Academic Physics is Pathological Science
(CC0) by C Perret - Dog playing catch.
Observe animals. Observe that the animals are able to rationalize heights, widths, speeds, weights, resistances, quantities, curvatures, trajectories, and most all things else while in motion. A dog can analyze timing, how high, and of how much strength to catch a toy in flight. A common dog is smart enough to process 'physics' very quickly and almost effortlessly. The common dog's analyses of physics is much faster and far more accurate than what academic mathematics is capable of achieving. Mathematics cannot measure an analog curve, nor an analog wave in motion, but dogs and other animals can.
(PD) Lizard on a finger.
Observe other animals. Placing one's hand palm-up upon the ground, it is heart warming for little lizards to walk into one's palm, and upon raising one's hand to be closer to one's face, man and lizard look at the other with curious eyes. When the moment of curiosity is complete, the hand is again placed upon the ground, the lizard pauses, turns to step off one's hand, and then pausing again to look up into one's eyes, the lizard then faces in the direction of which he scurries off.
Animals can think, reason, anticipate, remember, build physical structures, apply the logics of physics to which objects would be compatible for a structure's materials, and the mental abilities of common animals is vast.
Birds, lizards, rabbits, deer, fox, coyotes, badgers, moose, panthers, and all other animals think, reason, and physically apply 'physics' every day of their lives. Common wild animals do not destroy nor pollute the environment, of which cannot be said for the human animal. In many measures, the common wild animal is smarter, and kinder, than the common human animal.
Man's Physics is Pathological Science
Man's schools teach a topic known as 'physics', but never do the topics of 'physics' describe, nor know, what Nature-based physics are. No man's school of physics is able to explain nor measure the physics of a little cotton-tailed rabbit purposefully entering into a man's storage building late at night, where the rabbit rests calmly at the doorway, but when the man begins to leave through the door, the little rabbit rapidly runs back and forth in front of the door, not letting the man leave. Several minutes pass, when the little rabbit chooses to exit the door and run off. When the man leaves his storage building, he sees the tracks of bob cats or a smallish panther: the rabbit had protected the man.
No school of man is able to so much as explain any behavior of animals, and far less-so is any school of man able to place mathematical equations upon an act of reasoning.
Nature's physics existed first. Man's schools existed last. Nature rules man. Man does not rule Nature. Nature's physics is curved 3D+. Man's physics is flat 2D mathematics. 2D cannot measure 3D. Ever.
That which was created, cannot measure that which created it. Man's mathematics of physics cannot measure Nature the creator.
Neither Newton Nor Academia Discovered Physics
(PD) Edme Mariotte's Ceuvres de M. Mariotte
Science and academia claim that they are the masters of physics, and that they alone are able to know what physics is.
Neither science nor academia know that everyone else already knew what physics is.
(PD) Kentucky boys playing marbles in 1946.
According to science and academia (and of course Wikipedia too), no one can know anything about physics unless they have been taught in schools. Much worse, is that a lot of people believe it to be true.
As an example, and according to Wikipedia's article on Newton's Cradle, it is stated: "The principle demonstrated by the device, the law of impacts between bodies, was first demonstrated by the French physicist Abbé Mariotte in the 17th century. His work on the topic was first presented to the French Academy of Sciences in 1671; it was published in 1673 as Traité de la percussion ou choc des corps ("Treatise on percussion or shock of bodies")." The article continues to be updated with 'new' facts as each one is publicly proven to have been false. Wikipedia now claims that Marius J. Morin was the first to build the Newton's Cradle toy, but no date nor resource is given. "There is much confusion over the origins of the modern Newton's cradle. Marius J. Morin has been credited as being the first to name and make this popular executive toy.[citation needed] However, in early 1967, an English actor, Simon Prebble, coined the name "Newton's cradle" (now used generically) for the wooden version manufactured by his company, Scientific Demonstrations Ltd."
If Wikipedia's previous article had been accurate, then the facts would not now have been changed. In future days Wikipedia's 'facts' will change again. Academia and science behave similarly; neither were true in the past, and neither will be true in the future.
Individuals like Newton and Mariotte had an interest of placing mathematical equations upon pre-existing natural acts of Nature. The mathematical equations can be useful at times, but the mathematics were not the "discovery" of the acts of Nature. Too often, people mistakenly believe that the mathematics — as taught in school rooms — were themselves the discoveries of things that no one could have previously known about. The belief has led many people into believing that Newton and Mariotte had to have been the original inventors of kinetics.
As additional background information, when Prebble 'invented' the kinetic balls toy in 1967, the students within Amarillo, Texas schools had voiced their complaints that the toy had already been made by the elementary school boy Joe Smitherman in 1966 (see Who Invented and Created Newton's Cradle - Kinetic Balls for more information). In time the students' conversations mostly concluded that since Prebble was the first to get the patent in England, then Prebble's theft was technically legal albeit dishonest and cheating. For many students, it was the best lesson learned that year: academia and politics promote and defend theft, lies, and cheating. For some of us, another lesson settled more deeply; to never again permit any adult to ever see nor learn of anything that we create.
In class, numerous students had watched Joe as he tried different methods of suspending balls with string, until when it was chosen to use two strings for each ball. Joe's toy was not a copy of anyone else's, nor did he cheat and steal it from anyone else. There is still a huge quantity of unspoken information about Smitherman's 'newton's cradle' that has not been made public (all of which further proves Wikipedia's article to be of invented lies), but the unspoken information will not be made public for academicians to steal and to then claim as their own.
Today's infants playing marbles — the game of marbles having also been played in the ancient China region of about 2,300-3,000 years ago, which also spread throughout Europe, and let us not ignore that similar games with rocks had been played by little children for countless tens of thousands of years before that — and yet many adults of today believe that all knowledge of 'kinetics' was birthed by modern western science.
And, as one small example amongst countless others, Wikipedia is not so much as capable of accurately giving the simplistic mathematical formula for ohm's law (E=IxR). Wikipedia's best value is that it illustrates the ineptness, profuse ignorance, and lies of which popular science and academia are founded upon.
Permanent Proof that Academia Teaches Pathological Science
One of the many permanent proofs of scientific and academic ignorance is the popular claim that the body and mind are electrical.
All forms of electricity are able to be given a mathematical formula (regardless of the fact that mathematics cannot measure 3D). The highly simplistic ohm's law of E=IxR applies to all electrical circuits; none excluded. If a person cannot describe the ohm's law of an electrical line, then the person cannot be a competent electrician. Radios, televisions, computers, cell phones, and all other electronic devices can also be intricately measured and described through various maths like ohm's law. Always, when a person claims to know how an electrical device works, but they cannot describe the circuitry, then the person was lying: always, no exceptions.
No electrical formula has ever been given for how the alleged 'electrical' body and mind work. Never has been done, and never will be done. Science and academia vehemently claim that they are the masters of all knowledge of the mind and body, and yet not a single one of the people are able to give a mathematical formula for anything related to the mind and body. The total silence from science and academia permanently proves that every single word that they have claimed about the 'electrical body and mind' was a lie: purposeful lies.
If sulphuric acid is poured upon skin tissue, the tissue will burn and dissolve, and, so, therefore, the body must be based upon acid? No? If tissue is left in the freezer until it freezes, then the body must be based upon coldness? No? If an asteroid falls and hits a person on the head, then the body must be based upon asteroids? No? If you stick the tips of a pair of scissors into an electrical outlet, causing the scissors to melt, then scissors must be based upon electricity? No? Then why do people believe that sticking one's fingers into a light socket and then flipping on the light switch means that the body is based upon electricity? But that is precisely what science and academia do indeed teach and claim to be true truth. Scientists and academicians insert electrical shocks into people, and then upon seeing the people involuntarily jump or their brains malfunction, the scientists and academicians then claim that the reaction proved that the mind and body are electrical.
If scientists and academicians believe that the body and mind are electrical, then, why, do scientists and academicians use cell phones? That one fact all by itself is sufficient enough to permanently prove that the scientists and academicians are separatus mentes alogicus.
Try it yourself. Create ripples in water, and then when creating additional ripples nearby, observe whether or not the ripples touch and influence the other. Infant children of just a few months old already know that ripples always influence other ripples. According to the Sciencians and Academicians, the brain is electrical, but, somehow, magically, cell phone electrical waves cannot influence the brain's electrical waves. The contradictions and absurdities within science and academia are intensely huge, and yet almost no one notices.
When a person is profusely ignorant of physics, they may believe anything, regardless of how extremely insane it might be, including Wu Wei and the academic claim that the mind and body are electrical.
Everything, everything, spoken by an academician about physics, is pathological science.
Science and Academia Continue to Steal Other People's Inventions
The above information about Newton's Cradle revolves around science, academia, and someone physically inventing a thing that allegedly never before existed. Give close attention to how Wikipedia (the voice of science and academia) focused on the mathematics of Newton's and Mariotte's while ignoring the fact that 'kinetics' has been known to animals since the dawn of life: "The principle demonstrated by the device, the law of impacts between bodies, was first demonstrated by the French physicist Abbé Mariotte in the 17th century."
The absence of science's and academia's knowledge of 'kinetics', wholly and permanently proves that science and academia know literally nothing whatsoever of living beings. Everything claimed of life by science and academia, is a lie of invention: pseudoscience and pathological science. Of course the sciencians and academicians cry and demand that other people explain why science and academia are wrong, but, the lesson was learned a long time ago: never, ever, under any circumstances, show one's work to an academician, of whom it is already known that they would steal the information and then claim it as their own discovery.
For background information to base further opinions, the Child Prodigy article has a useful quote: "A nine month old child was observed to consciously and with focused attention apply a combination of eye-hand coordination to physically aim and push a wheeled toy of specific size through a distant opening barely wide enough for the toy to pass. The child did of course perform similar calculations much earlier, it was only at the age of nine months that the significance relative to this topic was observed and recorded. The mind must be capable of calculating distances, widths, relative widths, speeds, deceleration of speeds due to resistance, resistance relative to the nature of the surface causing resistance, kinetics, angles of approach, and much more, all simultaneously, and each calculation must be held within the mind as a memory that can be associated to and calculated with all other calculations. If the general public applied logic to simple observations like watching children at play, then the myths about mathematics would never have been accepted."
Back in the days when children were permitted to play (who were not purposefully and permanently mentally stunted because of cell phones, television, computer games, and public schooling), it was common to see one- and two-year-olds playing marbles. The self-learned ability to physically propel marbles at specific speeds, angles, and force used to be interpreted by adults as being overtly simplistic ("childishly simple" and "child's play" were the common terms). Swing sets often had three swings made of firm seats that were placed near the other; when pushing one swing sideways, it would hit the middle swing, causing the middle swing to hit the third seat, causing it to go up and then back down to hit the middle seat which would then hit the first seat. All known children had played with the swings repeatedly hitting each other ('swing-set kinetic (Newton's) seats'). It was childishly simple child's play.
Today, however, we have scientists, academicians, and other organizations like Wikipedia who claim that 17th century Isaac Newton and Edme Mariotte were the first to have 'discovered' and measured kinetics.
Regardless of the proven fact that a 6th grade boy in 1966 built the toy design (miniature swing set) that is today known as Newton's Cradle, still many scientists and academicians (and of course Wikipedia too) claim that the toy's concepts could not have occurred without an education of physics. Even a nine-month-old infant could build a Newton's Cradle if the desire were to arise (it used to be common for kids to make similar toys by themselves without the aid of adults), but the toy itself is irrelevant, as are the 'physics'. The importance here is that the academic version of the toy illustrates pathological science: "3. Claims of great accuracy. 4. Fantastic theories contrary to experience. 5. Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment.".
A quote recorded in Child Prodigy: "...As mentioned earlier, even in the most extreme cases on record, intensive education over several years is required in bringing the talented child to full bloom as a master practitioner." Academicians sincerely do believe that no one, not even a genius prodigy, can know anything about anything unless the person is 'educated' by an 80 IQ academician within a school room. Academicians cannot describe an analog wave, piece of paper, beauty, an emotion, nor describe how to build a bird's nest. You can give a dog a hammer, two pieces of wood, and nine nails, but the dog cannot build a dog house. Sciencians and Academicians claim to know everything about twelve objects, but no Sciencian nor Academician is able to build a healing device from the objects. Sciencians and Academicians are no smarter than a common dog, and in many respects, less-so (at least some dogs can be friendly, caring, loyal, mindful, and truthful).
All of science and academia are built upon the religious separatus mentes alogicus belief that no one can know anything about anything unless a scientist first 'discovers' that the thing exists (copy-paste-steals it from someone else (i.e. stealing from little children playing marbles)), of which the academicians then 'ear-to-mouth' parrot what the sciencian claimed.
You Know More About Physics Than What Science Does
If you can toss a basketball through a hoop, then you already know the physics of analog pressures, weights, angularities, speeds, curvatures, trajectories, and resistances. You learned the physics on your own, by yourself, teaching yourself, while you played as a child. Now, you could spend the rest of your life attempting to mathematically measure the act of tossing a ball, but the more a person tries, the more that the person will self-learn that it cannot be done. Two-dimensional mathematics cannot measure a three-dimensional curve, nor force, nor any other 'physics'.
While playing with a garden hose, children self-learn the physics of water pressures, volumes, and resistances. The children already know that pressures and resistances influence volumes, that resistances influence pressures and volumes, and that volumes are the results of pressures and resistances. It is obvious; it is child's play. A one-year-old child (who was permitted to play) already knows the real-world physics of ohm's law: E=IxR. E is the pressure, I is the volume, and R is the resistance. E=IxR, I=E over R, and R=E over I. All things in the universe behave upon the same laws, including water and electricity. The question here is to ask: what else does the little child learn with the garden hose? And, to also ask, which of the things known to infants and toddlers are unknowns to science?
(CCO) Photo by Maja R.. — A thinking man can learn more by looking at a pond for twenty minutes, than what a memorizing man can learn by listening in classrooms for twenty years. (Photo modifications by Larry Neal Gowdy) - (The above photo is from IQ is Irrelevant to Intelligence).
While looking at waves of water in a pond or bathtub, little children self-learn that sizes of waves of water are dictated by pressures upon the water, and, that, all waves influence all other waves. The infant self-learns additional physics of pressures and transductance. Now, while observing a simple little thing like waves upon a pond, compare the waves to what is taught in schools about electricity. Are the electrical waves three-dimensional? Yes? Then why do people believe that electrical waves can be measured with two-dimensional mathematics? If everything in the universe is based upon the same laws of Nature — including water and electricity — then why do science and schools claim that water and electricity exist within different and conflicting physics?
The game of jacks used to be popular amongst young children. While playing the game, the children self-taught themselves to judge speeds, relative time between different simultaneous actions, ball-bounce relative to force and composition, as well as eye-hand coordination along with numerous other mental analyses. Sure, perhaps a game of jacks could allegedly be placed within a long string of mathematical formulas, but, the math would take hours, all while the game itself only takes a few seconds of the mind making all calculations almost instantly. The math cannot measure 3-dimensional curvatures, nor can any science measure the mental activity of a child playing jacks. The firsthand self-experience of a little child playing jacks hugely exceeds all of science and academia.
A small child can look at a mass of three things (elements), and then self-reason that there are seven concepts. [1] Father, [2] mother, [3] child, [4] father and mother, [5] father and child, [6] mother and child, and [7] father, mother, child. The small child can then extrapolate the information to reason that all things combined are similar, of multiplying the number of elements and then subtracting 2. The childishly simple extrapolation is reasoned to work for everything in the universe that has three or more components: the simplistic 'math' does not work for the numbers 1 and 2.
If the child were to write a mathematical formula, it would be like C (concepts) = E (elements) times M (members) -2. If the child were to self-reason what he had learned from the garden hose and waves of water, then with a little effort the child could easily apply the same ideas to rearrange C=EM-2 to be similar but better than E=MC2. Why do people believe that E=MC2 is supposed to imply genius, when they themselves already self-learned it as little children?
Yes of course E=MC2 is inaccurate because it does not agree with the laws of Nature, but very few people will self-exert the self-effort to self-rationalize during when they subconsciously self-learn, which results in people believing things that cannot possibly be true.
The C=EM-2 'math' applies to everything in Nature, and also parallels the obviousness that all things are created by three or more things, and yet many people sincerely do believe that the universe began with only two things (binary). Tossing a ball, playing with a garden hose, and playing with water, have already taught you more than what science and academia know of physics.
Humorously (very humorous) is that most people believe that high IQ infers high intelligence, and yet many individuals with IQs of 160-200 have believed that the universe began with a binary. For fun, if the math of IQ scores were valid (mental age divided by chronological age multiplied by 100), then a 50 year old man with a 200 IQ who believes in a binary universe, his IQ would be readjusted to having the mental age of under 1 year old, over the chronological age of 50, multiplied by 100, would sum to an IQ of less than 2. An IQ of under 2 is not a high IQ.
Since very few people self-think of what they self-learned, then the majority of people make the same mistakes regardless of age, which results in the people sharing a ~100 IQ because they think similar thoughts as most everyone else of the same chronological age groups. If IQ tests were to actually measure intelligence within a scale of tossing balls and flowing water, the average IQ would be less than 1 (one). The SQ tests do indeed measure real-world intelligence, and, if the SQ scores were to be placed in comparison to IQ scores, the result would be of roughly 99.95% of all people having an IQ of less than 1 (one).
Scientists and academicians created IQ tests and mathematical physics, and having done so, they proved of themselves to less intelligent than little children tossing balls and playing with water.
The old 三字經 San Zi Jing - Three Character Classic stated 'Diligent have accomplishment, play not-have benefit, stop it (!(infers exclamation)), ought exert energy'. Yes, even one of history's topmost Confucian scholars believed that more can be known by memorizing unknown words in a school room, than by playing with water and balls. The Confucian author contradicted Confucius' own words, and yet the general public continues to believe that the author was smart.
You are far smarter than all of science and academia combined, but, that smartness cannot come to the surface until after you self-choose to self-exert the self-effort to self-think and to self-analyze your own firsthand self-experiences. Yes, it is true that science and academia name self-observations to be invalidly 'subjective', and thus unacceptable, but, science and academia make claims that deny the laws of Nature, and thus cannot possibly be true, which renders all of science and academia themselves to be false religions.
Bring into memory your having played with water as a child (or go play with water in a sink right now). Now, compare that memory to how science and academia speak of water pressures, volumes, and waves. The thinking person quickly recognizes that he knew more as a toddler than what Einstein knew as an adult. Your own intelligence is that which you yourself have self-chosen.
Sum
During the morning that I lay in bed within my camper, a mother Road Runner flew to cling onto a window screen while looking in at me. The Road Runner made gestures with her throat, as if her attempting to speak. The Road Runner then flew off for a minute before returning to the camper's front door. She had brought a grasshopper, and having removed the insect's legs, the Road Runner left the food at the camper's front door.
All of the world's pollution and destruction were created by science, taught by academicians, and mandated by governments. Never has any Sciencian, Academician, nor politician been as intellectually capable of caring as the Road Runner bird.
While sitting on a river bank each morning where I watched each new sunrise, surrounding me were dozens of song birds in the trees, two rabbits lazing or playing near me (we named them Rusty and Lazy), lizards were present when the temperatures were warm enough, deer walked up to drink water and to acknowledge my presence, hawks slowly flew by upwind as they looked towards me to share nods of acknowledgement, and each morning was wonderfully peaceful amongst the many friends.
I could walk alone upon my land, and upon approaching a small herd of deer, the deer stood quietly and watched as I walked through the herd. At customers' homes, their vicious guard dogs instantly befriended me. Indoors, customers' overly protective dogs would laze at my chair as I worked. Some customers' dogs strongly attempted to go home with me. I know what 'physics' is.
Within the cities of humans, however, there is only noise, toxic pollution, violence, and selfishness. The academicians' claims of knowing what physics is, are proven to be false, all day, every day.
Epilogue
Of the mother Road Runner, mother quail, and all other animals, it is the memory of Rusty and Lazy that waters my eyes... Rusty had a patch of brownish hair, while Lazy was often quick to sleep at our feet... they were very gentle, and had good hearts.