Sunday, September 27, 2009

Understanding the Lattice, Part I

Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV


In my recent series on motion, I defended the thesis that motion is a causal phenomenon and that, as a result, we are moving in an immense, crystal-like lattice of energetic particles. No lattice = no motion. My claim is that, when we fully understand the properties of the lattice and how it interacts with normal matter, we will enter an age of essentially unlimited clean energy and extremely fast travel. In The Problem With Motion, Part IV, I explained why the lattice is 4-dimensional and why the discreteness of motion means that there is only one speed in nature, the speed of light. In this post, I introduce what I call particle-centric (as opposed to observer-centric) physics. I describe a few essential properties of particles and I argue that all motion occur along fixed or absolute axes.

Be the Particle

I think the entire observer-centric approach to physics is hopelessly boneheaded. It can only scratch the surface of what is really out there. The truly foundational and powerful stuff remains forever beyond its reach. What is needed is a particle-centric physics, that is, one that models reality from the point of view of particles, so to speak. Why? Simply because the universe could not give a rat’s ass about observers. Come to think of it, where did that observer-based reality nonsense come from anyway? It’s another one of those things that infuriate me about physics.

To truly understand why a particle behaves in certain ways, a physicist must take the place of the particle in his or her mind and imagine the types of properties and interactions that are needed to cause the particle to behave the way it does. "Be the particle!" should be the physicist's main motto. Consequently, as the particle, one must ask oneself pertinent questions such as: Why should I move? Why should I move in this particular direction? And why should I move at that particular speed? Only by asking why-type questions will we gain a deep understanding of the universe.

Bodies and Wings

A throrough understanding of particle behavior calls for building a model that describes the properties and interactions involved in making it happen. My research has led me to conclude that every particle must have at least one of two types of energy properties. I call these properties body and wing (I’ll explain my choice of terminology in a future article). You can think of bodies as mass energy and of wings as kinetic energy. All particles have wings but some have both bodies and wings while others have no body. Here are a few essential principles that govern bodies and wings.
  1. The total energy of a particle (body + wings) is conserved. That is to say, it stays the same always, whether or not the particle is moving.
  2. Body energy can be transferred to the wings and vice versa.
  3. A particle is at absolute rest if its entire energy is contained in its body.
  4. A particle moves at the speed of light if its entire energy is contained in its wings.
There are several other equally important principles having to do with particle interactions but that’s the subject of my next post.

Applicability of Newtonian Physics

The first principle in the list above is the reason for the familiar Newtonian principle of the conservation of momentum. The first and second principles together imply that using a Newtonian force to accelerate a particle does not change its energy. It only transfers some energy from its body to its wings or vice versa. Newtonian physics works adequately only at ordinary speeds. At those speeds, only an exceedingly small fraction of a particle’s total energy is contained in its wings. Consequently, it is safe to assume that the mass (body) of a particle is invariant in most situations. By contrast, at half the speed of light, a particle’s body and wings contain equal amounts of energy. Newtonian equations would not work properly at that speed because the particle’s mass is only one half its original or rest value. For now, forget about the relativist nonsense according to which the mass of a body increases toward infinity as it approaches the speed of light. I’ll get back to this in an upcoming post.

Lattice Particles

I have a special name for lattice particles but I cannot reveal it at this time, as it would disrupt my long-term strategy. Let’s just call them LPs for now. The main difference between an LP and an ordinary particle like the electron is that the former has no body (no mass) while the latter has both body and wings. An LP only has wings and, as a result, moves at the speed of light. Previously, I wrote that every particle must have three wings, one for each dimension of ordinary space. Actually, I should have said three pairs of wings or six wings altogether. Each pair consists of a positive wing and negative wing. Why? Because there are two directions for each dimension.

I also wrote that all particles in the entire universe are moving at the speed of light in the fourth dimension. One would think that a fourth pair of wings is needed for motion in the fourth dimension and one would be only partially right. The reason is that the motion of the universe along the fourth dimension is special. It’s special because it cannot be messed with, that is, it must happen no matter what and it cannot miss a beat. In a future article, I will explain why this is directly connected to gravity. I know, mysteries are piling up. But lattice physics is not about creating mysteries but unraveling old ones.

The Absolute Axes of the Universe

A dimension is not a property of space. Space (distance) is an illusion of perception. It is a useful but abstract concept that we use for navigation. It helps us to make sense of the relationships between objects. The idea that there is some space that is extrinsic to particles and in which they move, is one that is dead on arrival. I explain why elsewhere. A dimension is a degree of freedom, or separation. It is an abstract concept. It is a means by which the universe can determine whether two particles are either together or separated and, if separated, by how much. This is important because this is how the universe can tell whether or not there has been a violation of a conservation principle.

A 1-dimensional universe is one in which every particle has one and only one positional property. A universe with four dimensions means that particles have four positional properties. A discrete universe means that there are only discrete dimensions. In other words, all motion occurs along fixed absolute axes. Consequently, and in contrast to the relativist’s lame denial of absolute directions, any technology that purports to tap into the lattice for energy production and propulsion will have to identify the absolute axes of the universe. As I will explain in a future post, this will be an essential requirement of all lattice-based propulsion systems.


In Part II, I will go over particle interactions. I will explain why there are four types of lattice particles and why they travel at the speed of light the moment they are dislodged from their original positions in the lattice. I will also have a few things to say about particle decay and, especially, the reason behind the probabilistic nature of decay. As it turns out, all interactions (hence, motion) are probabilistic.

Thursday, September 24, 2009

More on the Lattice...

I am preparing two more posts on The Problem With Motion series. Coming soon.


As promised, see Understanding the Lattice, Part I.

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Floating Sky Cities, Unlimited Clean Energy, Earth to Mars in Hours...

Wasted Money

A huge amount of money is being spent around the world on alternate energy and environmentally friendly transportation. I think all this money is being wasted because there is clear evidence that we are swimming in an ocean of clean energy, lots and lots of it. And here is why.


Physicists believe that two particles in relative inertial motion stay in motion for no reason at all, as if by magic. The truth is that every effect must have a cause. An analysis of the causality of motion leads to the inevitable conclusion that we are swimming in energy, in an immense lattice of wall-to-wall energetic particles, to be precise.

The Future

Soon, we will figure out how to tap into the lattice for energy production and transportation. It will be an age of practically unlimited free energy and extremely fast transportation. Vehicles will have no need for wheels, will go almost anywhere at enormous speeds and negotiate right angle turns without slowing down and without incurring any damage as a result of inertial effects. Floating sky cities impervious to earthquakes and tsunamis, unlimited clean energy, earth to Mars in hours, New York to Beijing in minutes. That’s the future of energy and travel.

Read Physics: The Problem With Motion for more.

Saturday, September 19, 2009

Why Infinity Is Infinitely (Almost) Stupid

This Crap Is Not Even Wrong

In reponse to my recent series on motion, people (mostly annoyingly boring mathematicians, ha ha) write to tell me that I am wrong to deny continuity (infinite divisibility) just because it leads to an infinite regress. They tell me that there is nothing wrong with infinity and that it is possible to traverse a continuous distance in finite time because, as you do (assume the thing that must be proved is correct and hope the other guy did not notice: priceless), the remaining time and distance diminish (they always forget to add, forever and ever, at the end). As Wolfgang Pauli would say, this crap (emphasis mine) is not even wrong. In fact, any argument in favor of infinity is stupid to the extreme, that is, its fallacy approaches infinity (pun intended). I am experiencing a Zatoichi vision as I write (for context, see Physics: The Problem With Motion, Part I) but please read on.

Infinite (Almost) Stupidity

If one believes in infinity, the fallacy of one’s stupidity approaches infinity because, if infinity existed, anything and everything would be infinitely big compared to the infinitely small. But, wait, that's not all of it. Anything and everything would be infinitely small compared to the infinitely big. So there you have it. Infinity is a system in which everything is infinitely big and infinitely small at the same time.

Have an infinitely great weekend.

Friday, September 18, 2009

Physics: The Problem With Motion, Part V

Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V

I have decided to discontinue this series for reasons that I cannot divulge at this time. Sorry.

Hang in there, though. I may change my mind later.

[Addendum, 9/24/2009]

I will post two more items in this series. Coming soon.


Click Understanding the Lattice, Part I for the continuation of this series.

Monday, September 14, 2009

Physics: The Problem With Motion, Part IV

Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V


Previously, I argued that the physicist’s understanding of motion is fundamentally flawed because it denies causality. What's even worse is that physicists are still talking in this day and age about continuity as if it were a possibility. It's annoying, to say the least. In Part III, I wrote that an analysis of the causality of motion leads to the inevitable conclusion that we are moving in an immense sea of energetic particles. In this post, I explain why a discrete universe means that there is only one speed in nature, the speed of light. I give a new explanation of what Newtonian force really does to a particle and I explain why the sea is organized like a 4-D lattice. Finally, to keep things in perspective, I say a few things about the size of and the energy contained in the lattice.

Only One Speed: Jump Speed

Previously, I defined inertial motion as a macroscopic phenomenon that consists of a series of minute discrete jumps at equal intervals. I claimed that, at the microscopic level, all motion is acceleration. So where does this leave Newtonian acceleration? I think that it can be defined simply as a series of jumps occurring at progressively shorter intervals. Consequently, a discrete universe must have a macroscopic speed limit. It is the speed reached by a moving particle when the interval (temporal difference) between discrete jumps is decreased to exactly one fundamental discrete unit. In other words, it occurs when there are no more wait periods between the jumps.

It follows that jump speed is the only possible speed. Why? Think about it. This is not rocket science for propeller heads. It is simple logic. What we call smooth macroscopic motion actually consists of a series of jumps interspersed with wait periods. At half the speed of light, there are an equal number of jumps and waits. At one-third the speed of light, there is one jump for every two waits, etc. At ordinary speeds, motion consists almost entirely of wait periods with a few jumps sprinkled in. Moral of the story: at the micro level, there is only one speed in nature, the speed of a jump. In terms of what we observe at the macro level, it is the fastest possible speed, and that is the speed of light.

Forces and Wings

Assuming the motion hypothesis that I defend in this article is correct, we can deduce that there are two types of forces involved in causing a particle to move. The first force accelerates the particle while the second keeps it moving at the last speed reached when the first force is removed. The first force is identical to the Newtonian force while the second force is the force impressed on the particle by the lattice.

What exactly does the Newtonian force do to a particle? We know that it causes the particle to accelerate (jump at a faster pace) but how? Obviously, it modifies some property that is intrinsic to the particle because, if the force is removed, the particle does not revert back to its original state. Obviously, whatever intrinsic property was modified by the force changes the way the moving particle interacts with the lattice particles. My hypothesis is that there are three properties common to all particles that are responsible for their direction of motion and their average or macroscopic speed. I call these properties wings. Most of you will immediately guess that they are associated with the three dimensions that we observe and you are right. I’ll get back to wings in my next post.

Why Four-Dimensional?

Why is the sea of particles arranged as a 4-D lattice? Why not just 3-D? Part of my thesis is that there are only four dimensions, no more and no less, but this is something that I am not prepared to write about at this time. I just want to approach the subject from a less philosophical angle. The lattice must be at least 3-D since we can observe three dimensions. Why is there a need for a fourth dimension? The reason is simple: if the lattice was 3-D, it would quickly run out of energy because the lattice particles interact with normal matter and are jettisoned from their positions of origin and sent flying in all directions. Empty areas would be created everywhere and this would drastically diminish movement. This is not observed. Therefore, in order to keep the observable 3-D universe moving and doing its thing, it must be refreshed with a new lattice at every instant!

All right. I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking that this is getting to look like the very magic that I have been railing against in this article. Hold on to your horses because this is not what I am proposing. I am proposing that the lattice has four dimensions and that the entire visible matter of the 3-D universe is moving at the speed of light along the fourth dimension. At every new discrete position in the fourth dimension, it encounters a new 3-D slice of the lattice filled to the brim with wall-to-wall particles. There are tantalizing consequences to this hypothesis. More on this in my next post.

Hell or Paradise

How big is the lattice, you ask? I have no idea. All I know is that it’s not infinite but it’s huge, many orders of magnitude bigger than the 3-D slice of the universe that we can observe. How much energy is stored in the lattice? Let me just say that it can provide enough energy to keep every particle of matter in the visible universe moving at the speed of light. To bring it into human perspective, let’s just consider the motion of the moon around the earth. There is a tremendous amount of invisible energy being expanded just to maintain the moon in orbit. Much more than humanity will ever need; even to sustain a life of wicked luxury on earth for everybody and their pets, with legions of robotic servants zipping around the planet and the solar system attending to our every need and whim. If we knew how to tap into just a tiny weenie bit of this energy field, we would be sitting pretty indeed. Earth could turn into a paradise, at least for those of us who enjoy kicking back with friends by the pool with lots of good wine, assorted hors d’euvres and delicacies. But then again, it could all turn into hell. As a species, we’re going to come face to face with very important decisions to make in a hurry, species-survival type of decisions! Yikes!

In Part V, I will explain why there are four types of lattice particles and why they always move at the speed of light once dislodged from their original position. I will argue that they are responsible for all electrostatic and magnetic phenomena, including light.

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Physics: The Problem With Motion, Part III

Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V


In Part II, I showed that, contrary to what we’ve been taught, Isaac Newton did not believe that a body in motion remains in motion for no reason. I also railed against the concept of continuity, which I compared to the flat earth hypothesis. In this article, I argue that a thorough understanding of the nature of motion inevitably leads to the conclusion that the visible matter of the universe is moving in an immense lattice of energetic particles. Understanding the properties of these particles and how they interact with normal matter will unleash an age of unlimited free energy and super fast travel. In this post, I write about the futility of trying to convince the physics community that their understanding of motion is flawed. I also argue that, at the microscopic level, there is only one type of motion: acceleration.

Either Or

Is it possible to prove Aristotle’s motion hypothesis? I think it’s an either-or situation. It all depends on whether or not you believe in causality. If you do believe in causality, then there should be absolutely no doubt in your mind that Aristotle was right for insisting that nothing can move unless it is caused to move. If you don’t believe in causality, it is because you believe in hocus-pocus and you should not even be reading my blog. Sorry.

Lost Cause

Unfortunately, using simple causal logic that anybody can understand is not nearly enough to persuade the physics community to suddenly confess that they were all a bunch of morons for believing in magic. It’s just not going to happen. The only way to pull it off might be to wait for all the old timers to croak, fire every physicist over twenty-five and then silently float a 50,000-ton cruise liner above the Eiffel tower. And that still would not convince them because you neglected to submit a paper for peer their review. One must never underestimate the capacity of scientists to deceive themselves and others into believing that they have a rightful monopoly on knowledge production.

Is it really worth it to try to convince the physics community that Aristotle was right about motion? Are they really that important in the greater scheme of things? I don’t think so. If you could float a goat five feet above the White House lawn, then you wouldn’t need the approval of the physics community. They would be forced to kiss your ass whether they agreed with your theory or not. In my opinion, any real progress in humanity’s understanding of motion will have to come from outside the physics community. Besides, waiting centuries for them to finally see the light is not particularly appealing.

The Causality of Motion

What does it mean to say that motion is causal? All it means is that no particle can move unless it is caused to move during the entire duration of the particle’s motion. Remove the cause (or causes) and the particle will come to an immediate halt. "But this is not observed", vehemently objects the nearest clueless physicist. True, but so what? Neither are virtual particles, quarks, spacetime, space, etc. Rightly or wrongly, these things were all inferred on the basis of what is observed. Likewise, we can logically infer that there is a cause that keeps a moving particle in motion. What follows below assumes that the reader understands and accepts that the universe is discrete, that the relative is abstract and that only the absolute exists.

Acceleration Is All There Is

Inertial motion is a macroscopic phenomenon that consists of a series of jumps of equal magnitude (actually, given that the universe is probabilistic, this definition is not entirely correct but it will do for now). At the microscopic level, there is no such thing as inertial motion. It is all acceleration. The reason is that a particle moves by making a jump from one discrete position to an adjacent one. A jump consists of two things: a positive acceleration away from the position of origin and a negative acceleration toward the destination. The cause of each jump is an imbalance in nature, i.e., a violation of some conservation principle. Nature uses jumps to rectify the imbalances. Two particles having equal positions and one or more similar properties will produce an imbalance. The ensuing interaction is manifested as a change in position by both particles. The magnitude of the interaction (how fast they react to the imbalance) depends on the energies involved.

Wall-to-Wall Particles

As can be seen in the previous paragraph, a sustained sequence of interactions is necessary to keep a particle in motion. The consequence of this is obvious. The particle must be moving in what I call a wall-to-wall sea of other particles. The primary purpose of the sea is to provide a causal substrate for motion. No sea = no motion. The amount of energy contained in the sea is so huge as to defy description. In Part IV, I will argue that the sea particles are organized as a 4-D lattice. My claim is that there is a way to use the properties of the lattice particles for propulsion and energy generation. Unlimited free energy for the whole world is there for the taking, if only we can figure out how.

See Also:

More Nasty Little Truths About Physics

Sunday, September 6, 2009

Physics: The Problem With Motion, Part II

Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V


In Part I, I claimed that the physics community’s understanding of motion is fundamentally flawed, on a par with the flat earth hypothesis. In this post, I will give a brief introduction to the two main competing theories of motion and explain why the causality of motion and the discreteness of the universe mean that Newton’s laws are incomplete.

Aristotle’s Dead Baby

Greek philosopher Aristotle was a fervent believer in cause and effect. He maintained that the natural state of matter was absolute rest and that nothing can move unless it is caused to move. In other words, if an object is caused to move by a force, it will stop moving as soon as the cause is removed. Let me come right out and say that I agree 100% with Aristotle in this regard and I will explain why later. I think it is a shame that subsequent thinkers utterly failed to grok the supreme importance of causality and rejected Aristotle’s motion hypothesis mostly on the basis of the man’s propensity for crackpottery.

Aristotle was hard pressed to explain why an arrow kept moving after it was released from an archer’s bow. He offered a cockamamie hypothesis according to which the arrow created a trailing vacuum that pushed it in its direction of travel. He should have kept his mouth shut and admitted that he had no understanding of the actual causal mechanism of movement. I guess that, given the state of knowledge in his day, the man can be forgiven for venturing a made up explanation, especially since nobody at the time could muster a convincing refutation. Needless to say, this and Aristotle’s strange explanations of other natural phenomena did not work in his favor in the eyes of future generations. So out the window, it was, with the bathwater and Aristotle’s baby!

Newton’s Other Principle

Centuries later along came Sir Isaac Newton who declared that a body at rest will remain at rest and a body in motion will remain in motion with constant speed in a straight line, as long as no unbalanced force acts on it. Newton’s ideas were wildly successful and it did not take long for physicists and philosophers to completely abandon Aristotle’s causal theory of motion. The current scientific doctrine is that Newton’s laws of motion destroyed Aristotelian logic and that a body in inertial motion stays in motion for no reason at all, as if by magic. Yep, physicists do believe in magic even if they claim otherwise. Of course, this is all hogwash because Newton was just as fanatical about causality as Aristotle. Some have mistakenly argued that Newton’s laws of motion deny causality but the fact is that he never believed that moving bodies remain in motion for no reason. The proof of this can be found in Optiks, in which Newton clearly indicated that he believed that a principle other than inertia was necessary to keep a body in motion:
The vis inertiae [i.e., inertia] is a passive principle by which bodies persist in their motion or rest, receive motion in proportion to the force impressing it, and resist as much as they are resisted. By this principle alone there never could be any motion in the world. Some other principle was necessary for putting bodies in motion; and now they are in motion, some other principle is necessary for conserving motion.
This is powerful stuff. This is one of the reasons that Sir Isaac is not known as the father of modern physics for just grins and giggles. The man was a thinker. Unfortunately, Newton never described the other principle, the one that conserves the motion of a moving body. His sole explanation, as far as I can tell, was to assert that God was the universal mover. Even Christians should recognize this as a rather weak argument. I suspect that this was Newton’s way of acknowledging that he did not understand everything about motion. It would have been nicer if he had taken a more down to earth approach or just adopted the same stance that he took with regard to the cause of gravity: Hypotheses, non fingo. But it seems strange that he would mention this other principle only in Optiks and not in Principia, and almost as an afterthought, mind you, as if the entire subject was somehow taboo.

I think that, even though Newton understood enough about the subject to realize that some other principle (cause) was required to keep a body in motion, he was handicapped by his failure to fully grasp the causality of motion at the fundamental level. Above all, Newton was betrayed by his tacit belief in continuity, another one of my pet peeves. That’s too bad, as I’m sure he would have loved to know the real answer. I’ll have more to say about that silly notion of continuity later.

[Addendum 9/17/2009]

I now realize that Newton’s language leaves the quoted passage above somewhat open to interpretation. He did not specifically write “some principle other than the vis inertiae is necessary for conserving motion." I think it's possible that Newton had meant the opposite. Still, I think that calling inertia a "passive principle" does not immediately bring "causal principle" to mind. Why? Because something that is passive is reactive as opposed to active. A reaction is an effect rather than a cause. One would think that an active principle is required to conserve (maintain?) motion.

If I'm wrong about Newton (very slight probability), it still feels good to imagine that he might have understood, way back then, that motion, like everything else, was a causal phenomenon. And why not? Aristotle had understood it centuries before that.

Albert Einstein

Early in the last century, Albert Einstein made his mark on physics with the publication of his Special and General Relativity theories. However, good old Albert had nothing really interesting to add to the causality of motion debate other than the claim that nothing can move faster than light in a vacuum. It’s an interesting claim in its own right but one that is woefully incomplete and misleading. In a future post, I will show that there is, in reality, only one speed in nature: the speed of light (surprise!).

From my perspective, Einstein muddied the entire subject by equating reality with what is observed and using that false premise to claim that only relative motion and position exist in nature. This is another one of those things that brings to my mind visions of Zatoichi, the blind Japanese swordmaster (see Part I). I am not going to repeat my critique here but the relativist’s denial of the existence of absolute motion is one that is easily refuted with simple logic that even children can understand. Please read my arguments against the relativity of motion, if you’re interested.

Discrete Universe

A correct understanding of motion is impossible unless one first realizes that nature is discrete. Why is nature discrete? Simply because continuity, the opposite of discreteness, leads to an infinite regress. I realize that there are those of the math persuasion who choose to disagree but I don’t care. From my perspective, the discreteness of nature is beyond argumentation. The concept of continuity (a.k.a. infinite divisibility) is one of the things that I call “chicken shit physics”. As physicist Wolfgang Pauli would put it, it is not even wrong. As with acausal motion, its fallacy is on a par with the flat earth hypothesis.

It is certain that Newton’s laws of motion are inadequate to fully explain motion and that physicists have no clue as to what keeps a moving body in motion. Their minds are irreparably poisoned by the belief in continuity that was impressed upon them at an early age. Continuity is as dumb as it gets. It's a religion of cretins, in my opinion. Even Einstein who built his entire career on continuity, had his doubts about it. In 1954, not long before he died, he wrote to his friend Besso: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." (From: "Subtle is the Lord" by Abraham Pais.)

That the concept lasted so long is proof that scientists are just as dogmatic about their beliefs as religious folks, probably even more so since they consider themselves to be the voices of reason. Paul Feyerabend was right when he wrote in Against Method that "the most stupid procedures and the most laughable results in their domain are surrounded with an aura of excellence."


Discreteness implies that the observed motion of a particle, regardless of how smooth we think it is, actually consists of a series of minute jumps. In Part III, I will explain how Newton’s laws of motion can be extended or modified to incorporate discrete motion at the microscopic level and why the causality of motion means that we are swimming in an enormous ocean of highly energetic particles.

See Also:

The Scientific Revolution and Contemporary Discourse on Faith and Reason
More Nasty Little Truths About Physics

Thursday, September 3, 2009

Physics: The Problem With Motion, Part I

Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V


There are many things about mainstream physics that infuriate me, not the least of which is the physicist’s understanding of motion. In this multi-part article, I will argue that the physicist’s understanding of movement is fundamentally flawed, on a par with the flat earth hypothesis. I believe that having a correct foundational model of movement will unleash an age of free energy and extremely fast transportation. It will be an age where vehicles have no need of wheels, move silently at enormous speeds with no visible means of propulsion and negotiate right-angle turns without slowing down.

Physicists, Magic and Zatoichi

I know. The preceding paragraph sounds like crackpot nonsense but most of you who regularly read my blog know that I am not one to shy away from expressing my views even if they get me branded as a crackpot. In fact, I am a rebel at heart and I relish the satisfaction of rubbing the scientific community’s nose in their own excrement. But before you get too offended by my irreverent attitude (I love science, ok?), consider that physicists believe in magic. You don’t believe me? Go ask a physicist to explain why two objects in relative inertial motion remain in motion. You will get either one or both of the following answers.
  1. Nothing is needed to keep them in motion. Newton proved it already.
  2. Physics is not about the ‘why’ of things but the ‘how’.
Answer no. 1 is, of course, pure superstition (I'll explain why in my next post) while answer no. 2 is a sign of pride in (or a cheesy excuse for) one's admitted ignorance. It's strange, but every time I hear this crap, I get a vision of blind swordmaster Zatoichi, of Japanese cinema, calmly eating his enemies’ food in their presence, drinking their sake, taking their money, mocking them and then skillfully chopping them down in righteous anger. All right, it is just metaphorical fantasy and I am not advocating violence against physicists but I hope this article will convince a handful of you that at least one or two of the more famous physicists out there deserve to be dressed as chickens and paraded down NY Fifth Ave or the Champs-Élysées as an example to the others. My point is that something has got to be done.

In Part II, I will deconstruct the above answers and show that physicists are just as ignorant as the man in the street about the nature of motion. Heck, the man in the street may have a leg up on them; that's how bad I think the problem with motion is.

See Also:
More Nasty Little Truths About Physics