Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, by Isaac Newton, 1687.

As it is said, which I quote: "Principia was the culmination of the movement
that had begun with Copernicus and Galileo—the FIRST scientific synthesis
based on the application of mathematics to nature in every detail".

It opened the door, by using the science of mathematics, to observe, measure
and give a mathematical framework of ANY manifestation of nature in the
centuries to come.

Mathematics followed philosophical and logical INSIGHTS, from very bright
people, who were called physicists only around 1830/1840, 150 years after
Newton's Principia.

Planck changed that, not for good, in Dec. 1900, with his Quantum of Action..
But he opened, as Maxwell, an entire new field in the quantum domain.

Lorentz changed that, for BAD, with his relativity and length contraction. He
put first his desire, a forced proposal by FitzGerald in 1892, to find an
explanation to the MM experiment. After 12 years, he delivered his relativity.
His delivery didn't go any further than Voigt, 17 years before. Only that Voigt
had the common sense to drop the subject and pursue other objectives.

Einstein changed that, for WORSE, in the newtonian realm, by NOT
following the rules: Observation, Measurement, Mathematical Modelling.
He took Lorentz-Poincaré expressions of relativity and elaborated a
fantastic, meta-physical world, where TIME was what his clock showed.
From there, and by Minkowski meddling into it (a pure mathematician),
the whole building of physics started to DEGENERATE.

What Einstein elaborated was not only UNREAL, but had THE IMPUNITY of
not being OBSERVABLE OR ABLE TO BE MEASURED. Paradoxes and
paradigms around relativity exploded in the years to come.

The paradigm "proving Einstein's right" ruined physics until these days.

I wonder what Newton would think about modern physics, like in 2023.

There are NO OBSERVATIONS OF NATURE'S BEHAVIORS. There are outputs
of mathematical/purely theoretical proposals that CLAIM THAT NATURE
HAS TO BEHAVE as it's shown in equations and theoretical solutions. Then,
a frenetic rush TO PROVE IT happens.

The car in front of the horse.

AND, as topics are scarce, physicists are digging well into magnitudes
of 1 part in a trillion, or 1,000 times lower than that, affirming that such
IDIOTIC path is useless, worthless. But they'll sell it as useful, because
they are making a living from gullible people or partners in the crime
of science.

Maybe Newton would find a way to generate an E.L.E. to put an end of
this degeneracy in science, which has spread to almost all branches.

On Sunday, February 12, 2023 at 7:01:35 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, by Isaac Newton, 1687.
>
> As it is said, which I quote: "Principia was the culmination of the movement
> that had begun with Copernicus and Galileo—the FIRST scientific synthesis
> based on the application of mathematics to nature in every detail".
>
> It opened the door, by using the science of mathematics, to observe, measure
> and give a mathematical framework of ANY manifestation of nature in the
> centuries to come.
>
> Mathematics followed philosophical and logical INSIGHTS, from very bright
> people, who were called physicists only around 1830/1840, 150 years after
> Newton's Principia.
>
> Planck changed that, not for good, in Dec. 1900, with his Quantum of Action.
> But he opened, as Maxwell, an entire new field in the quantum domain.
>
> Lorentz changed that, for BAD, with his relativity and length contraction.. He
> put first his desire, a forced proposal by FitzGerald in 1892, to find an
> explanation to the MM experiment. After 12 years, he delivered his relativity.
> His delivery didn't go any further than Voigt, 17 years before. Only that Voigt
> had the common sense to drop the subject and pursue other objectives.
>
> Einstein changed that, for WORSE, in the newtonian realm, by NOT
> following the rules: Observation, Measurement, Mathematical Modelling.
> He took Lorentz-Poincaré expressions of relativity and elaborated a
> fantastic, meta-physical world, where TIME was what his clock showed.
> From there, and by Minkowski meddling into it (a pure mathematician),
> the whole building of physics started to DEGENERATE.
>
> What Einstein elaborated was not only UNREAL, but had THE IMPUNITY of
> not being OBSERVABLE OR ABLE TO BE MEASURED. Paradoxes and
> paradigms around relativity exploded in the years to come.
>
> The paradigm "proving Einstein's right" ruined physics until these days.
>
> I wonder what Newton would think about modern physics, like in 2023.
>
> There are NO OBSERVATIONS OF NATURE'S BEHAVIORS. There are outputs
> of mathematical/purely theoretical proposals that CLAIM THAT NATURE
> HAS TO BEHAVE as it's shown in equations and theoretical solutions. Then,
> a frenetic rush TO PROVE IT happens.
>
> The car in front of the horse.
>
> AND, as topics are scarce, physicists are digging well into magnitudes
> of 1 part in a trillion, or 1,000 times lower than that, affirming that such
> IDIOTIC path is useless, worthless. But they'll sell it as useful, because
> they are making a living from gullible people or partners in the crime
> of science.
>
> Maybe Newton would find a way to generate an E.L.E. to put an end of
> this degeneracy in science, which has spread to almost all branches.

How could possibly be that some physics theories developed in the last 120 years be related to nature, if:

- Are based on theoretical, non-observable, impossible to be measured particles, fields, celestial bodies or events?
Mostly in cosmology, astrophysics, quantum physics and nuclear physics.
- Crucial constants of nature are defined by bureaucratic consensus instead of rock-solid direct measurements?
- Statistics has now first grade level of importance, replacing results from calculus/algebra based models?
- Atomic/molecular chemistry and physics work adding complexity to incomplete models for the quantum world?
- Physics and chemistry fields have being broken into pieces by increasingly departmentalizing branches (30+)?
- Physics of the quantum and cosmology are based on irreconcilable theories?
- Still is not known a solution for the two theories of light? Each one is being developed separately.
- Still is not known what an electron is, after 126 years?
- Computer models and CGI are replacing, deceivingly, rationality and common sense?
- A divorce exists between academic science and applied science.
- Nobel prizes are used to give political support to theories detached from real needs of the civilization, being increasingly snob.
- Effects of radiation have no solutions on Earth or heavens.
- Relativity and "Einstein's right" have failed to make any apport, whatsoever, to modern civilization. It's just a frivolous cult.

- What is gravity remains unknown.

- Millions of worthless papers are published every year, making science just another business.

- For 100 years, it has been tried to extract secrets from nature by smashing matter into pieces to figure out what is inside, and
neglecting the destructive effect of such barbaric and ultra-expensive experiments. Plus that the details are kept secret.

Could keep writing about this, digging deeper for days. Physics, as it was known, is DEAD.

On Sunday, February 12, 2023 at 11:34:13 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Sunday, February 12, 2023 at 7:01:35 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, by Isaac Newton, 1687.
> >
> > As it is said, which I quote: "Principia was the culmination of the movement
> > that had begun with Copernicus and Galileo—the FIRST scientific synthesis
> > based on the application of mathematics to nature in every detail".
> >
> > It opened the door, by using the science of mathematics, to observe, measure
> > and give a mathematical framework of ANY manifestation of nature in the
> > centuries to come.
> >
> > Mathematics followed philosophical and logical INSIGHTS, from very bright
> > people, who were called physicists only around 1830/1840, 150 years after
> > Newton's Principia.
> >
> > Planck changed that, not for good, in Dec. 1900, with his Quantum of Action.
> > But he opened, as Maxwell, an entire new field in the quantum domain.
> >
> > Lorentz changed that, for BAD, with his relativity and length contraction. He
> > put first his desire, a forced proposal by FitzGerald in 1892, to find an
> > explanation to the MM experiment. After 12 years, he delivered his relativity.
> > His delivery didn't go any further than Voigt, 17 years before. Only that Voigt
> > had the common sense to drop the subject and pursue other objectives.
> >
> > Einstein changed that, for WORSE, in the newtonian realm, by NOT
> > following the rules: Observation, Measurement, Mathematical Modelling.
> > He took Lorentz-Poincaré expressions of relativity and elaborated a
> > fantastic, meta-physical world, where TIME was what his clock showed.
> > From there, and by Minkowski meddling into it (a pure mathematician),
> > the whole building of physics started to DEGENERATE.
> >
> > What Einstein elaborated was not only UNREAL, but had THE IMPUNITY of
> > not being OBSERVABLE OR ABLE TO BE MEASURED. Paradoxes and
> > paradigms around relativity exploded in the years to come.
> >
> > The paradigm "proving Einstein's right" ruined physics until these days..
> >
> > I wonder what Newton would think about modern physics, like in 2023.
> >
> > There are NO OBSERVATIONS OF NATURE'S BEHAVIORS. There are outputs
> > of mathematical/purely theoretical proposals that CLAIM THAT NATURE
> > HAS TO BEHAVE as it's shown in equations and theoretical solutions. Then,
> > a frenetic rush TO PROVE IT happens.
> >
> > The car in front of the horse.
> >
> > AND, as topics are scarce, physicists are digging well into magnitudes
> > of 1 part in a trillion, or 1,000 times lower than that, affirming that such
> > IDIOTIC path is useless, worthless. But they'll sell it as useful, because
> > they are making a living from gullible people or partners in the crime
> > of science.
> >
> > Maybe Newton would find a way to generate an E.L.E. to put an end of
> > this degeneracy in science, which has spread to almost all branches.
> How could possibly be that some physics theories developed in the last 120 years be related to nature, if:
>
> - Are based on theoretical, non-observable, impossible to be measured particles, fields, celestial bodies or events?
> Mostly in cosmology, astrophysics, quantum physics and nuclear physics.
> - Crucial constants of nature are defined by bureaucratic consensus instead of rock-solid direct measurements?
> - Statistics has now first grade level of importance, replacing results from calculus/algebra based models?
> - Atomic/molecular chemistry and physics work adding complexity to incomplete models for the quantum world?
> - Physics and chemistry fields have being broken into pieces by increasingly departmentalizing branches (30+)?
> - Physics of the quantum and cosmology are based on irreconcilable theories?
> - Still is not known a solution for the two theories of light? Each one is being developed separately.
> - Still is not known what an electron is, after 126 years?
> - Computer models and CGI are replacing, deceivingly, rationality and common sense?
> - A divorce exists between academic science and applied science.
> - Nobel prizes are used to give political support to theories detached from real needs of the civilization, being increasingly snob.
> - Effects of radiation have no solutions on Earth or heavens.
> - Relativity and "Einstein's right" have failed to make any apport, whatsoever, to modern civilization. It's just a frivolous cult.
>
> - What is gravity remains unknown.
>
> - Millions of worthless papers are published every year, making science just another business.
>
> - For 100 years, it has been tried to extract secrets from nature by smashing matter into pieces to figure out what is inside, and
> neglecting the destructive effect of such barbaric and ultra-expensive experiments. Plus that the details are kept secret.
>
> Could keep writing about this, digging deeper for days. Physics, as it was known, is DEAD.

How is it going with natural philosophers that use mathematics (A.K.A. physicists) in these days, working on theories to disclose
the behavior of nature well down 1/1,000,000,000,000,000 of a meter OR 1/1,000,000,000,000,000 of a second?

Has nature told you something, with voices on your feverish minds?

Maybe signaled you to heavily rely on statistics with 50 million measurements datasets, so you can cook data at will?

Have you, relativists, ever heard of NOISE? It has not to be electric noise.. The concept of noise is generously wide to include
all possible random perturbations around what you try to measure, like distances, time lapses, colors, whatever.

But you're not going to give up, like trying to measure 10E-18 sec or 10E-20 meters, isn't it?

Because, otherwise, you should get A REAL JOB, at which you're not going to lie to the teeth, unless it's in finance.

I don't forget astrophysicists and cosmologists, playing to discover God's mechanisms 94,608,000,000,000,000,000,000 Km far away.