How Sudying Physics Causes Stupidity
Because they are smart they have confidence in both their knowledge and reasoning ability, which makes them confident that their beliefs are correct. How can these smart people become stupid?
Stupidity is not just an inability to learn but also a refusal to learn and when smart people accept an erroneous idea as true their self confidence causes them to defend their belief then find or create evidence and reasoning to support that belief.
The more basic the idea is to their system of belief the more it is incased in a protective cocoon of secondary beliefs and justification. To accept that a fundamental belief is wrong would destroy an entire belief system which has taken years to be developed and established.
This results in the thinking being about how to maintain the belief instead of discovering the truth. In physics I call this defensive strategy photonization, named after the basic belief in the photon. It can be defined as an action that instead of defining reality blurs it to conform to a theory. It can be in the form of the creation of a new entity or action, changing the properties of an entity, or changing the accepted behavior of objects to make evidence to fit theory.
Photon is a name given to ignorance about the nature of light. The inability to decide if light was a particle or a wave led to the proposal that it could be either, even though the two are distinct and different phenomena which behave differently. By giving this uncertainty a name and allowing it to behave as either a wave or a particle the ignorance was accepted as knowledge and the goal of physics, to describe reality, was compromised.
The result of this ambiguity is that the science of reality now accepts that over 95 percent of reality is beyond detection.
A perfect example of photonization is the neutrino. It was created because the observed results of the energy released by radioactive decay to not conform to theory. The neutrino was an object without mass or charge traveling at the speed of light that contained the energy that was missing according to theory. Since this energy was not detected the neutrino was given properties that made it undetectable.
In order to support this confirmation of theory experiment of dubious design (How can you find any area or any building material that do not contain radioactive isotopes?) were done giving different results. This required the neutron to blur into three particles with mass not traveling at the speed of light with only one type of neutrino being detectable. What a bunch of gobbledygook.
In the process of photonization any evidence that contradicts the established belief is either ignored or manipulated with fallacious reasoning to conform to the existing belief system. No matter how twisted and contradictory the manipulation of data is, as long as the conclusion supports the existing system it is embraced.
An example of this conversion of contradictory evidence being converted to being “proof” of existing beliefs and be seen in the variation of clocks in satellites. Einstein stated that since there is no experiment (he was wrong) that can distinguish between gravity and acceleration, in an enclosed container, that the two were identical and acted in the same manner. Both an increase in velocity and a stronger gravitational field would cause time to expand resulting in clocks going slower.
This would mean that satellites closer to the Earth, with their greater velocity (Kepler’s law) and in stronger gravitational fields (Newton’s law) would have clocks running slower than the clocks at higher altitudes with less velocity and in a weaker gravitational field.
The problem is that this is not what the data from the satellites show. In order to make the evidence support the theory it was manipulated by asserting that in this case the effect on time by velocity and gravity were opposite, so close to the Earth the clocks ran faster and at higher altitudes they ran slower.
By using manipulation of data that showed that Einstein was wrong, they were able to convert that data into evidence that they could cite which “proved” Einstein’s theory was right.
This is the stupidification that occurs when beliefs are held sacrosanct and all effort is made to support those beliefs rather than find a reasonable explanation for any contrary evidence.
Light is a wave and its velocity varies with the strength of the magnetic and electric fields it travels in.
Header image: Vector Stock
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Greg Spinolae
| #
Has PSI been hacked by seminary college students?
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Greg, Thanks for starting off the discussion. Can you offer some specific scientific critique?
Reply
val
| #
How Sudying Physics Causes Stupidity …. go figure that Studying is misspelled …. stupidity indeed.
Reply
Whokoo
| #
Hi Val. SudYing is a Sino-Arabic missile system. (by the phonetic intonations. Satire)
Studying is always a good idea. Auditing, reviewing, and challenging where appropriate that which is taught is key.
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
The “clock” time on a satellite can be calculated. Less gravity at higher altitudes means a faster clock……and the calculation of a slower clock due to velocity can be calculated and the two numbers are added and the result is whatever the calculations adds up to. In order to get large changes in time from gravity….you need to approach a black hole….in order to get big changes due to velocity….you need to approach the speed of light. BTW, in your “spaceship” approaching light speed….your mass is increasing….your physical dimension in the direction of travel is decreasing. Einstein had a great sense of humor….he reportedly said that mathematicians became interested in general relativity and he no longer was sure that he understood it.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi T.C.,
“Einstein had a great sense of humor….he reportedly said that mathematicians became interested in general relativity and he no longer was sure that he understood it.” Thank you for writing this. Einstein was uncertain and about his general relativity I had read that he was most uncertain. So when someone states what Einstein considered as if it were FACT I KNOW that person does not basically understand what SCIENCE is and therefore can not be a SCIENTIST.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
Science (Physics) must equal the truth or it doesn’t work. There are no idols or truths that might not one day be found to be wrong….even the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics might one day be found to be wrong. Einstein said there are two infinite things – the Universe and man’s stupidity…and he wasn’t sure about the first one.
Reply
chris
| #
WHO is Herb Rose??? Please introduce yourself.
Reply
HerbRose
| #
Hi Chris,
Herb Rose is no one. Credentials do not determine the validity of a discussion, only reasoning and evidence.
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
One of the people on the International Space Station stayed for a year or more…and the calculations showed he was less than a second younger when he returned than if he had not made the trip. The GPS satellites are corrected for time dilation because it accumulates over time and the error would increase. X= Y^2……as long as X is small, Y is pretty small, but when X is large, Y is very large…that’s why significant time dilation requires high velocity.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You concluded: “Light is a wave and its velocity varies with the strength of the magnetic and electric fields it travels in.” Which I reduce to “Light is a wave and its velocity varies [is not constant].” For the prediction of whatever reasoning you are using is that the velocity of light does vary. For I know of no experiment whose observed result is that light’s velocity was observed to vary.
Einstein, in his ‘thought’ experiment, clearly assumed that the velocity of light was constant and used relativity simple mathematics, which even I could understand, to predict that E = m c^2. I am aware that there have been several different experiments, by many physicists, to actually measure the velocity of light and none has found a reproducible measurement that the velocity of light did vary outside the experimental error of whatever experiment.
Hence, I must conclude these efforts to measure the velocity of light have proven your “reasoning that the velocity of light varies” to be absolutely wrong.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Greg Spinolae
| #
to: John O’Sullivan
August 22, 2022 at 4:07 pm | #
re:
Greg, Thanks for starting off the discussion. Can you offer some specific scientific critique
Seriously? Debating such unmitigated drivel would be like debating the notion of Flat Earth.
The article is nothing more than a collection of pseudo-science WORDS sewed together with ludicrous conjectures without premise, hypothesis or thesis in an evidence void.
Reply
Sum Ting Wong
| #
Always remember: You matter.
And if you multiply yourself by the speed of light squared . . . You ENERGY!
Reply
JaKo
| #
OK, got it! (somethingwrong ~ Whoo?)
More fun: I think there are many misconceptions, e.g. “vacuum” (non-hoover kind), “free space” or “void;” or nature of light, and of matter, for that matter, as it begins with “hard to accept duality” (coexistence of particle and wave); and further, trough triality to manifold — just imagining these things hurts and makes many feel “stupid” (here inclusive) — therefore the attempted defense — quite futile, as Greg named it: unmitigated drivel. (I wish: here exclusive)
Cheers, JaKo
Reply
Wilson Sy
| #
If the author has “sudied” physics, then in his own view, he is stupid. If he has not, then he is ignorant and his opinion on the subject is worthless.
Reply
Kenneth Hughes
| #
Light is a particle. You can hear a single particle hit the detector, or indeed many, crackling as they hit in numbers. This simply cannot be denied. On the philosophical side, while we can all agree it is possible for light to be made of particles, (“It comes in lumps), how can we envisage light as a wave? A wave of what, within what? To have a wave of anything, you need a medium and light is not a medium, it is a series of events (particle transmissions), within space time, so it cannot be a wave.
So how do we explain its wavelike behavior? Well, take any light emitter, a lamp bulb, a star, anything, anywhere, then we know it emits light in waves, but these are waves of particles, with many particles at the peak of the wave and zero at the trough, cycling over time. This must mean that a light emitter must emit many particles then zero particles, cycling from maximum to zero in a sine wave. How can this be? Well, an emission of a photon is an event, so we might say that many more events occur at the peak of the wave and zero at the trough. What can cause this variation in the rate of events? Well, the only thing we know of that dictates the rate of events, (all events, everywhere), is TIME. So, we are forced to conclude that time itself comes in waves, it cycles from maximum to zero as a sine wave, causing all events to follow this pattern and causing everything to have a “wave function”.
This idea, when tested against known science, – (special and general relativity) Fits the mathematics perfectly, while disagreeing with a few interpretations of the theories, i.e.
blue shift is observed in the “stationary” frame when viewed from the “moving” frame, but has anyone yet sat on a muon and observed the red shift of the experimenter? (I suggest an experiment to falsify this idea).
Inertial length contraction is now deduced to be a result of the inertial time dilation and not a direct result of the motion. Motion causes time dilation, (the “circular” red shifting of time due to moving through a stationary wave (of time)), then the time dilation causes length contraction, (of course lengths contract when the time rate is less, that is obvious).
So, time is wavelike, a wave of energy cycling over duration, giving its wave nature to all entities that exist within the field. Particles are particles.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Ken,
Particles transmit energy with kinetic energy. How can a particle with no mass have any kinetic energy? How can particles cancel each other out (interference pattern) then re-appear?
The medium light travels in is the electric and magnetic fields that all objects radiate. A disturbance in one object’s fields is transmitted to the fields of neighboring objects.. How do you explain the Stark and Zeeman effect with particles with no charge or magnetic properties?
We disagree on our concepts of time. Why is right? My bet is neither of us.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Cannot remember ever running this by you. “If, in some cataclysm, all of scientific knowledge were to be destroyed, and only one sentence passed on to the next generations of creatures, what statement would contain the most information in the fewest words? I believe it is the atomic hypothesis (or the atomic fact, or whatever you wish to call it) that all things are made of atoms—little particles that move around in perpetual motion, attracting each other when they are a little distance apart, but repelling upon being squeezed into one another. In that one sentence, you will see, there is an enormous amount of information about the world, if just a little imagination and thinking are applied.” (The Feynman Lectures On Physics)
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply