

If a term C which is not in the equation appears magically in the results this is called a polemical physics experiment where a physicist used a gadget as a false witness to save Newton’s authority.

In the case of G, physicists must eliminate F from equations in order to make astronomical computations. F does not enter the equations used in observations or computations. But F magically appears in physicists’ results. Physicists never measure a quantity represented by F but at the end of the day F magically appears in the results. There is a name for this method. It is called scholasticism. And authority symbols appearing in the results of polemical experiments are called dormitive virtues. Physics is full of dormitive virtues the most famous of which is the force appearing and disappearing from equations according to physicists’ wishes.

Re Cavendish experiment:

It is a historical fact that Cavendish was dead when G was defined. You believe that the measurement of G by a dead British landed gentry is an experiment. This is your (and physicists’) understanding of experiment.

I say that Cavendish did not measure G because he was dead. Which one of these statements do you think would be a valid statement if we insist on scientific rationalism as the standard of evidence. The standard of evidence in physics is the absurd. Not coincidentally, it was Newton who established absurd as the standard of evidence in physics.

I am offering to you experimental proof that Cavendish did not measure G. You are asserting by your authority that Cavendish measured G never mind that he was dead.

Your denial of historical facts I think is making impossible to resolve the issue of the nature of G. To me argument by authority is not valid, other than that, I would be the first one to dismiss any statement I make if you have a valid argument against it.

Historical facts come before physics notation because physics and mathematics cannot decide existence. If G does not exist it is irrelevant what dimensions it has.

The following are the historical facts I have been writing about:

These three historical facts combined with the following proves that G is not an experimental quantity and it is not a constant of nature.

You do not have any arguments against these.

But thanks for agreeing that textbooks misrepresent the Cavendish experiment. To me this is very important.

Physics is teaching young impressionable minds who just started their education that they have measured Newton’s Soul with a toy pendulum factory set to oscillate with the required period so that when the period is applied to standard formulas a conventional value of G is obtained. This is fraud. This fraud should be taken very seriously. You cannot dismiss Cavendish experiment as mere high school physics. The experimental nature of physics has been undermined by this charade of Cavendish lab taught to every physics student as an experimental verification of the Newtonian occult. Cavendish lab is a religious miracle asserted as a scientific experiment. This is a fundamental problem.

Thanks again for helping me understand this issue.

June 4th, 2007 at 6:21 pm

angryphysicist said:

But Pioneer, there is a fundamental difference between a quantity invariant under coordinate reparametrizations and constants of nature.

I don’t understand what this means. Is this something like parametric equations? The first item on google search was an arxiv paper and they seem to be substituting parameters for coordinates. If so I don’t see why this is relevant to G.

It seems by your scrutiny, a “Constant of Nature” is undefinable. Indeed you admitted previously that “My personal opinion is that a ‘constant of nature’ is an artifact of the system of units.” Well, what do you mean by this?

I think I’ll stick to G instead of the more general issue of the existence of “constants of nature.” See below.

Suppose a constant of nature X exists. Would that mean that it can only be determined through experiment, or through some a priori mathematical manipulations?

For me, it appears that the problem is simpler than whether constants of nature can exist. I am saying that G is not a constant of nature. I think it may be better not to conflate these two questions:

I believe that the question Is G a constant of nature? is independent of the other question. I don’t need to show if constants of nature, whatever they are, exist. All I need to show is that G is a conventional unit, therefore, it is not a constant of nature.

As you mentioned, if I understood it correctly, conventional units are not constants of nature. If they were, every unit would be a constant of nature, which is absurd.

To show that G is not a constant of nature:

What is labeled G today is another name for k, the original conventional unit in Kepler’s rule. I don’t know if “constants of nature” exist or can exist. But I know that G is not a constant of nature. Does this make sense?

If it’s the latter [obtained by a priori reasoning] and it’s expressed in one set of units, would that change the fact that we have a “new” constant of nature X’?

So, we assume that by pure reasoning you obtained a constant of nature. I am not sure how you can know without testing that your definition is a constant of nature. What you found by a priori reasoning would be something like the cosmological constant. If you take a look at the troubles the cosmological constant has been going through — now here, now gone, back again, and so on — it would be hard to know that what you obtained is a constant of nature without a way to measure it.

In the case of G we have a label, G, and physicists call this label a constant of nature. I don’t know why. I think it is by tradition and because the marketing name of G includes the word “constant.” Physicists, naturally, take labels of physics literally.

I don’t take marketing labels literally. I question them. So your hypo does not apply to G. Because G was not found by a priori reasoning but by unit conversion. And G was not found by experiment.

These facts prove that G is a cultural artifact and it must be removed from physics.

Why does it suddenly change with a change of units?

So here we are assuming that you found a constant of nature X by a priori reasoning and you express it “in one set of units.” And the question is “would that change the fact that we have a “new” constant of nature X?”

The way I understand it “constant” implies an equality of ratios, or as physicists say it, a symmetry. This is what we perceive as a constant. Why? Because the values in the proportionality vary but the proportionality stays constant. If you find a single quantity not associated with a proportionality that would be a defined unit not a constant. So a unit is a kept-constant but a constant, on the other hand, is what stays constant as some other quantities vary. We are unable to define constant without reference to change.

“But how do physicists derive G? I believe that G is not derived from measurements but it is defined.” Could you elaborate? Physicists just randomly pick a value for “G” that works?

No. Physicists did not pick a random value for G. This is well documented. (For instance, see Nature, 50, 330, 1894.) British physicists took k and converted it to British units and gave it a marketing label and defined it as the true constant of nature. All this shows once again that G is cultural, not physical, and should not be in physics.

I did a simple google search and came up with a number of experiments that can derive the experimental value of G …

Thanks for the links, I added them to my Cavendish experiment page. A couple of things. The links do not refer to “a number of experiments” but to Cavendish experiment only. And I noticed that they all make the claim that Cavendish measured G. Such an absurd claim reduces physics to alphysics. This makes me angry. If you are angry at some things in physics, I am angry at this. How can the hard science of physics harbor at its core a mystical notion as a dead man measuring marketing labels in order to save Newton’s authority???

To me, Cavendish experiment is a beautiful and fundamental experiment and it has nothing to do with G. In order to show this I am hoping one day to replicate the experiment in its original location. Today, there is an apartment building where Cavendish made his experiment but it appears that the exact location is someone’s backyard. Anyway it is incomprehensible that the British destroyed the sacred grounds where Cavendish “weighed the Earth.”

http://www.densytics.com/wiki/index.php?title=Cavendish_experiment

Some of these you could probably do at home

I guess you have been reading my research ! < /p>

Thanks for the comments.

June 4th, 2007 at 7:46 pm

John Armstrong wrote:

pioneer, your comment on what constitutes an experiment is garbage from beginning to end.

I am sorry to hear this because your comments have been helpful to me. I was working on a point by point answer on your previous comment, if you care to review it, it is here .

Also in this case, garbage is better than nothing. In the hard experimental science of physics there is no definition of what an experiment is. Maybe physicists like it that way so that they can define whatever they want as experiment. At least mine is an honest and simple definition of what I thought was experiment. Physicists cannot go wrong by adapting my definition as a starting point toward a rigorous definition of experiment so that physics can move from the state of alphysics that it is in now to a science of physics.

I honestly can’t refute it because there’s nothing sensible there to refute.

For me the point is not refutation but to learn. Since physics does not have a standard for experiment in physics experiment is anything goes. Can you refute anything goes? But mine is an operational definition of experiment.

It’s not even wrong.

Great, now I am in good company .

June 5th, 2007 at 4:16 am

RB said:

See the Yang, Lee, 1957 Nobel Prize and Wu regarding broken symmetry.

I read so far only the presentation speech by O.B. Klein before the lectures.  

There he makes a point which I think is relevant to this discussion. He quotes Lao-tse as saying that “the elementary particles, which could be defined are not the eternal elementary particles.” Lao-tse is referring to Tao but the idea fits nicely to units/constants discussion: if it can be defined it is a unit; constants of nature are not defined.

What Klein calls, “the atom of the philosophers” was exactly something like G of today. The philosophers defined a unit of the indivisible and labeled it atom. This unit then was turned into a constant of nature. G too was defined as a unit and then turned into a constant of nature.

Thanks for the link.

June 5th, 2007 at 6:09 pm

John Armstrong wrote:

… G is the same as k^2, not as k. At least get your facts straight.

I know that G is k^2. You can see that here

http://www.densytics.com/wiki/index.php?title=History_of_G

G is defined as

R_0^3/T_0^2 = k^2 = G

This is the origin of G. Do you agree with this? If not why not?

June 6th, 2007 at 5:16 pm

angryphysicist wrote:

Pioneer, you never even defined what a constant of nature is…

If I am reading your argument correctly, you said that if it is a definition then it is not a constant of nature. If something is defined it is a definition. A definition is a definition of humans, not of nature. I am showing that G is a defined unit. You said that defined units are not constants of nature. I don’t see a disagreement here.

Your argument seems to be sophistry….

I am flattered that you compared me to some brand name philosophers but I don’t think I am that intelligent to argue by sophistry. I always try to simplify otherwise I don’t understand.

Maybe you can help me identify sophistry and remove them

Pioneer1 says: Cavendish was dead when G was defined therefore Cavendish did not measure G.

Physics says: Cavendish measured G, never mind that he was dead. It is sophistry to say that dead men cannot measure.

Pioneer1 says: Cavendish was dead when G was defined therefore Cavendish did not measure G.

Physics says: When we say that Cavendish measured G we don’t mean that Cavendish *really* measured G. It is philosophical sophistry to argue against our authority.

So, can you identify which of these is sophistry?

Personally, I think in this case physicists’ version is sophistry. What is incomprehensible is that scientists such as yourself are defending Newtonian occult. Physics is science. Newtonism is an occult religion. Physics and Newtonism are not the same thing. Newtonism has been a parasite feeding on the science of physics. Criticizing Newtonian occult definitions is not harmful to science of physics.

Thanks.

June 7th, 2007 at 5:51 pm

John Armstrong wrote:

(a) The quantities R_0 and T_0 are nowhere defined.

Thanks for noting this. I fixed the wiki:

http://www.densytics.com/wiki/index.php?title=History_of_G

R and T refer to “Radius” and “Period” of the orbit and R_0 and T_0 are units of the same quantities.

I explained it and keep referring you back to it. It’s here in this comment.

The link above points to your blog, not to a definition of G. Please let me know the correct link.

June 9th, 2007 at 3:08 pm

angryphysicist:

I was reading the comments again. I think there is a lot of good content here. See this page for a breakdown of everyone’s comments.

I also noticed this comment by you:

Copernicus’ big discovery was that the empirical findings of Kepler et al. did not work with the geocentric model of his times; instead it worked with heliocentric model.

Just wanted to mention that Kepler was born about 30 years after Copernicus’ death. Copernicus did not know about Kepler’s findings. No big deal, just for the record.

And why Kepler et al? Kepler worked alone as far as I know.

June 10th, 2007 at 9:40 am

John Armstrong wrote on May 27:

…G is a very specific property of physical reality….

Unless you give scientific evidence about how you arrived at this statement this will remain your opinion. I look forward to a specific example that you may supply as evidence for your opinion about physical reality of G so that I can comment on that. Thanks!

June 12th, 2007 at 4:46 pm

Mark wrote:

I was thinking that the troublesome idea of “constant of nature” might be pinned down easier by moving away from G and focusing on something simpler like the density of water.

Mark, thanks for your comment. I think it will help resolve the issue, at least for me.

You think that the concept of “constant of nature” is troublesome. The fact that it is so I think is relevant. If “constant of nature” were a fundamental concept it would be simple and easy to define.

I think I follow your analysis with the density of water analogy.

You say that density of water is a constant of nature because if you explain how you measure mass and volume another scientist will come up with exactly the same constant.

I think, this definition is lacking in rigor. If a quantity is measurable by independent parties that does not make it a constant.

Let me introduce a new analogy. I think you would agree that miles per gallon is a natural constant of my car. This is exactly the same as your density of water example. If I measure the quantity of gas and road travelled in various units the mileage of my car will remain constant. So, according to your reasoning “miles per gallon” is a constant of nature because if I explain how I measure distance and volume “another scientist will come up with exactly the same constant.” I don’t think the mileage constant of my car is a constant of nature. According to your definition it must be.

You will now probably argue that “that value can’t be a constant because its defined in terms of my units. If I change my units the density of water will change!”

No. I would not argue that changing units would change what remains constant. I understand this.

Your paragraph about converting from meter to inches makes sense to me. In my car example, converting miles to kilometers would not change how much gas my car uses for a given distance. Do I understand this correctly?

Now you are defining constant of nature as what remains constant as units vary.

Then, you give an example where you do not use conventinal units such as meters, and kilograms.

I think in this case you are saying “measure the density of water and lead with conventional units and take their ratio.” But the simpler method, which is the standard method, is to take water as the unit and measure the densities of everything else relative to water. There is no need to involve conventional units. So lead is about 11 times denser than water.

I think that your water example does not carry over to the case of G for two reasons. One is this:

When you look at unit conversions, say from kilograms to pounds, what is it that stays constant? I believe you agree that it is not the name of the unit. So when you convert from kilogram to pounds, kilogram does not stay constant. Kilogram disappears. This tells me that kilogram is not a constant of nature. Kilogram is a conventional unit, density is what remains constant.

When I convert from miles per gallon to kilometer per liters, miles and gallons are gone. Neither miles nor gallons are constants. The quantity which remains constant is the ratio.

So if the ratio is A/B, you may measure A and B with various conventional unit systems or you may take B as unit and measure A or take A as unit (say water) and measure B (say, lead) with it. However, you slice it the units disappear, the ratio remains constant.

When I look at G I notice that G is just like the units which disappear, G is not the constant. G is not part of the original ratio or the original equality of ratios.

As an example let’s convert between two unit systems, one is k the other is G. When I convert G to k units, G disappears. This tells me that G is a unit. And this is true. G is the unit of the Newtonian force. Do you agree with this analysis? I would appreciate if you could let me know why this argument fails, if you think it fails.

The second, and I believe the decisive, factor where your example of density of water fails is this. Actually, I think, the density of water example, highlights why G is not a constant which can be measured.

You write that “in the case of the constant G it is the relationship between the masses of two objects, the distance between them and the force of attraction between them.”

This statement is wrong. Or I should say, this is how G is defined theoretically, but there is no experimental verification for this statement. G is not an experimental quantity, it is a defined unit.

In the case of density of water all quantities were measurable. I only measured length. I measured the radius to compute volume and I measured a displacement on a scale to compute weight. There was no force or attraction involved.

With G you introduce an occult and animistic concept called force and you claim that it is possible to measure this occult label in a scientific experiment.

I claim that force is Newton’s Soul. Force is an occult definition invented by Newton to validate his religious beliefs. Force has no place in the science of physics.

You write that “for me and other scientists these experimentally observed constants of proportionality are what are known as “constants of nature.”

First G is not a constant of proportionality, it disappears when it is converted to another unit. What remains constant is not the unit G. What remains constant is not the constant of proportionality either. What remains constant is the proportionality. Constant of proportionality is not a constant. I think the label “constant” is fooling physicists into believing that the arbitrary unit of the proportionality is a constant. What remains constant is the proportionality not the unit which is labeled “constant of proportionality.” Does this make sense?

I dispute two things: 1) F=Gmm/RR is not a proportionality. 2.) G is not an experimentally observed constant.

G was never observed and it cannot be observed. Can you observe kilogram? It is the same thing.

I assume that you have in mind the Cavendish experiment when you say that G is an “experimentally observed constant of proportionality.”

No it is not. G cannot be observed in a scientific experiment. Why is it that we cannot observe G in an experiment? The clue is in your definition of G as “the relationship between the masses of two objects [say, m1 and m2], the distance between them and the force of attraction between them.”

The problem with your definition is that the Cavendish experiment measures the force of attraction between m1.

The missing m2 is supplied by Newtonian physicists to save Newton’s authority.

The Cavendish experiment does not measure anything between two masses. The equations contain only one m. One of the masses hanging in the pendulum arm is a decorative element which is not represented in the experimental equation.

As scientists we are not allowed to insert missing masses into equations in order to save Newton’s authority. If the equations do not contain two masses then the experiment cannot measure the attraction “between two masses.” Do you agree with this?

Therefore, G is not, and cannot be, an experimentally verified constant. G is a unit which disappears once the units are changed.

Thanks again for your comments. Please let me know if all this makes sense.

June 12th, 2007 at 6:22 pm

John Armstrong wrote:

Physics does not say that Cavendish measured G.

John, you are misinformed about this. You may want to check angryphysicist’s links in a previous comment:

Rice University Physics department teaches that

[the torsion balance] has been refined and applied to the measurement of G by numerous workers, beginning with Henry Cavendish in 1798.

See also T. Damour, Theoretical significance of G:

“Cavendish’s famous experiment carried out in 1798 … gave the first accurate determination of the strength of the gravitational coupling.”

There is no ambiguity here. Physicists believe that Cavendish measured G.

June 17th, 2007 at 7:38 am

John Armstrong wrote:

Physicists oversimplify the explanation.

John, where do you draw the line between oversimplification and propaganda and fraud?

This is from Brittanica:

Cavendish made “the first reliable measurement of G in 1798.”

This is by Michael Fowler, a physics professor at University of Virginia:

The first measurement of G was made in 1798 by Cavendish.

This is not oversimplification. This is wrong. This is rewriting history to fit Newtonist view. This is Newtonian propaganda. This is what politicians do. Doublespeak has no room in physics.

Outside of physics “the first measurement of G was made in 1798 by Cavendish,” could only mean “the first measurement of G was made in 1798 by Cavendish.” But not in physics because in physics Newton’s authority is supreme.

But let’s move on and let’s look at what you are saying.

Cavendish made measurements, and after the fact that data was used to give a numerical value for G.”

Can you explain what you mean by “Cavendish made measurements?” Measurements of what? You are assuming that Cavendish measured the Newtonian force. This is not true.

You believe that Cavendish obtained the mean density of the earth by measuring the Newtonian force. This is not true.

This Newtonian propaganda about Cavendish measuring the Newtonian force for the first time was invented in the 19th century by British physicists. I don’t believe in propaganda. I look at the experiment itself.

The experiment done by Cavendish did not measure any force.

If you have any proof that Cavendish measured Newtonian force please let me know.

I’ve already agreed that the standard statement is inaccurate on its face. The remedy, however, is not in throwing out independently-verified experimental evidence.

There is no such “independently-verified experimental evidence.” Newtonian force is occult. It does not exist in nature. Physicists use gadgets they build as false witness in order to save Newton’s sacred authority.

June 21st, 2007 at 5:31 pm

Here’s a version of my previous post without links for the record. This should pass the spam filter.

John Armstrong wrote:

I don’t know a respectable physicist who would say that [force] really [exists].

First, I wouldn’t want to separate physicists into two categories as “respectable” and “non-respectable.” I respect all physicists. Physics is a noble profession.

Of course Newton’s “force” doesn’t exist in nature.

This contradicts several of your previous comments claiming that force has been observed in scientific experiments:

You wrote, for instance, that:

when I double the mass of one object or the other I double the force they experience.

Here “force” exists as much as your masses exist otherwise how a mass “experience” force?

In several comments, you tied force and its unit G. How can you have a unit of something which does not exist?

Again, you wrote:

…the simple fact is that doubling the separation of bodies quarters the force each feels.

How can masses “feel” something which does not exist?

You claimed that “experimental evidence” shows that force is proportional to the product of the masses…” How can force be proportional to masses if it does not exist?

You wrote that the unit of force G “has been measured plenty of times….” How can physicists measure force “plenty of times” if it does not exist. Are you saying that physics is polemical philosophy?

You claimed that force “to a very good degree of accuracy… does exist.” And the numerical value of its unit “can be measured.” How can something which you say “does exist” can at the same time “not exist?”

And of course you claimed that you have measured the Newtonian force yourself at grade school.

And now you are claiming that what you have measured in an experiment does not exist!

What you are saying has no credibility.

See, physicists don’t hold that Newtonian mechanics is the is-all-end-all the way you pretend they do. They recognize failures of the Newtonian model and devise newer, more accurate models in response.

This is not my view. I am not talking about Newtonian mechanics. I am not talking about models or predictions. These are irrelevant to the discussion.

I am talking about a well defined entity in physics: force. This force has a unit called Newton. You claimed to have measured it yourself. Now suddenly you decided that the Newtonian force you measured does not exist.

Does force exist or not?

Please consider answering my poll

The question is Does force exist? This is a Yes or No question. Do you think there is a Yes or No answer to this question? You may leave comments as well. If enough people contributes we may be able to reach a concensus.

Thanks again for the comments.

John Armstrong wrote:

June 26, 2007

pioneer ignores the fact that when physicists use the term “is” or otherwise speak in semantically realist terms that it’s intended to be expanded into model-theoretic semantics.

You are claiming that physics is polemical sophistry on a par with politics. Physicists abuse and corrupt language just like politicians do. Physics is a unregulated industry where the practioners have total control over the language and experiments and symbols. All symbols are context sensitive and they can be parsed only by the authority of the practitioners. You are describing the pre-scientific field of alphysics. I think this is a serious indictment of physics and physicists. I doubt that any physicist will agree with your assessment of their profession as polemical sophistry where the word “is” is used exactly the way it is used in politics.

The whole rant against the straw-man of “Newtonism” is based on this (intentional?) misunderstanding.

Here we are not talking about Newtonism. We are talking about a specific symbol in physics. The fact that one of the most fundamental symbols in physics, the unit of the Newtonian force, needs to be couched in so many layers of philosophical lingo, as you have done above, only proves my point: We need to question G with scientific skepticism and find out if it passes such questioning.

So much of the language of physics is shorthand and pioneer insists on confusing the shorthand for ontological statements.

There is no need to bring ontology into this discussion. There is a specific question: You said you measured the Newtonian force in an experiment then you said that Newtonian force did not exist. No amount of ontological arguments will help you with this.

As a scientist, do you think force exist as an experimentally verified quantity or not? This is really simple. There is an experiment which is said to measure force. Did it measure it?

June 26, 2007

angryphysicist wrote:

… force is a classical explanation that is openly described as a mere approximation to the underlying quantum phenomena …

Yes, I’ve heard this rationalization before. But you cannot measure “a mere approximation” in a scientific experiment. The question is Did Cavenish’s pendulum move under the influence of the Newtonian force as physicists claim? Yes, it is true, you observe a secular period (called Kuroda effect) which is due to random atomic oscillations on the torsion wire, but this effect is eliminated. So we are not talking about quantum realm when we talk about Cavendish experiment and the Newtonian force.

Yes, also, I agree that *in physics* any “criticism of force is entirely irrelevant to everything.” Actually this is a relevant observation because we must then ask why? Why is it totally irrelevant to question an occult quantity by scientific skepticism as required by science?

Because force is the faith of Newtonism. So if I try to question the nature of Soul in church that would be totally irrelevant. You cannot criticize the fundamental axiom of an axiomatic system within the system. I agree hundred percent.

But it is important to keep critizing Newton’s soul in order to show that it is not a scientific quantity. Force is occult. It is an arbitrary definition invented by Newton. I think this part of the discussion is relevant.

And also, one reason why any discussion of force is irrelevant as you say is that force is decorative in physics. Physicists write down force and mass terms to save Newton’s authority then, they cancel them. This is why force is irrelevant in physics. It is not used except in the religious ceremony called derivation.

That’s why, to me, what is important is the experiment. I am trying to discuss the experiment. For physicists the Cavendish experiment is a canonical experiment and it cannot be discussed. I believe this is sad for physics. Let’s go look at the experiment. Did Cavendish measure force? What do we need to show to prove that he did or he did not? I think this is where physics is.

July 1st, 2007

John Armstrong wrote:

attacks on the establishment of physics…

I searched my blog and “establishment of physics” does not exist in it. You just made that up. Or at least you perceive my scientific questioning of the Cavendish experiment and G as an attack on establsihment of physics.

Whenever we respond to one point….

You haven’t responded to the question if you believe the Newtonian force exists or not. Your position is that it exists and exists not. This is not a scientific position.

you’re wrong on both counts….

My goal is to understand the nature of force and its unit G. I am not thinking in terms of being right or wrong. If you try to understand this fact then you could concentrate on the content. So if you have information which shows that Cavendish measured the occult Newtonian force in his experiment, I would be grateful to you for revealing that information.