**Physics
for non-lunatics**

**Mathematical
Laws of Nature for non-lunatics**

**(and How All Professors of Mathematical Physics
Violate Them Daily)**

**BIG
BROTHER TO WINSTON SMITH: “The Earth is
at rest and the Sun revolves around the Earth.
Do you think that it is beyond our astronomers to do that? Have you forgotten ‘doublethink’?” **

**George
Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-four, London,
1949 **

**Introduction**

A Mathematical
Law of Nature is a mathematical formula (either equality or inequality) governing
a specific natural phenomenon or artificial effect whose mathematical symbols
correspond rigorously to exact specific physical quantities. Most Mathematical Laws of Nature may be
expressed in the functional form:

y = f(x_{1},
x_{2}, …. x_{n})

where y, x_{1}, x_{2},
…. x_{n} are
physical quantities. The physical
quantity y depends only on the physical quantities x_{1}, x_{2}, …. x_{n}
**and on no other physical quantities**!

All professors of Mathematical Physics of
the 20^{th} and the 21^{st} centuries do not understand what a Mathematical
Law of Nature is, and there is ample proof of this sweeping assertion. The
validity of this contention will be demonstrated below beyond any doubt by
several concrete examples, but in the meanwhile we have to define the new
scientific terms “**Significacy**”** **and “**Insignificacy**”.

**Significacy**** and Insignificacy**

In order to
codify scientifically the appalling and disgraceful situation in current
‘physics’ theory (and elsewhere, in fact everywhere), we next define “**significacy**” as
the thorough knowledge and perfect comprehension of the correct meaning, the
precise essence, the true significance of words and phrases, symbols and
equations, equalities and inequalities (and the symbols that they contain),
processes and operations, techniques and methods. “**Insignificacy**” is either the lack or absence of such full
knowledge and comprehension, and there are several variants of the incidence of
insignificacy:
there is Orwellian ‘doublethink’, there is political ‘doubletalk’, and
there is also loose talk in poetry, theology, as well as ordinary
language. But as we show below, the most
extraordinary variant of insignificacy is ‘**multi-think**’ and** ‘multi-talk**’ in current ‘physics’ theory.

**The
Wave equation for non-lunatics**

Physics teachers
correctly teach 15-year old school students that the acceleration of any
material body moving freely in the gravitational field of the Earth (whereby
the only force acting on the material body is the gravitational force exerted
by the Earth) is independent of the mass of the body, because the mass of the
body **does not feature** in the
mathematical formula for the acceleration in question that is derived from (i) Newton’s law of dynamical motion and (ii) Newton’s law
of gravity. The many 15-year old school
students that commit a mistake on this issue are of course penalized.

But what bizarre
nonsense do physics professors teach 19-year old university students in a
similar circumstance involving the wave equation and the velocity of the
electromagnetic wave?

The wave equation is the mathematical
formula (ie the law of nature) that governs the
propagation (ie spread, transmission) of a ‘signal’ **of any shape or form **(determined by the
source), and** **of amplitude (variance,
divergence, deviation, departure) ∂φ about the average value φ
of the ambient field of force through this very same ambient field of
force.

For brevity and
simplicity, we next consider the one-dimensional wave equation. In higher dimensions, all the arguments
expounded below about the wave equation are of course still valid.

In the
one-dimensional wave equation

∂^{2}φ/∂x^{2}
- ∂^{2}φ/c^{2}∂t^{2} = 0

and its solution

φ = f(x ± ct)

feature only the following physical
quantities (and no others!):

φ = field
of force

and

c = velocity of
propagation of the wave

and **nothing else**!!!

In the wave
equation there is **no source (ie emitter), no sink (ie
receiver),** **and** **no observer**, there is only the
background **field of force**. The **inescapable
conclusion** is that **the velocity of
propagation of the propagating undulation has to be referred with respect to
the ambient field of force and with respect to nothing else**.

The physics
professors also teach that light is an** **electromagnetic** wave**.
In the case of the **electromagnetic
wave**, and as the physics professors also teach 19-year old university
students, the field of force in the wave equation is either the electric field
of force or the magnetic field of force.
Assuming the correctness of this particular teaching, the **inescapable conclusion** is that **the velocity of propagation of the electromagnetic
wave has to be referred with respect to the ambient electromagnetic field of
force and with respect to nothing else**.

Yet the
thoroughly illogical, insignificate, moronic, and lunatic physics professors (and therefore
non-scientist) also teach the 19-year old university students that **the velocity of propagation of the
electromagnetic wave may be referred with respect to any and every observer**!

**Diabolical
behavior**

(From “On the Method and Scope of Research”, *Imola** Conference on University and Research*, 5-7 September 1988, pp.
173)

“If an experimenter measures
the velocity of light and finds it to be some value “c” with respect to the **emitter**, then this finding will be a **particle** property. If the experimenter measures the velocity of
light and finds it to be some value “c” with respect to some **medium** of propagation, then this
finding will be a **wave**
property. But if the experimenter finds
it to be “c” with respect to **anything
and everything**, then this remarkable finding will be a truly **diabolical** property.”

**Black
holes, white elephants, and red herrings**

A ‘**black hole**’ is supposed to be a
material body so massive that its ‘**escape
velocity**’ is greater than the ‘**velocity
of light**’. From these data it
allegedly follows that even light will not escape from a ‘black hole’.

(In the
following considerations there is no need to state fully the Mathematical Laws
involved.) We note that ‘escape
velocity’ is a concept derived from (and therefore applies to) the **Newtonian gravitational force interaction
at all times between material bodies**.
We also note that the ‘constancy of the velocity of light’ is a **wave concept** and therefore the constant
value of the velocity of light **has to**
be referred always with respect to its medium of propagation only, **never** with respect to anything else (eg this or that or any observer). As light **never**
exerts a **gravitational** force to any
material body (and *vice versa*), the
concept ‘escape velocity’ does **not**
apply to light.

With this
rigorous scientific scrutiny it becomes clear that the concept ‘**black hole**’ is a figment in the minds
of insignificate morons.

**Time
dilation and the twin paradox for non-lunatics**

The physics
professors also teach the 19-year old university students that the rate of time
shown by two identical clocks moving with constant relative velocity v with
respect to each other differ by the factor

(1-v^{2}/c^{2})^{-½}.

Moreover, the
same factor allegedly gives the difference in the ageing of twins, one of whom
stays at home and the other goes on a long journey with constant relative velocity ±v (+v for
the outward and -v for the homeward part
of the journey) with respect to the stay-at-home twin, apart from short
durations of acceleration at the start, middle and end of the journey. To the query, “which of the twins ages less”,
the physics professors say the twin that has travelled because it is the one
that has undergone **acceleration**. But **where**
**is the acceleration** in the
mathematical formula that allegedly gives the difference in the ageing of
twins, namely the factor (1-v^{2}/c^{2})^{-½}? It is nowhere to be found in the mathematical
formula, and thus the insignificate lunatic physics
professors again and again commit the same type of error that the 15-year old
school students are of course penalized for committing.

**Annual
stellar aberration of light for non-lunatics**

The effect exhibited by **all stars** known as annual stellar aberration of light was discovered by
James Bradley in London in 1725. As it
was the first novel confirmation of the heliocentric planetary theory and
therefore also of Newton’s theory of gravity, Sir Isaac Newton himself
congratulated Bradley and named him the best astronomer in Europe (ie the world).
Bradley himself derived the mathematical formula
(ie the law of nature) that explains and governs the effect:

ϑ =
v/c

where

ϑ is the aberration angle (observed by Bradley to be
approximately 20 arc seconds or 10^{-4} radians),

c is the velocity of light (already calculated from Roemer’s observations to be approximately 300000
Km/sec), and

v is the
velocity of the Earth **with respect to
the Sun** **only** (already calculated
by Newton to be approximately 30 Km/sec), and **with respect to nothing else**, and specifically **not the relative velocity with respect to the observed star**, which
fact of course proves the physical superiority (as far as the annual stellar aberration of light phenomenon is
concerned) of the co-ordinate system of the Sun over all
other co-ordinate systems. Bradley derived his mathematical formula by
employing vector addition to the vector quantities v and c.

Scandalously,
most physics students are never taught the Bradley effect, and so most
physics graduates remain ignorant of its monumental importance. More scandalously, the conventional history
of physics and/or astronomy books describe more or less correctly in their 18^{th} century chapter the effect known as annual
stellar aberration, but when they come to the 20^{th} century they are
oblivious to the fact that it **refutes
experimentally** the alleged equivalence of all co-ordinate
systems. Even more
scandalously, some relativity textbooks contain in their pages the annual
stellar aberration of light and either imply or even
state explicitly that it is explained by relativity theory. Such
is the scandalous state of insignificacy
of all the professors of Mathematical Physics throughout the world.

The thorny
question, “How does relativity
theory derive the Bradley mathematical formula (ϑ=v/c)?”, is never explicitly asked, let alone answered. The standard practice of the thieving
relativists is to misappropriate for themselves the classical mathematical
formula and apply the so-called “relativistic correction” (ie
the factor (1-v^{2}/c^{2})^{-½}).

In this way we
have shown once more what many other genuine scientists over the last century
have proven, namely that the so-called relativity theory is not a proper
scientific theory but instead an incongruous set of bizarre and contradictory
assumptions. As a matter of fact, to
what was both known to both Newton and Maxwell and true, Einstein added
absolutely nothing that was both new and true.
Moreover, scarcely any of the post-1900 conjectures, suppositions,
hypotheses, presumptions, enunciations, postulations, proclamations,
declarations, and theories generally are sensible, let
alone tenable.

**Principles of equivalence?**

Several of the
absurd postulations come under the heading “principles of equivalence”: (i) of inertial co-ordinate systems (1905); (ii) of all co-ordinate systems (1916); (iii) of mass (or is it matter) and
energy; They are all either
scientifically too ill-defined, too vague, or demonstrably untenable** **experimentally. As we have shown above, the latter is the
case with the alleged
equivalence of all co-ordinate systems which was enunciated
in 1916, but its experimental
refutation by James Bradley was already known to all genuine scientists since
1725. The scientific** **meaninglessness of the
alleged equivalence of mass (or is it matter) and
energy is demonstrated below.

To both scientists and the general public,
both Galileo and Einstein are scientific superstars, and are celebrated chiefly
for the following reasons. Galileo is
best known, not for any of his own considerable discoveries, but instead for
teaching the real and absolute motion of the Earth with respect to the Sun and
definitely not the other way around, for which teaching Galileo was indicted,
tried, and convicted. Einstein, on the
other hand, is best known for teaching the relativity of all motions. The following is a remarkable excerpt from
the book by Albert
Einstein and Leopold Infeld, *The Evolution of Physics*, CUP, 1938, p. 224:

“The struggle, so violent in the early days of science,
between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus [is] then [seen to] be quite meaningless.
Either co-ordinate system [can now] be used
with equal justification. The two sentences,
'the sun is at rest and the earth moves' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest', simply mean two different conventions
concerning two different co-ordinate systems.”

But how many physics graduates and professors are aware of this glaring
contradiction? Nearly three decades ago the present author prompted, not once but twice, by the obvious and
harmful ignorance of the issue displayed by prominent and influential articles
in in the prestigious journal* Nature ,* I
succeeded in publishing brief articles pointing out the scandalous
inconsistencies and calling for an urgent resolution (*Nature **vol. 341, no. 6238*, pp. 100-100, 1989, *Nature* *Vol. 363*, p. 108, 13 May 1993). However, banging at the door of the (in this
case brain-)deaf is totally ineffective and
futile.

BIG BROTHER TO WINSTON SMITH: “The Earth is at rest and the Sun revolves
around the Earth. Do you think that it
is beyond our astronomers to do that?
Have you forgotten ‘doublethink’?”
George Orwell, *Nineteen
Eighty-four*, London, 1949.
The present author is not familiar with how well George Orwell was
acquainted with this whole issue when he wrote this passage in 1948, and of
course wants to be informed.

**E = mc ^{2}
– a scientifically meaningless mathematical formula**

The section that
follows is entitled “MATTER, MASS AND ENERGY” and is taken verbatim from “On
the Method and Scope of Research”, *Imola** Conference on
University and Research*, 5-7 September 1988, pp. 171-172:

In ordinary language the
meanings of the words “matter”, and “mass” are often
confused. In physics they denote
different things, and they must not be confused although of course they are – insignificacy again!
To dispel the confusion, I will give a brief but
fairly precise and rigorous definitions of these terms in physics. The word “matter” denotes the general notion
of “substance” or “stuff”. There is no
symbol to denote the (measured) value of matter has no such value to be
measured. Instead, the measured values
of the observable properties of a material body are measured. “MASS” is not matter, nor strictly speaking
is it a “quantity of matter”. The term
“mass” is used to denote **two**
distinct properties (that have been confused into one), among many others, of a
material body. The latter has a host of
other properties: size, shape,
temperature, color, taste, smell, (electric) charge, (magnetic) moment,
momentum, (potential, kinetic, thermal) energy.
The term “mass” as generally employed in physics has these two different
but related meanings: (i) **inertia**, (ii)
(**gravitational**) mass. In fact the first is **proportional** to the second, but contrary to a widespread
misconception, they are **not identical**.

“Energy” is just another
property of a material body (and of a wave), and it comes in several different
forms, which may change from one to another.
Both energy and mass belong to the same conceptual category (they are
properties of a material body), but they are distinct from each other, and from
“matter”. The latter belongs to an
altogether different conceptual category.
Only the insignificate could confuse
them.

Because the term “equivalent”
lacks any well-defined and precise meaning, the phrase “mass (or is it matter)
and energy are equivalent” is empty of any real scientific meaning. In the phrases “mass (or is it matter) may be
converted into energy” and “when mass (or is it matter) is destroyed, energy is
liberated” the words “convert”,
“destroy” and “liberate” have better-defined meanings than “are
equivalent”. However, from the above
analysis it transpires that these phrases are insignificate. Those who utter them do not really understand
what they are talking about. Again,
whatever the experiments have proven, it certainly is not all this insignificacy.

**Creative Ignorance**

The phrase "Creative Ignorance" I believe was
coined by Foster Lindley (tfl0@msn.com) in an article with this very title
"Creative Ignorance" in *Human and Ecological Risk Assessment*
(Vol. 7, No. 6, pp. 1593-1601, November 2001). It is useful to quote these
passages that explicate the characterization "Creative Ignorance":

"*The probabilist converts
cognitive uncertainty into physical uncertainty. … As the probabilist
presents his failure to differentiate as a discovery about the nature of
reality, it is a creative use of ignorance.*"

It is clear that
"Creative Ignorance" is a special case of the much more general term
“insignificacy”.
But the greatest, longest running, and the most
outrageous incidence of "Creative Ignorance" occurs in so-called
quantum mechanics.

**Quantum** **Creative Ignorance**

The arguably
most lunatic manifestation of
insignificacy in Mathematical Physics in the 20^{th} and the 21^{st}
centuries concern the interpretation of the so-called Heisenberg inequalities
(worked out by Werner Heisenberg in the 1920s):

h ≤ dp dx

h ≤ dE dt

We rely on an eminent professor of
Mathematical Physics to “explicate” the so-called Heisenberg inequalities. The following is a remarkable excerpt from an
article by Freeman J. Dyson in *Scientific*
*American 188(4)*, pp. 57-64, April
1953:

“The basic axiom
of quantum mechanics is the uncertainty principle. This says that **the** **more closely we look at
any object, the more the object is disturbed by our looking at it**, and **the less we can know** about the
subsequent state of the object. Another
less precise way of expressing the same principle is this: All objects of atomic size **fluctuate continually … **”
(emphases added)

The key words in
the first expression of the ‘uncertainty principle’ are “**look**” and “**disturb**”. But the second expression which is noteworthy
in that it is made immediately after the first and in the same paragraph, is
not quite “less precise”. Although to
most readers it appears similar to the first, it is quite different, for it
states an altogether different hypothesis.
In the **first** expression of
the ‘uncertainty principle’, the “disturbance” was caused by our “looking at
it”. In the **second** expression of the ‘uncertainty principle’, the fluctuations
are **real**, **continuous, universal, and intrinsic to the object** even when there
is no one “looking at it” to “disturb” it.
The **second** expression of the
‘uncertainty principle’ has nothing to do with looking any longer, or with any
uncertainty of knowledge. On the contrary,
according to the **second** expression
of the ‘uncertainty principle’, we now know (with certainty?) that all quantum
objects **really fluctuate by themselves**.

**Ultimate Creative Ignorance**

Next, these so-called “quantum fluctuations” (that were
derived from the ‘uncertainty principle’) were assumed (again perversely) to
occur **in the absence** of any ‘quantum
objects’ in the complete vacuum of empty space!
The **next lunatic step** was to
assume that these so-called “quantum fluctuations” in the vacuum of empty space
in the first place **created** the
material ‘quantum objects’. However, the
**greatest lunacy **was to postulate
that these so-called “quantum fluctuations” in the vacuum of empty space in the
**ultimate** first place **created the whole material universe**! In other words, it was an **uncertainty** in Werner Heisenberg’s
knowledge that **created **(14 or so
billion years **before** Heisenberg’s
birth) **the entire material universe**
that we observe today!!!!! One is bound
to ask: *Which proposition is more believable (never mind true)?:*

(i) The Universe was created by an
**all-mighty God**;

(ii) The Universe was created by an **uncertainty** in Werner Heisenberg’s knowledge.

On careful reflection, the latter does not give sufficient
credit to Heisenberg, so it must be re-phrased thus:

(ii)' The Universe was created
(some 15 billion years before Heisenberg's birth) by an uncertainty in
Heisenberg's knowledge.

**Imbecillence**** and Bogic**

As we have seen above, the insignificate lunatic physics professors again and again
commit the same type of elementary error that the 15-year old school students
are of course penalized for committing, as well as numerous other types of
moronic blunders.

In this way we have shown beyond all doubt
that the emperors have no clothes.
Moreover, it must be emphasized the all these blunders are not momentary
lapses. Most of these howlers were
committed over a century ago and never corrected, despite the earnest and
persistent endeavours over the past century of
numerous genuine scientists as well as the present author. Yet the lunatic physics professors are still
incapable of perceiving their colossal messing up. How then is this dire situation of humanity
to be explicated? The infants have their
adult guardians to safeguard them from their cerebral inadequacies. But how are the general
public to be protected from the intellectually abysmal incompetence of
their scientific and philosophical leaders?
Clearly, the simple lack of intelligence and the mere absence of logic
are not enough to account for all this enormous
shambles. For a sound explanation of
this weird state of affairs we define ‘imbecillence’
as the exact opposite of ‘intelligence’ and ‘bogic’
as the precise contrary to ‘logic’. It
is therefore the workings of both imbecillence and bogic that have brought about all
the present fiascoes. It is only on the
basis of this correct diagnosis of the terrible malaise currently afflicting
humanity that one can hope for a remedy.

Thus we realize that the well-known saying
“to err is human” must be expanded and converted into the adage “to **err **is** human** but to **blunder** is** professorial**”. Moreover, we agree with many others that the
much talked about information overload is indeed a serious problem. However, as we have shown, the immensely much
more serious problem is **mis**-information
overload, and being “economical with the truth” as well as “fake news” have
been with us for much longer than normally acknowledged.

As
for the entirely baseless predictions about the allegedly very powerful
“quantum computer” and the accompanied totally false claims that it will usher
artificial intelligence into a new era of advancement, we can only respond by
remarking that with so much natural imbecillence
around, the prospect for the much talked about artificial intelligence is very
bleak. Likewise, the related idea of the
so called “fuzzy logic”, the fuzziness clearly lies in the sloppy thinking of
its creators, and not necessarily in the outside world.

**Tesla’s
Greatest Experiment**

**(A fable)**

A whole century ago Nicola Tesla devised
and built, on his own, several original instruments
(some of which nobody else has succeeded yet in replicating):

(i)
Gravitational mass accelerator

(ii)
Electric charge accelerator

(iii)
Gravitational wave detector

(iv)
Electromagnetic wave detector

(v)
Electron fission machine

Using his electron fission device, Tesla
separated the electric charge of the electron from its gravitational mass. Then by employing his electric charge
accelerator, Tesla accelerated the detached (from its gravitational mass)
electric charge, and then detected the resulting electromagnetic wave with his
electromagnetic wave detector. Ditto with the corresponding gravitational
entities: By using his gravitational
charge accelerator, Tesla accelerated the disconnected gravitational mass (from
its electric charge), and then detected the resulting gravitational wave with
his gravitational wave detector.

We remind the reader again that all the
above achievements were made singlehandedly by Tesla himself a whole century
ago. It was Tesla’s contemporary Ernest
Rutherford who correctly remarked, “an ounce of
thought is worth a ton of equipment”. In
our metric era, we may supplement Rutherford’s witty aphorism with, “a milligramme of thought is worth a trillion of euros”.

Dear reader, **if** you have the wit to use your brain,
then **use** your brain.