Why PSI No Longer Has Physics Articles
This publication is named after Sir Isaac Newton’s “Philospie Principia Natualis Mathematica”, considered one of the cornerstones of modern physics but of late it has been devoid of articles on physics
Newton was not a physicist but a mathematician and alchemist. His signature work was not a foundation of physics but the beginning of the end of physics as a science.
Science was created from philosophy by Copernicus when he asserted that evidence must be combined with reason to determine reality and beliefs must be based on evidence.
Galileo then created physics as a branch of science by using experimentation as way to verify evidence.
Newton’s work applied mathematics to physics even though reality is not described by mathematics. In reality there is not two of anything, as everything is unique and reality is composed of irrational numbers not integers.
Two atoms of the same element may have the same number of electrons and protons but atoms are also composed of energy and energy is constant change. There is no atom in the universe that has the average molecular weight of the element.
It would be more appropriate if integers carried the label of unreal numbers since they rarely exist in reality as energy constantly flows, causing constant change. Calling the majority of numbers irrational is mathematics saying, we’re sane it’s reality that’s crazy.
In mathematics, when a formula is a function of multiple factors, the number of correct answers is equal to the number of factors. There is only one reality and though our perception of that reality is extremely limited, making it an approximation, it doesn’t mean that the one answer chosen from the many provided by mathematics, provides an accurate description of reality.
As an example Newton used erroneous assumptions (nothing in the universe travels in a straight line) to devise his formula for gravity, g=GM1M2/d^2. The formula provided a description of Galileo’s observations that all objects fall at the same rate, regardless of their masses but it failed to account for the non-circular elliptical orbits of the planets described by Kepler’s 2nd law.
According to the evidence, detailed by Brahe, the attractive force between the sun and a planet is strongest when the distance between them is greatest and weakest when the distance between them is at a minimum.
Newton shifted physics from being based on observed reality to being based on the belief in mathematics. This resulted in physics not only abandoning Galileo’s advance, now claiming experiments knew if they were being observed and could change results when observed but it also negated Copernicus’s creation of science, that there were patterns and reasons for these patterns.
It is now claimed that objects have random movement (entropy). The patterns we see are determined by the flow of energy not coincidences.
Mathematics provided a number of correct answers for a formula and the number of correct answers is equal to the number of factors involved. The ultimate result of this ambiguity is that now, in today’s physics, it is claimed that reality is an option of the observer and not the basis of observations.
It is ironic that Newton’s Principia destroyed a science while his and others work in alchemy, which was an effort to turn other metals into gold, through their failures, led to the creation of the science of chemistry, where it was eventually shown that you could convert certain metals into gold but at a cost greater than the value of the gold.
Professional physicist (teachers, researchers, and others) are not scientists but experts in science. They are paid to know or create answers to all the questions, while a scientist will question all the answers.
Experts are a result of knowledge while science is a product of skepticism.
Unfortunately it is the “experts” who are the ones who determine what the science of physics is. Their job is to ensure orthodoxy by choosing the “correct” answers. It is they who decide who is selected to pass on the faith, what gets published in the journals, and what experiments get funding.
The result is that when an error is accepted, like Newton’s law of gravity, it is expanded resulting in the dissolution of the premises that are the foundation of the science. How can one not see the inherent contradiction in claiming an experiment proves that experimentation is not a valid means of determining reality?
Small alterations lead to major deviations. Giving a name to the ignorance of the nature of light, wave or particle, does not make it knowledge and led to the absurdity of radiated energy, which decreases as distance from the source increases, being constant and not decreasing with increasing distance.
A photon by definition has zero mass but its path is distorted by gravity, meaning it must have some mass according to Newton’s law of gravity. There is no acknowledging the possibility of an error in beliefs, so it is reality or math that must be modified in order to preserve theory.
Distance travelled is equal to velocity times the passage of time, so when Einstein’s proof of general relativity includes a denominator of 1 – d/ct he was dividing by zero, but that was acceptable since the zero mass of a photon is not really zero, just very small.
According to gravity the speed of light should be slowest when emitted from the sun and increase as gravity decreases, which is contrary to the observation that the energy of light (v^2) decreases as the distance increases.
Physics, which is supposedly based on observed reality is now thought to be almost entirely composed of magical invisible particles that provide whatever is needed to preserve theory. These particles can have contradictory behavior (travel at the speed of light but not quite) and undetectable properties divorcing them from reality.
These theoretical needed undetectable particles can be proven to exist, at great expense, by professional physicists using a particle accelerator that will inevitably produce evidence they can claim as proof but never find evidence of anything that contradicts theory.
At PSI there is no peer review of articles to ensure orthodoxy, only disclaimers saying they don’t believe what is written but are willing to publish it anyhow.
Without the filter by experts and no way for the science experts to dispute contradictory evidence (since it is their evidence) or by reason, those who control the narrative resort to the silence now seen in PSI.
After all, if they admit that their knowledge is wrong then they are no longer experts and the façade of great knowledge and intelligence is destroyed making their opinion irrelevant.
The time and money spent to get their degrees was wasted and for some reason people do not like paying for wrong answers.
Please note: PSI does not necessarily endorse the views of each and every article we publish. Our intention is to encourage open, honest, scientific debate, and for the record, we feel most of the articles we post are about some aspect of science.