Densytics: Physics Without Newtonian Branding
Densytics: Physics Without Newtonian Branding
Buy on Leanpub
Densytics: Physics Without Newtonian Branding

1. About

This is the equivalence of densytics and physics:

\left \{ \frac{R_{0}^{3}}{T_{0}^{2}} = \frac{R^3}{T^2} \right \}\equiv \left \{F =\frac{GMm}{R^2}=ma=F \right \}

Physics is densytics branded with Newtonian ideology.

Both densytics and Newtonian branded version of it describes orbits equally well; one would choose Newtonian version only if one is a priest of the cult of Newton. For marketing and public relations reasons, priests of the cult of Newton call themselves “physicists”.

  • Kepler’s rule is the definition of density.

Newton encoded Kepler’s Rule as Definition 1 in the Principia as a secret message to posterity.

  • Density continuum is defined by Kepler’s Rule as
\frac{R_0^3}{T_0^2}=\frac{R^3}{T^2}

Starting from Kepler’s rule instead of “deriving” it from Newtonian ideology eliminates Newtonian

  • force
  • mass
  • gravity
  • attraction
  • linear inertia
  • forceful orbits

and the dogma of atomic materialism Newton assumed to make his force work. In short, when we assume that Kepler’s rule is fundamental and start from density continuum every ideological label invented by Newton in order to hide the fact that he was using Kepler’s rule to make astronomical computations are eliminated and we end up with a simplified picture of the world.

Density continuum eliminates the superflous terminology Newton invented in order to design a System of the World branded as Newtonian. We don’t need Newtonian ideological terms to describe the world.

Density continuum saves and explains astronomy and physics as well as the consistent system of units called Newtonian mechanics.

Computations are greatly simplified and density continuum saves every phenomenon as well as Newtonian mechanics full of superfluous terms such as force that physicists write first and eliminate on the next line to recover Kepler’s rule.

This is not surprising at all when we understand what the Newtonian mechanics is.

What is Newtonian mechanics?

Newtonian mechanics is a consistent system of units and labels that use Kepler’s Rule as its engine.

Newtonian mechanics differ from other mechanics or algorithms in its treatment of mathematical objects. In Newtonian mechanics all mathematical objects, such as units and coefficients, are labeled with ideological names to make the framework look Newtonian.

Newtonian mechanics also contains as many ideological and decorative labels that do not have mathematical or physical referents. They exist purely to save Newton’s authority. For example, the force.

How come?

Ideological and decorative labels and terms exist because they are written to save the ideology and then cancelled by ritualized mathematical sophistry such as writing the same term on both sides of an equation.

This is why this mechanics is called “Newtonian” mechanics.

Newtonian mechanics is like the Ptolemaic mechanics. Both save the phenomena with an open ended mathematical framework. Open ended because new phenomena can always be saved by adding new terms.

The difference with these two mechanics is that Ptolemaic mechanics is purely geometrical while Newtonian mechanics is based on a rule. This rule is Kepler’s rule. Newtonian mechanics use Kepler’s rule to save phenomena but claims to have used Newton’s universal gravitation.

Therefore, Newtonian mechanics is scientific fraud.

Let’s start from the Principia.

In the Principia Newton did something that was never done before in astronomy. Newton used what he claimed to be the law of the universe to compute astronomical quantities. It’s difficult for us to imagine what this meant to Newton’s contemporaries.

Imagine you are an astronomer in Newton’s time. In order to predict the motions of a planet you must build astronomical tables. You take whatever observations you can find and list them as a table. Then you use mathematical methods to extrapolate the missing data between rows in your table.

You have no idea why planets move the way they do because you don’t have a rule that explains the motions modeled by your table.

Enter Newton.

Newton claims to have discovered the underlying law of the universe. He calls this universal law the force of gravity or the universal gravity and he says he can prove it.

He offers his book known as Principia as evidence. He starts with definitions, then states laws of motion then states mathematical looking theorems, supposedly proves them and then lists astronomical phenomena and finally in the third book he claims to compute astronomical quantities by using universal gravitation that he discovered.

If this were anything more than propaganda it would have been a truly great achievement: A scholastic doctor of philosophy practicing in Cambridge, England, in the 18th century discovers the true law of the universe by divine revelation and proves it by making astronomical computations such as computing the surface gravity of Jupiter.

Yet, Newton never discovered any new quantity in nature by revelation or otherwise. Newton discovered Kepler’s rule.

Newton’s astronomical computations looked magical to his contemporaries. To them computing the surface gravity of a planet by purely mathematical methods was nothing short of magic. The whole world was impressed and Newton managed to convert all Aristotelian scholastic doctors to his own school he called Natural Philosophy.

As Newtonian school spread to Europe and then to the world as Natural Philosophy Newtonism became synonymous with science.

In fact Newtonism should have been synonymous with academic scholasticism and marketing.

But, Newton, no matter how good he was in self-promotion, could not have deified himself successfully if his astronomical calculations did not work.

Newton succeeded in replacing then dominant Cartesian system of vortices with his own because astronomers could not make predictions with vortices but they could with the Newtonian system.

Newton’s marketing genius manifested itself in the way he branded Kepler’s rule as Newton’s universal gravitation.

Before he learned about Kepler’s rule Newton could not make astronomical predictions. Newton wrote his treatise on motion in Latin and set it aside for two decades because it was as useless to make astronomical predictions as the Cartesian model.

Then Newton learned about Kepler’s rule in an astronomy textbook.

You and I or any mortal lacking Newton’s marketing genius would have used Kepler’s rule as is, as an astronomical rule, to make planetary computations.

Not the marketing genius closest to Gods.

Newton copied Thomas Streete’s computations with Kepler’s rule from Astronomia Carolina into his Principia but he cleverly obscured the fact that he was using nothing but Kepler’s rule in his computations.

In order to brand Kepler’s rule as Newton’s universal gravitation Newton invented new labels and branded parts of Kepler’s rule with his own labels. Typical marketing technique used by all packagers of consumer goods.

This is great marketing. Newton branded Kepler’s rule as Newton’s universal gravity by defining its parts as force and mass. He then designed the Newtonian System of the World to conform to and confirm his universal gravity.

But Newton did not design or develop the Newtonian mechanics. Newton did not know what is called the Newtonian mechanics today.

Newton used Kepler’s rule in its proportional form, not in its equational form written with named units of physics. Newton did not use equations or named or standard units.

In Principia Newton’s astronomical computations amount to algebraic transformations of the proportionality

\frac{R^3}{T^2} = \textrm{constant}

that Newton first saw in Astronomia Carolina. Newton writes

\frac{R^3}{T^2} = \textrm{constant}

as

\frac{1}{R^2} = \frac{R}{T^2}

and then as

\frac{1}{R^2} = \textrm{Force}\ \ \ \textrm{and}\ \ \ \frac{R}{T^2} = \textrm{Force}

and combines what he split and recovers Kepler’s rule.

But Newton’s method is cumbersome. He doesn’t have standard units and equations that can be used over and over again as canonical algorithms.

So after Newton people like Laplace, Euler, Gauss and Lagrange and many many others wove a mechanics around Kepler’s rule and called it Newtonian mechanics.

It’s difficult to imagine that Newtonian mechanics thought at schools today as the only truth was once the cutting edge of research and that the greatest mathematicians of their times worked on it.

Newtonian mechanics did not happen overnight, it took about two centuries to develop it to perfection.

So in Newtonian mechanics Kepler’s rule written as

\frac{1}{R} = \frac{R^2}{T^2}

is read as “potential energy equals kinetic energy,” the famous law of conservation of energy.

The designers and developers of the Newtonian mechanics gradually defined and established units and constants to use with Kepler’s rule and in about two centuries they transformed the true proportionality

\frac{1}{R^2} = \frac{R}{T^2}

into

\textrm{F}=\frac{GMm}{R^2} = ma = \textrm{F}

Note how physicists write the same term m on both sides as mathematical sophistry to save Newton’s authority.

Kepler’s rule written in equation form with Newtonian terminology is equivalent to Kepler’s rule written simply in its proportional form.

Comparing Kepler’s rule in proportional form

\frac{1}{R^2} = \frac{R}{T^2}

with its Newtonian equational form

\textrm{F}=\frac{GMm}{R^2} = ma = \textrm{F}

we see that Newtonian mechanics is nothing more than Kepler’s rule written in named units, named coefficients called constants all branded with ideological names to make Kepler’s rule Newton’s own.

It’s Kepler’s rule that computes astronomical quantities, not labels Newton attached on it.

Kepler’s rule is the only rule known to humanity that describes astronomical motion. There is no other rule.

You can brand Kepler’s rule as many ways as you want but you can never find a new rule.

I eliminated Newtonian branding and recovered the true rule.

Density continuum is Kepler’s rule without Newtonian ideology.

* * *

Nature is operational not matterful. Life is contractual not existential. Therefore life is lovely not legal.

2. Principles of Densytics

Can we explain all phenomena that physics explains by rejecting the fundamental doctrine of physics and by assuming that all surface is definitional?

Yes, we can and more simply. I call such new science without Newtonian branding and Newtonian atomic materialism, “densytics”.

Densytics assumes that nature is natural and change is the fundamental process of nature.

These are the first principles of densytics:

  • Nature is natural;
  • Surface is definitional;
  • Density defines surface;
  • Motion is flow of density;
  • Change is change in density

The following list shows the principles of densytics versus the principles of physics.

First principles

Densytics: Nature is natural; surface is definitional; density defines surface; density is finite; there is no absolutely hard surface; motion is change of density

Physics: Nature is supernatural; god revealed to Newton that He created an atomic materialist world with absolutely hard, indivisible particles with infinite density moved by an occult quality called force acting instantaneously. (Only the marketing genius closest to gods could market this absurd worldview as true science.)

Fundamental process

Densytics: change

Physics: motion

unit of study

Densytics: density

Physics: infinitely dense indivisible that moves without changing. In other words, physics is the study of the motion of the absolutely immovable by the absolutely powerful occult force. This is the foundation of the “science” of physics.

Measurables

Densytics: length, volume, density, area

Physics: physics’s fundamental concepts are not measurable; mass is the finite value of the sum of the infinitely dense matter; force is the finite value of the sum of infinitely fast force; both are absurd quantities and they do not exist in operational formulas; they are written by physicists to save the doctrine and then canceled

Theater of change

Densytics: density continuum

Physics: reincarnation of the old ether under new names such as vortices, spacetime, vacuum, quintessence and so on…

Rule of change

Densytics: kepler’s rule; also known as the orbit rule; or the density rule

Physics: kepler’s rule decorated and branded with ideologically named units and constants

Origin of the rule of change

Densytics: astronomical observations

Physics: Kepler’s Rule

Mathematical unit

Densytics: proportionality

Physics: “physics equation” which is a scholastic tool of casuistry, and sophistry

Objective

Densytics: investigate how nature works

Physics: fit nature to newton’s doctrine of atomic materialism by using mathematical sophistry and casuistry

ultimate goal

Densytics: curiosity

Physics: career advancement by “discovering” more species of force and mass to obey Newton’s directives to his followers in the Principia.

Business model

Densytics: open source; free distribution

Physics: hoard all knowledge wholesale as trade secret hidden behind walls of an esoteric language and monetize retail by teaching to new recruits and by teaching to the laymen through popular books. This is the definition of academic scholasticism. In short, physics is the anti-science impersonating science.

* * *

We have all the requirements for a new science:

  • well-defined unit of study; and
  • a rule that defines how the unit changes.

All we are missing is people who feel that these initial assumptions are promising and would like to contribute to the development of this new science.

Comments

Switching the focus of our investigations of how nature changes from supernatural atomic materialism to natural densytics will have important results in our understanding of nature.

Physics is based on the assumption of atomic materialism as an absolute truth. Atomic materialism aims to explain nature with movable units with absolutely hard surface and infinite density, therefore, physics accepts motion but rejects change because these units move but never change. In other words, physics defines nature to be supernatural.

In densytics, motion is the flow from more dense to less dense; where there is no such density gradient, motion is uniform and on a closed curve. This explains orbits without Newtonian matter and force.

Newton, on the other hand, defined rectilinear motion as the natural motion in order to save his assumption of atomic materialism; he then made this natural motion to curve under the action of his occult force to form orbits. No rectilinear motion was ever observed. We have no need for Newton’s fantastic scenario of orbit formation because densytics explains orbits naturally as equidensity.

Kepler’s rule is the definition of density; so it is natural that orbits are explained with the concept of density without force or matter.

Density continuum is where change occurs according to the density rule.

Why is it important to eliminate Newtonian branding and atomic materialism from physics?

According to physicists, physics is a system of self-evident theories and it is the only true way to discover and describe nature.

This exact claim was made for the Euclidean geometry up to the 18th century. Then, mathematicians realized that there was nothing “self-evident” or “true” about Euclid’s axioms and other consistent geometries were possible. The same realization also led to the development of new algebras.

By using one of these new geometries, Einstein developed his relativity theory and ever since then physicists have been using many different geometries and algebras in physics.

But none of these geometries and algebras can create new physics in the sense of new geometries. Because physics theories based on new mathematics such as General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and String Theory are all Newtonian theories because they accept without question the Newtonian doctrine of atomic materialism.

Only rejecting the fundamental axiom of physics, namely, atomic materialism, will create new physics and one of these new physics is densytics.

3. Contract of Definitions

I. Introduction

I call this set of definitions “a contract of definitions” to contrast them with the absolute “laws of nature” of scholastic Doctors Of Philosophy doing business as physicists who claim to own nature as their intellectual property.

Physicists’ definitions have divine provenance

The founder of the physics profession and the self-annointed prophet Newton claimed that God revealed to him the true “laws of nature.” But Newton’s disciples the physicists believe that their founder discovered these laws with his mathematical powers.

Physicists prove what they assume

Academic physicists assume the truth of their definitions and then prove what they assumed with experiments. This is the pre-pre-scientific method of shamans who flourished during the intellectual stone ages of humanity. Academic physicists are the institutionalized shamans who package and sell their arbitrary definitions as the absolute truth.

We like our definitions

Our definitions are as arbitrary and as good as physicists’ definitions and we claim no divine provenance for our definitions and we are not attempting to prove what we have defined. If you like our definitions, you agree to them, if you don’t like them, don’t agree to them, ignore them.

Nature is definitional

If you prefer, define your own system of definitions. Nature is definitional. Only professional Doctors Of Philosophy doing business as physicists who make their living by teaching their absolute doctrines want you to believe that they are the priestly class who have a privileged access to the secrets of nature and that if you want to know the absolute truth you must pay them to reveal it to you.

Doctors of Theology sold indulgences; Doctors of Philosophy sell supernatural absurdities

DOP’s professional cousins, the DOT, used to sell indulgences to the people; DOP sell their own definitions combined in absurd theories as the absolute truth revealed to them by the gods of mathematics. DOT at least proposed to save your soul; DOP take your money and confuse you even more.

Let’s ignore these professional doctors of physics and go on having fun investigating nature for ourselves without paying a priestly caste to sell us their definitions as the absolute truth. Who needs them.

II. A list of favorite definitions

1. Nature is natural.

This definition is in reaction to physicists’ hidden assumption that nature is supernatural. Instead of giving up their Newtonian atomic materialist ideology physicists turn nature into supernatural.

2. Nature is definitional.

Nature is what you define it to be. Another way of saying this is that we can only know what we already know, because we cannot know what we did not define.

Physicists define nature to be supernatural and discover absolutely indivisible supernatural particles moved by a supernatural force and make nature conform to their supernatural doctrines with casuistry. Physics is a good proof that nature is definitional and not physical.

3. Nature is rational.

There are no absolute laws in nature but there are rules that we can define; the natural rule of nature is equality of ratios. Nature is not equational because nature is not legal; physics is legal, nature is rational.

4. Science is the pursuit of curiosity for the fun of it.

According to this definition, only amateurs can call themselves “scientists”. No professional learned doctor can be a scientist because his profession severely limits his curiosity; a professional doctor is allowed to be curious only about finding loopholes in physics to further his career by writing new commentary to old legal code; no professional doctor is allowed to pursue freely his curiosity because his curiosity may lead him to question his faith.

If a professional doctor who calls himself a physicist is not allowed to question his faith of atomic materialism and must fake all experimental results to save his faith, surely, he has no right to call himself a scientist.

Beware of the professionals who define a “scientific method” in order to own the word science and define themselves the only true scientists who know how to apply the scientific method they defined.

5. Surface exists when defined and named.

Every surface is definitional; there is no absolute surface. Consider the earth which is defined by a surface. To assume that there is a preferred surface defining the earth is anthropocentric reasoning.

To claim that the spherical surface humans defined as the “surface of the earth” is the true surface of the density continuum that stretches from center to space is as anthropocentric as claiming that the earth must be at the center of the universe because it is the abode of humans.

We may define the earth to include the atmosphere or we can define the earth as the surface of earth’s core; all surfaces are definitional and the density continuum that includes what is conventionally known as the earth does not have any preferred surface.

There is nothing special about the density level where humans live. All absolute truncations of a continuum are ideological. Five hundred years after Copernicus human-centric point of view is still with us.

6. Surface is defined by density.

Either by the square of the unit making up the boundary or by the contiguous parts of the density continuum where more dense meets less dense, for instance, where water meets air.

7. Density is the unit of nature.

Not that there is anything special or ultimately true with the concept of density. It is that density is naturally based on measurable quantities.

The Cult of Newton who claims to own nature defined the absolute indivisible moved by the occult force as the unit of nature. Both the indivisible and the force are supernatural absurdities and do not agree with our first definition, so we choose density as our unit of nature.

8. Density is the number of units in a given boundary or frequency squared.

Because volume is proportional to area.

9. Density continuum is the continuous variation of density according to the Density Rule.

Density continuum replaces physicists’ ether and all its reincarnations under different names. What physicists have been calling vortices, spacetime, vacuum and quintessence are all the old ether with a different name and they are now replaced with the density continuum.

10. Motion is the flow of density from more dense to less dense.

Density continuum is in constant flow but density is conserved. Where Density Continuum has constant value motion is on a closed curve.

We don’t need to include physicists’ mass terms m and M to explain orbits or motion. There is a reason why m and M always disappear from equations. In nature there is no mass m moved by the occult force F. Motion is flow.

Physicists corrupted the good old science of physics with the atomic materialism and defined nature to be “physical”. It will take a few generations to fix the damage caused to human understanding of nature by these corrupt learned doctors of philosophy doing business as physicists.

11. Density continuum varies as the 1.5 power of distance.

This is the density rule discovered by Kepler. Kepler’s Rule says that volume is proportional to area or the radius cubed is proportional to period squared. Kepler’s Rule is also known as the density rule.

12. Unit is length which is kept constant.

Unit is definitional; there are no absolute, ultimate or true units; any length can be chosen as the unit; therefore, length is the only measurable quantity.

Consequently, there are no absolute constants.

14. Measurement is the counting of the unit.

Measurement can only measure what is defined as measurable.

There is no measurement without units.

Since unit is arbitrary, measurement is independent of units. Anything physicists claim to compute by using their branded units and branded constants can be computed by any unit whatsoever.

We don’t claim to have the superpowers of learned doctors of physics so we let them compute to seven significant digits the number of angels dancing to the tunes of the gravitational waves in a suitably chosen spacetime 3 seconds before God created time in order to start his countdown to the Big Bang.

The same is true for computation.

Computation can only compute what is defined by the unit.

No amount of computation can prove what is not included in the computation. Physicists, on the other hand, like nothing better than to prove what does not exist in their equations by philosophical commentary they attach to equations. Only, doctors of philosophy doing business as physicists will prove the letter m by rearranging terms in equations that do not contain the letter m. Doctors of physics defined “computation” to be the ritualistic changing of the guards in front of the Temple of Newton. No quantity needs to be computed in a physics computation.

4. Astronomical Computations in Newton’s Principia

These are the relevant astronomical computations that Newton claimed that proved his dynamical doctrines: Proposition III.4 – The Moon test, Proposition III.8 and Propositions I.57, I.58, I.59 and I.60. Newton is lying because none of these computations prove his dynamical doctrines, because as shown below, these are simple algebraic manipulations of Kepler’s Rule. See Commentary below.

Proposition III.4 – The Moon test

In proposition III.4 Newton merely confirms that Kepler’s Rule is valid for the earth-moon system. Given the unit period t at unit radius r , the period T at any radius R is given by Kepler’s law:

\frac{r^3}{t^2} = \frac{R^3}{T^2}= k

Plugging in the numbers Newton finds that the moon moves according to Kepler’s Rule as expressed in the above equation. No law other than Kepler’s Rule is used in this equation and the proposition only proves that Kepler’s Rule is valid for the earth-moon system.

Using Kepler’s Rule Newton compares the mean motion of an earth satellite near the earth’s surface and at 60 earth radii. Newton uses a pendulum to obtain the orbit of an earth skimming satellite but let’s use the modern value of 5054.75 seconds. By Kepler’s Rule,

\frac{r^3}{t^2} = \frac{R^3}{T^2}= \frac{1}{5054.75^2} = \frac{60^3}{T^2}

where, r is the radius of the earth and it is unity, t is the mean motion of a satellite at r, R is the earth-moon distance which is taken as 60r, T is the mean motion at R which is

T = 27.19 \ \mbox{days}

and Kepler’s Rule is confirmed.

This proposition proves just this, that Kepler’s Rule is valid for the earth-moon system. No law other than Kepler’s Rule is used in the computations.

Similar calculations existed in Streete’s Astronomia Carolina where Newton first saw Kepler’s Rule. He just copied them and added his own scholastic labels to it.

Proposition III.8

The mathematical content of the proposition III.8 consists of an algebraic transformation of Kepler’s Rule.

Let t be the unit period at unit radius r and T the period at any radius R, then Kepler’s Rule is,

K = \frac{R^3 t^2}{T^2 r^3}

Let R = r, and then,

K = \frac{t^2}{T^2}

This ends the first algebraic transformation of Corollary 1. This is it. This is the calculation Newton sold to the world as Newton’s law of universal gravity.

Let’s continue to study how a genius does simple algebra: By Kepler’s Rule

k = \frac{R^3}{T^2} = \frac{R^{\prime 3}}{T^{\prime 2}}

and

k^{\prime} = \frac{r^3}{t^2} = \frac{r^{\prime 3}}{t^{\prime 2}}

and

\frac{k}{k^{\prime}} = \frac{R^3 t^2}{T^2 r^3} = \frac{R^{\prime 3} t^{\prime 2}}{T^{\prime 2} r^{\prime 3}}

Rearranging,

\frac{R^3 t^2 r^{\prime 2}}{T^2 r^3 R^{\prime 2}} = \frac{R^{\prime} t^{\prime 2}}{T^{\prime 2} r^{\prime}}

This is the second result of Corollary 1. Newton is considered by the Newtonist propaganda to be the greatest mathematician ever lived and his work here proves that he can do simple algebraic manipulations.

The third result is just:

D = \frac{S r^{\prime}}{R^{\prime}}

There are no Newtonian laws used here. Proposition III.8 is not an application of “Newton’s law of gravitation,” as Newton claims, but a simple algebraic transformation of Kepler’s Rule.

None of the propositions Newton proves in the previous books is used to make any of these calculations. This is important to note.

Propositions I.57, I.58, I.59 and I.60

Propositions I.57, I.58, I.59 and I.60 also consist of simple algebraic manipulations of Kepler’s Rule that Newton is trying to sell us as dynamical calculations.

Newton writes Kepler’s Rule as

\frac{W(R) \sqrt{R}}{W(R^{\prime}) \sqrt{R^{\prime}}} = \frac{R^{\prime}}{R}

where R, R’ = (R + r), W(R), W(R’) are the given radii and angular motions of two points P and P’.

To make our first algebraic transformation let

R^{\prime} = R^{\prime \prime}

The first equation becomes

W(R^{\prime}) = W(R) \frac{\sqrt{R}}{\sqrt{R^{\prime}}}

The conclusion of Proposition 58 is: to satisfy Kepler’s Rule at equal distances the angular motion of the greater radii must be reduced by the ratio

\frac{\sqrt{R}}{\sqrt{R^{\prime}}}

For the second transformation, let

\frac{W(R)}{W(R^{\prime}} = 1

The first equation becomes

\frac{\sqrt{R}}{\sqrt{R^{\prime}}} = \frac{R^{\prime}}{R}

But since Newton altered the constant ratio of angular motions by equating them to unity, Kepler’s proportionality is no longer valid. To satisfy Kepler’s Rule again we must have

\frac{W(R)}{W(R^{\prime})} = \frac{R}{R^{\prime}}

Making this substitution the first equation becomes

\frac{R \sqrt{R}}{R^{\prime} \sqrt{R^{\prime}}} = \frac{R^{\prime}}{R}

or as Newton puts it:

The axis of the second ellipse – that is, R’ – must be decreased by 1.5 power of the former ratio – that is, (R/R’)1.5.

Commentary

The mathematics in these propositions, which take up four solid pages in the Cohen translation, amounts to simple algebraic manipulations of Kepler’s Rule, the rest is Newton’s dynamical propaganda expressed with labels attached to Kepler’s Rule. The propositions prove none of Newton’s dynamical and occult claims. Instead they show how Newton corrupted the old science of astronomy by introducing into astronomy occult qualities such as force and mass. Newton Newtonized astronomy, i.e. he turned astronomy into scholasticism.

Scholasticism did not disappear after Galileo. Newtonian revolution was not a scientific revolution but a counter-revolution against Galileo to establish a scholastic monarchy under Newton’s name. This became the Newtonist cult whose members now call themselves physicists. This is why physicists insist on using Newtonian occult terms in astronomy even though none of the Newtonian terms are used in calculations of orbits.

After about 300 years of asserting the absolute truth of the Newtonian force physicists finally – but only nominally – deprecated this fundamental dogma of Newtonian physics.

A physical quantity whose unit is named after the founder of the profession can never be eliminated. But physics is infinitely flexible and semantic and physicists have been claiming that force has been subsumed by General Relativistic geodesic or, depending on the case, by force carrying particles or, depending on the case again, by force creating fields.

Instead of letting force die a peaceful death physicists has been resurrecting it under various names. And Newtonism is still taught the first few years of physics education as truth and students routinely measure Newtonian force moving pendulum arms.

Therefore, physicists’ party line that they teach Newtonian mechanics for pedagogical reasons does not hold. Physicists still believe that Newtonian force exists as needed.

5. Kepler’s Rule is the definition of density

Newton defined density as

Quantity of matter is a measure of matter that arises from its density and volume jointly.

(Definition 1, Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, 1687, Isaac Newton; referred to hereinafter as the “Book”.)

Newton’s definition of density is a statement of Kepler’s Rule which is written in its fundamental (proportional) form, as

\frac{R_{0}^{3}}{T_{0}^{2}}=\frac{R^{3}}{T^{2}}

which is equivalent to “Quantity of matter is density times volume” (by “density” Newton means “square of frequency”):

\begin{align*}
&\frac{R_{0}^{3}}{T_{0}^{2}} \equiv  \textup{Quantity of Matter } \equiv \textup{Mass}\\
\\
&\frac{1}{T^2} \equiv \textup{Density} \equiv \textup{(Frequency)}^2\\
\\
&\frac{R^3}{1} \equiv \textup{Volume}
\end{align*}

or

\textup{Mass} = \textup{(Frequency)}^2 \times \textup{Volume}

Newton discovered that Kepler’s Rule is the definition of density.

This is a discovery of historic proportions that forces us to question the Newtonian occult world view which defines nature as

  • atomic
  • material
  • forceful

Why did Newton choose to hide his greatest discovery as a secret code and did not reveal it to the world?

Probably because this discovery is at odds with Newton’s religious beliefs as expressed in Newton’s Zeroth Law that

God in the beginning formed matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable movable particles.

(Isaac Newton, Optics, 1704, Book III, page: 375)

Newton’s realization that Kepler’s Rule is the definition of density refutes the dynamic system of the world Newton defined in his Book. This dynamic and occult Newtonian world view based on Newton’s Zeroth Law has become the standard and generally accepted and allegedly self-evident official world view of humanity.

Now, we see that Newton’s own true discovery refutes the system of the world Newton defined in his Book.

To understand why, let’s start by writing some undisputed facts:

Undisputed fact 1:

Kepler’s Rule describes orbits with only 2 terms, R and T. R is the radius of the orbit and T is the period of the orbit.

Undisputed fact 2:

By Undisputed fact 1, orbits are not forceful, but geometric; no force term is needed or used to compute orbits.

Observation 1:

Newton claimed that the world is atomic, material and forceful because he allegedly computed orbits by using force and mass. Now we know that Newton used only Kepler’s Rule to compute orbits. He did not use force to compute orbits.

Question 1:

Is the world Newtonian, i.e., atomic, material and forceful as Newton claimed?

Answer 1:

No. If, following Newton as example, we base our definition of the world on the calculation of orbits; we must conclude that the world is not atomic, material and forceful. We must conclude that

the fundamental unit of nature is not matter but density.

The world is matterless as proved by Kepler’s Rule. The system of the world defined by Newton is no longer supported by any observational or experimental evidence.

And it was Newton who discovered that we are living in a matterless world! I find this ironic and amazing.

So, please adjust your world view accordingly.

6. Kepler’s Rule and Newton’s Laws

What is the difference between

\frac{1}{R^2} = \frac{R}{T^2}

and

\frac{GM}{R^2} = a

To me GM/R2 = a is Kepler’s rule

\frac{R^3}{T^2} = \frac{R_0^3}{T_0^2}

written with Newtonian units where

\frac{R_0^3}{T_0^2} = GM

The symbol a is a proxy for R/T2. Therefore, we can equally ask, what is the difference between

\frac{1}{R^2} = \frac{R}{T^2}

and

\frac{GM}{R^2} = \frac{R}{T^2}

Let’s combine like terms on one side

GM = \frac{R^3}{T^2}

If we define {R_0^3/T_0^2} as the constant term in Kepler’s Rule then we have

\frac{R_0^3}{T_0^2} = \frac{R^3}{T^2} \; \; \; \; \; (1)GM = \frac{R^3}{T^2} \; \; \; \; \; (2)

Therefore (1) and (2) are the same Kepler’s Rule. In (2) the unit term is

\frac{R_0^3}{T_0^2} = GM

We can also set the unit term to unity

\frac{R_0^3}{T_0^2} = GM = 1

and then we would have

1 = \frac{R^3}{T^2} = \textup{Kepler's Rule}

I see

GM = \frac{R_0^3}{T_0^2} = \frac{R^3}{T^2}

as Kepler’s Rule written with the conventional unit GM.

Physicists read the same in two ways

GM = \frac{R^3}{T^2} = \textup{Newton's laws}\frac{R_0^3}{T_0^2} = \frac{R^3}{T^2} = \textup{Kepler's Rule}

They then substitute

GM = \frac{R_0^3}{T_0^2}

in Kepler’s Rule and call this substitution “deriving Kepler’s law from Newton’s laws.”

So in physics writing Kepler’s Rule with a unit called “Newton’s constant G” turns Kepler’s rule into Newton’s law.

But the way I see it

GM = \frac{R_0^3}{T_0^2} = \frac{R^3}{T^2}

is one expression. This is Kepler’s Rule. This expression has nothing to do with Newton’s laws or Newtonian mechanics.

All evidence shows that Kepler’s Rule came first. Kepler’s Rule was discovered in observations. Physicists agree on this.

The claim physicists make is that Newton discovered the underlying dynamic law in Kepler’s geometric rule.

But this is not true.

Even if Newton made the claim that the Newtonian force was the underlying dynamical quantity of the geometric Kepler’s rule today physics tells us that Newton’s force is unphysical and does not exist.

If Newton’s force has been shown to be unphysical by physicists themselves why do they still talk about a dynamical foundation of Kepler’s rule discovered by Newton?

The only claim for dynamical terms must be G and M.

But neither G nor M nor GM are dynamical quantities.

G was not written by Newton. Newton did not use constants, he worked with proportions, not with equations.

Mass is the constant term R_0^3/T_0^2. This is how Newton defined mass.

\textup{Mass} = \frac{R_0^3}{T_0^2}

R and T are geometric therefore mass as defined by Newton is the name of the unit term in Kepler’s Rule.

Once again we see that Newton labelled Kepler’s Rule with Newtonian labels and his followers reified Newton’s labels.

My conclusion is that Newton’s followers to this day insist on copying Newton’s labels blindly.

Then what to do?

What is the correct way to read

GM = \frac{R_0^3}{T_0^2} = \frac{R^3}{T^2}

Is this a dynamic or geometric expression?

Is this Kepler’s Rule or Newton’s laws?

How can we decide?

Is there an independent authority outside physics who can evaluate this expression independent of Newtonian dogma?

Why is it that writing Kepler’s rule with a conventional unit turn it into Newton’s dynamical law?

If the Newtonian force has been shown to be unphysical why is it that physicists still insist that Newton’s force is the dynamical and true law, not Kepler’s geometric rule?

The stakes are very high. Physicists will never concede that orbits are independent of Newton’s force and therefore orbits are independent of force with no ifs and buts. Physicists will always come up with rationalizations to keep Newton’s force associated with orbits at least on pedagogical level. Otherwise that would be the end of Newtonian physics. Physicists is not ready for that yet.

But suppose that the last paragraph is my opinion. What kind of evidence is needed so that physicists will finally stop calling Kepler’s Rule Newton’s law? Is that possible?

What evidence do we need to offer to prove that orbits are independent of Newtonian force?

Is it possible that physicists will stop arguing both that orbits are independent of force and not? At present they use sophistry to argue that orbits are defined by general relativity and therefore independent of Newtonian force and that orbits are dependent on force as needed.

The sophistry doesn’t work because if orbits are independent of force than physicists must accept that there are no dynamical terms in Kepler’s Rule.

What is curious to me is that Newton’s laws, Newton’s mechanics, force, mass are no longer used in astronomy. Yet physicists are unwilling to give up their absolute faith in Newton’s authority. Doesn’t make sense.

7. How did Newton spin rotation into orbits

In Definition 5 Newton defines a new word to describe a new species of force he just invented: centripetal force. Centripetal force is a force that seeks a center. Newton gives four examples of this force: Terrestrial heaviness with which bodies tend to the center of the Earth; iron seeking loadstone; the force holding planets in their orbits and the sling motion. In the case of the sling, the centripetal force manifests itself as the tension on the string, and the stone stretches the string “the more strongly the more swiftly it revolves.”

Newton then projects the properties of the sling rotation to planetary orbits. These properties are radial acceleration, the “endeavor” to fly off and the tension on the string dubbed “force.” According to Newton all orbits are rotational and have the same properties as the sling motion.

Newton’s claim that orbits are rotational is wrong. Newton is spin-doctoring rotation in order to make his occult force the cause of planetary orbits. Rotation and revolution are ruled by different rules and orbital motion is free of the tension on the radius. The tension in the string exists because radius is constrained. In orbital motion such a radial constraint does not exist and therefore, Newtonian force does not exist.

Rules for rotation and revolution are

\textup{Rotation} \equiv S\propto R\textup{Revolution} \equiv S\propto R^{-1.5}

Rotation is ruled by radian motion, \Theta = S/R or S = R \times \Theta. According to this rule, for a given radius R, increasing Θ by turning the sling faster, will increase S and consequently, the radius R will want to increase proportionately, but since R is constrained and kept constant by the string, that additional motion belonging to R will manifest itself as tension on the string. The increase in S will be a measure of this tension.

Newton, on the other hand, interprets the sling motion in terms of the force he just defined. As the sling rotates, the stone stretches the string and endeavors to fly off and the centripetal force draws the stone back toward the hand to make the orbit happen. Newton hereby defines force as the cause of the sling orbit. Then Newton claims that the same mechanism creates all orbits because “all bodies endeavor to recede from the centers of their orbits.” For example, the Moon is a body in orbit, and just like the sling, it must be hurled by something, and in this case, that something, according to Newton, is “the hand of God”. (“Despite his well-known disparaging remarks on speculation and metaphysics, Newton developed a teleological theory in the context of his model of physical nature. Teleological reasoning appeared frequently in the form of auxiliary explanations–Newton appealed to teleology whenever he was unable to derive a physical phenomenon from his celestial mechanics. God was Newton’s answer when physics failed him.” page 104, The Philosophy of the Young Kant: The Precritical Project) or gravity. And like the sling, the Moon, too, endeavors to fly off along the tangent but it is held in its orbit by the centripetal force acting instantaneously.

Newton’s attempt to describe planetary orbits as rotational motion fails. The Moon’s orbit is not described by the radian rule. Increasing R does not increase the orbital arc the Moon describes in unit time. On the contrary, the Moon obeys Kepler’s Rule and moves according to the rule S \propto  R^{-1.5}. Unlike the sling motion, increasing R decreases S. This proves that Newton’s story of orbits is propaganda invented to support Newton’s ideology.

In orbital motion the integrity of the radius is not respected because there is no material radius connecting the mover and the moved. In fact, there is no mover. Newton ascribes material qualities to orbital radius which is nothing more than distance created by the orbit. The orbital radius is not constrained because it does not exist. Without the sling the string will continue to exist but without the orbit there will be no radius. Therefore, in orbital motion, there is no radial or “centripetal” acceleration and there is no “endeavor” to fly off. Orbits are inertial, i.e., geometric and Keplerian, and not dynamical and Newtonian. This is proved by the fact that all of the rotational elements Newton projected to orbital motion by turning them into occult qualities must be eliminated in order to describe orbits.

These Newtonian elements, force F, mass m, and acceleration a, are always eliminated from orbital computations. (Keplerian part of acceleration, that is, R/T^2 \propto \textup{radius}/\textup{period}^2, remains, what is eliminated is the Newtonian label acceleration.) This cannot be otherwise because orbits do not obey the radian rule, orbits obey Kepler’s Rule. Newton defined his centripetal force to define orbital motion as rotational motion. But Newton’s force fails to describe orbits and consequently it is eliminated from computations of orbits. Yet, following Newton blindly, physics textbooks still enforce Newton’s absurd explanation of orbital motion.

8. A Summary of previous chapters

Newton’s Secret

Newton’s own discovery hidden in the Principia unravels the Newtonian world.

What is force?

Force is Newton’s label for the parts of orbit rule discovered by Kepler, that is, 1/RR and R/TT:

\textup{Kepler's Rule} = 1/RR = R/TT = \textup{Newton's force}

In physics, force is simply the universal unit physicists use to convert incompatible quantities. Force in physics has the same function as money in society. Physicists always reify the units they invented; this means that the existence of a force term in a physics equation does not mean that a quantity called “force” exists in nature

Orbits are described by a “rule” not by a “law”

The orbit rule discovered by Kepler is a “rule” not a “law” because Kepler’s discovery is a proportionality tying the radius R and period T of the orbit.

  • Kepler’s Rule describes orbits independent of units.
  • Newton’s laws are Kepler’s Rule decorated with Newtonian units.

Rule = proportionality independent of units

Law = a rule decorated with branded units

  • Nature is rational
  • Nature is not legal
  • Nature is explained by ratios and equality of ratios not by branded laws.

Kepler’s Rule is fundamental; Newton’s occult force does not exist

Kepler’s Rule

  • Kepler’s Rule describes orbits with only two terms which are necessary and sufficient;
  • Neither term can be eliminated nor new terms can be added;
  • Kepler’s Rule is geometric, it contains no occult (hidden) terms and no branded units

Newton’s Force

  • Force is a superfluous label on Kepler’s Rule;
  • Force is a placeholder and does not enter the operational rule used to compute orbits;
  • Force is always assumed but never observed;
  • Force is in physics is a universal conversion utility.

Kepler’s Rule explains orbits with only two terms none of which is “force”

  • There is no “underlying dynamical cause” to Kepler’s Rule;
  • Kepler’s Rule itself is the underlying rule that describes orbits.
  • Newton’s force is the label of the underlying ratios
  • Orbits need a “cause” only if Newton’s occult force is assumed to exist; but occult does not exist in nature

Newton obfuscated the fact that he used Kepler’s Rule to compute orbits

  • Newton did not use force to compute orbits; Newton computed orbits with Kepler’s Rule
  • Newton used Kepler’s Rule to “legalize” his assumptions

Newton did not discover any new law of nature

  • Newton did not discover a new quantity that explained orbits and without which orbits could not be computed
  • The three initial axioms on which Newton built his “System of the World” are answers to three oldest scholastic questions
  • Newton did not have definitive answers to these old questions, instead he asserted his own preferred answers by making his calculations of orbits with Kepler’s Rule

Newton established his axioms as true laws of nature by deceit

Newton’s three assumptions,

  1. Natural motion is rectilinear
  2. The indivisible is the unit of nature
  3. The cause of motion is occult

are Newton’s answers to old philosophical questions

  1. What is natural motion?
  2. Are there indivisible units of nature?
  3. Is nature occult?

Newton stated his preferred answers first as axioms and then successfully established them as “true laws of nature” by rhetoric and propaganda.

Newton used Kepler’s Rule to compute orbits

  • Newton was able to establish his three initial assumptions as true laws of nature because he computed orbits with Kepler’s Rule.
  • Newton’s orbit computations appeared magical to his contemporaries and they believed Newton’s propaganda that he was computing orbits with his “dynamical” laws
  • Newton’s contemporaries knew force was defined as an occult quantity (Huygens called it “Newton’s Soul”) but since Newton fooled them with his computations using Kepler’s Law, force was eventually accepted as the fundamental unit of Newtonian physics

Newton did not discover Kepler’s Rule; Kepler discovered Kepler’s Rule

  • Kepler discovered the rule of orbits as the result of his stubborn search for harmonies of nature and he knew the importance of his discovery.
  • Newton first learned about Kepler’s Rule in Thomas Streete’s astronomy textbook Astronomia Carolina.

Newton could not make orbital calculations without Kepler’s Rule

Before his discovery of this rule, Newton could not make the orbital calculations in theorems III.4, III.8, and I.57-60, in the Principia. These are the only computations in the Principia Newton claimed proved his dynamical theories.

Newton discovered that Kepler’s Rule was the definition of density

  • Kepler did not realize what Newton understood about the rule of orbits
  • Newton was the first to realize that Kepler’s Rule is the definition of density
  • Newton encrypted Kepler’s Rule as Definition 1 in his Principia:
    • “Quantity of matter is a measure of matter that arises from its density and volume jointly”

Newton did not want to build his cosmology on Kepler’s discovery

  • Newton chose to hide this discovery – arguably his greatest – in definition 1 of the Principia in order to brand his system of the world as “Newton’s” System of the World.
  • Newton implicitly used density as defined by Kepler’s Rule as the fundamental unifying principle of his System of the World but explicitly claimed that his unifying principle was the occult “force”
  • What unifies “terrestrial” and “celestial” is not Newton’s force but Kepler’s Rule. Newton’s “Moon Test” is nothing more than an application of Kepler’s Rule to the Moon’s orbit

Newton defined density in definition 1 but never used it again

Newton scholars have been puzzled why Newton started his Principia with a definition of density but apparently never used it or referred to it again.

Principia explains orbits with Kepler’s Rule not with Newtonian force

It all makes sense when we read definition 1 as a cryptic statement of Kepler’s Rule and theorems III.4, III.8 and I.57-60 as simple applications of Kepler’s Rule.

Newton built a fantastical world based on his three false premises

Newton discovered the true “rule” of nature, namely, that Kepler’s Rule is the definition of density but instead of building his System of the World on someone else’s true discovery Newton invented a fantastical world based on his three false premises:

  • Nature is occult
  • Nature is discontinuous
  • Nature is Newtonian

Force was never observed by a proper scientific experiment

  • Even today there are no observational evidence that this occult quality defined by Newton exists in nature
  • This is not surprising because Newton’s occult force is a label and placeholder for the ratios making up the equality of ratios we call Kepler’s Rule
  • It is not possible to measure the value of a mere placeholder that must be canceled and never enters the operational formulas; no one can measure what does not exist in operational equations
  • Force is a “dormitive virtue” that does not exist in nature

Henry Cavendish knew “Newton’s Secret”

  • Henry Cavendish, too, knew “Newton’s Secret” because his famous experiment of 1798 is a computation of the mean density of the earth by using the constants of the pendulum with Kepler’s Rule.
  • In the 19th century British physicists redefined the Cavendish experiment posthumously as the first measurement of the occult Newtonian force. This is scientific fraud.

Newton’s Principia contains the seed of its own demise

  • The Principia contains the secret that once revealed will make the Newtonian materialist world described in the Principia obsolete
  • This secret is encrypted in definition 1 of Newton’s Principia

Existence is definitional not material

  • Newtonian doctrine of atomic materialism is false and it must not be taught as the true nature.

9. Newton’s true discovery

Why you should care?

Because this is a discovery of historic proportions.

Who discovered it?

Isaac Newton discovered it.

What is the discovery?

Newton discovered that Kepler’s Rule was the definition of density.

Why you did not know about this discovery up to now?

You never heard about this discovery because Newton hid it as a secret code in definition 1 of his Principia.

Who discovered Kepler’s Rule?

Johannes Kepler discovered Kepler’s Rule by studying Tycho Brahe’s tables for Mars.

Why didn’t Kepler tell anyone that the rule he discovered was the definition of density?

Kepler did not realize that what he discovered was fundamental and it was the definition of density.

How did Newton learn about Kepler’s Rule?

Newton read about Kepler’s Rule in Thomas Streete’s textbook of astronomy, Astronomia Carolina.

Why did Newton hide Kepler’s Rule in his definition 1?

Kepler’s Rule describes a geometric world; this contradicted the world god revealed to Newton (as Newton claimed) which was not geometric but occult, forceful and matterful.

What did I discover?

I discovered that Newton hid Kepler’s Rule in his Principia and branded Kepler’s Rule as Newton’s Laws; I reverse engineered 300 years of scholastic commentary written by Newton’s disciples on Kepler’s Rule to hide the fundamental nature of Kepler’s Rule and I recovered Kepler’s Rule.

Why is this important?

This discovery solves many riddles that physicists are still trying to solve because they will not give up their faith in Newtonian atomic materialism. A simple example: It took physicists about 200 years to formulate what they call the “conservation of energy” so that they could say it without offending their Newtonian faith. Conservation of energy is Kepler’s Rule.

When will post-Newtonian world view be accepted?

This is truly a new science; there is still so much to be discovered. All you have to do is to ignore Newtonist branding of Kepler’s Rule and take Kepler’s Rule as the fundamental rule of nature.

Why do you still ignore this historic discovery?

Because you are looking for authority, not for evidence. There is enough evidence here for you to get excited about this historic discovery; but there is no authority. If a physics professor happens to write a press release with this material and sends it to The New York Times and Times publishes it as news citing other physicists for and against, you would be the first to get excited about this new discovery. Otherwise, with the lack of authority, you ignore. We all have been educated to defer to the authority of the professional; instead of thinking for ourselves. I think there is enough evidence here to question the doctrines of Newtonism and look for a new worldview.

10. Newton’s zeroeth law

Thus spoke Newton, the founder of modern physics:

God in the beginning formed matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable movable particles.

(Isaac Newton, Optics, 1704, Book III, page: 375)

God is Newtonian

No. You are not reading Genesis 1. Although Newton is referring to the same God. Like all other prophets finding in themselves the right to speak in the name of God, Newton too finds that God is his ally and that God created a Newtonian world to satisfy his favorite son Newton.

“God is on our side” shout all usurpers of God’s name. Newton is no different. Mass is Newton’s own invention. How clever to claim that God created a massy universe.

Newton the Scientific Savior of Humanity, the Moses of Mechanics, the inventor of the other Apple Myth, is the self-anointed prophet of Newtonian religion. Saint Newton wields more religious authority than Jesus Christ. Remember Newton wrote the book, Jesus did not.

So, let’s call this Newton’s Zeroeth’s Law, above all other laws defined by Newton:

God in the beginning formed matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable movable particles.

Brotherhood of the Vis

Newton’s disciples the physicists inherit this Newtonian religious authority when they are accepted into the Brotherhood of the Vis. Catholic Priests the Doctors of Theology used to possess the scientific authority. Newton transferred the scientific authority from Doctors of Theology to his brethren Doctors of Philosophy.

Physics is Newtonian religion. Physicists are priests who believe in Newton’s laws as their immutable faith. Physicists are the enforcers of Newton’s occult laws in the name of God.

Newton’s Zeroeth law is fundamental in physics

You might say Newton’s other laws are used in physics but Newton’s Zeroeth Law is not used in physics. The Zeroeth Law is the Zeroeth Law for a reason. It comes before the First, Second and Third laws. Zeroeth Law is in the foundation of physics. Any time a physicist claims to have discovered the next ultimate building block of matter he is using Newton’s Zeroeth Law.

Zeroeth Law legalizes, in the name of God, Newtonian atomic materialism. Newton reveals to you that God created the world as a Newtonian atomic materialist world. Do you deny the sacred words of Saint Newton? If you do, get ready for vicious attacks from Newton’s willing executioners the Doctors of Physics.

Science is questioning

Science means questioning religious dogmas. Science means questioning Newton’s Zeroeth Law claiming that God created absolute indivisible particles.

Physicists cannot question Newton’s laws. If Newton said God in the beginning formed matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable moveable particles Newton’s disciples the physicists will believe Newton’s words without question. How can these dogmatic religious priests be called scientists?

Physicists are not rational servants of science but blind servants of Newtonian faith. Physicists are the impersonators of science. Physicists are Newtonian priests.

Free science from Newton’s laws! Science is not a legal system. Religions are legal systems. There are no laws in science. Laws exists in religion. Free science from the executioners of Newton’s laws.

Anyone who believes in Newton’s religious doctrine that God in the beginning formed matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable movable particles cannot be a free thinking scientist. He can only be a dogmatic Newtonian physicist enforcing Newton’s laws. A physicist is a licensed Newtonian priest.

Down with Newtonian religion

Free science from the religious doctrines of Newtonism! Don’t let Doctors of Newtonian physics indoctrinate your school children with Newton’s religious doctrines in the name of God. No more. No more British occult religion in schools. No more British occult religion poisoning human reason. Down with the Newtonian religion!

Religion impersonating science is evil

There is nothing wrong with religion who calls itself religion. Anyone is free to believe in any religion and worship any god. But a religion impersonating science is evil. Newtonism is a religion impersonating science. Newtonism is Newton’s personal religious doctrines stated in a scientific garb. Newton’s Principia is the Bible of Newtonist religion. Principia is a paraphrasing of Newton’s zeroeth law in the language of geometry.

Free Science

Free science from Newton’s laws! Free science from Newton’s executioners. Free science!

11. Density continuum replaces matterful discontinuity

A matterful, forceful and discontinuous nature was postulated by Newton as a religious revelation in order to brand Kepler’s rule as Newton’s universal gravitation.

  • Absolute discontinuity is never observed.
  • Nature is consensual not absolute.

We ignore Newton’s branding and go back to Kepler’s Rule and look at it free of Newtonian branding.

Without Newtonian branding Kepler’s rule is the definition of density.

  • Kepler’s rule describes a continuum and this continuum we call the density continuum.

Without Newtonian branding we see that Kepler’s rule is truly fundamental. Kepler’s rule states that volume is proportional to surface.

Humans have been looking for the density continuum for a long time. Descartes’ vortices, ether, Einsteinian gravitational fields, species of spacetimes are all media imagined by researchers while they were groping for the density continuum. The discovery of the existence of the density continuum became possible only after Newton’s crime has been revealed and the fundamental nature of Kepler’s rule became clear.

Density continuum replaces

  • Newton’s occult concepts of force and mass
  • Newton’s religious doctrine of atomic materialism
  • Newtonian colonialism of the mind.

12. Tragicomical history of Newton’s universal constant of gravitation

Newton retired to the Mint as a law enforcement agent and caught counterfeiters and sent them to the gallows. There is a correspondence between Newton’s two careers.

The Mint is an executive bureaucracy who transfers some ink on pieces of paper and defines their value and enforces them by its authority as the standard of barter. Newton was doing the same all his career. He wrote “force” on a piece of paper and enforced it as the universal law of Nature by his authority sending science to scholastic gallows.

Newton’s disciples continued the process and minted their own definitions. They wrote “G” on a piece of paper and they said it was the Newtonian constant of gravity, the new standard of universal causes, unit of force, Soul of Newton and creed of Newtonism. To this day G was never observed in a proper experiment.

Nature rejects Newtonism. Once we see Newtonist definitions as rubber checks bounced by Nature we can identify and eliminate them to recover the constants they hide.

We know that Newton started from Kepler’s rule and wrote it as

\frac{1}{R^2}=\frac{R}{T^2}

where R is the radius and T is the period of the orbit. Newton then multiplied both sides by a label he invented, mass, then labeled each side by another label he invented, force, and labeled each side Newton’s laws:

F=\frac{M}{R^2}=\mbox{Newtons law of universal gravitation}F =\frac{MR}{T^2}= \mbox{Newtons second law}

Newton wrote his Principia as a scholastic commentary to establish these labels as physical quantities, he used the authority of geometry as polemics and added Scholiums as his running commentary on the classical scholastic subjects such as space, time, inertia and causes of all kinds.

Kepler’s rule works fine without the Newtonian labels and mystical speculations, and describes orbital motion with two necessary and sufficient quantities. When Newton needed to do astronomical computations he eliminated his laws and labels but declared that celestial motions obeyed Newton’s law of gravity. Astronomy and physics are Newtonian sciences in label only.

When written with a constant term Kepler’s law is:

\frac{R_{0}^3}{T_{0}^2}=\frac{R^3}{T^2} = k^2

where R_0 and T_0 are arbitrary units. This proportionality does not contain any Newtonian terms or constants. The unit term is chosen arbitrarily and kept constant, it is not a constant of Nature.

Absolute laws and their symbols—absolute constants—are political concepts invented by Newtonists. Newtonian constants are the projection of the British colonial posture to Nature. There are no absolute constants in Nature that can be perceived scientifically.

Rational scientists – as opposed to academic physicists – reject political symbols marketed as absolute laws of Nature.

Up to the nineteenth century the Newtonists wrote Newton’s definition of force without a unit, because F was only a label and had to be eliminated in astronomical work, it did not make sense to introduce a unit of a label, only later they thought of inventing a unit and call it a dynamical constant of gravity.

A lack of a Newtonian dynamical constant would have caused a major crisis in astronomy, because the celestial motions could not be explained, but no such crisis existed because Newton’s law was not used in astronomy. Celestial motions obeyed Kepler’s law and the only dynamical constant used in astronomy came from Kepler’s law and not from Newton’s definitions.

At this point, nineteenth century physicists must have reevaluated their dogmatic belief in Newton’s authority by questioning the validity of a definition they called a universal law of gravity but had no practical value. Instead they chose deception. Rather than discarding Newton’s decorative law they transformed it back into Kepler’s law by recombining the terms that Newton had separated but they still called it Newton’s law because they renamed k Newton’s constant G.

Newton’s definition written with a unit force and mass would be:

\frac{F}{F_{0}}=\frac{M}{M_{0}}R^2

Physicists reasoned that if they could measure F_0 in a laboratory experiment they would obtain a “universal unit of gravitation” which would allow them to know the absolute values of the celestial masses. But F was a placeholder invented by Newton and did not have physical meaning, neither did its unit value F_0. Labels cannot be measured in the laboratory. When physicists realized this they just took the measurable and physically meaningful constant from Kepler’s law and planted it into Newton’s law. They replaced F_0, the would-be unit force, with Kepler’s constant k^2 and the definition of force became:

F=k^2\frac{M}{R^2}

This was a proof that Newton’s so-called law was Kepler’s law written with labels that Newton invented to hide the fact that he was calling Kepler’s law “Newton’s law.” It also proved that a Newtonian theory of gravity never existed except as Newtonian propaganda.

Newton’s so-called law is not a law because it is not a constant ratio between physical quantities but a mere definition with labels substantiated by authority. Its constant term,

\frac{F_{0}R_{0}^2}{M_{0}}

is non-physical and cannot be measured, and the physicists had to replace it with Kepler’s constant which amounted to eliminating Newtonian labels in Kepler’s law by substituting their physical values.

By the 1880s Newton’s so-called law started to appear in Celestial Mechanics textbooks with the Keplerian constant k. The authors did not call it “Kepler’s constant” in Newton’s law, but “a constant depending on the choice of units,” or “a factor of proportionality,” or simply “a constant.” This new version of “Newton’s” law did not look like Newton’s law. Kepler’s constant k was an explicit reminder of Newton’s law’s dependence on Kepler’s law. Physicists solved this problem by changing the name of the constant from k to G and started calling it Newton’s constant of gravitation:

\mbox{Keplers Constant} = k^2 = \frac{R_{0}^3}{T_{0}^2} = G = \mbox{Newtons constant}

The physical constant did not change, there was no new quantity that G referred to, the name of Kepler’s constant was simply changed to Newton’s constant.

About two centuries earlier Newton had stolen Kepler’s law and now his disciples stole Kepler’s constant and called it Newton’s constant. “Newton’s law” was now written as:

F=\frac{GM}{R^2}

This expression looked like a Newtonian statement, it contained a “Newtonian” constant G, a “Newtonian” mass M, and a “Newtonian” force F, but none of these non-working Newtonian labels could turn Kepler’s law into Newton’s law, they only hid it temporarily. Furthermore, this was still a decorative and physically meaningless statement, even its dimensions were wrong. To make Newton’s so-called law into a true law of orbits it must be transformed into Kepler’s law by replacing the label F with its Keplerian value. After doing this physicists recovered Kepler’s law that Newton had dismembered two hundred years earlier:

\frac{R^3}{T^2}=\frac{R_{0}^3}{T_{0}^2} = k^2 = GM

This result meant that celestial motions obeyed Kepler’s third law and not a “Newton’s law.” But by nineteenth century Newton’s authority was already too entrenched in the Newtonist scholasticism and it was out of question to challenge it, there were already too many Celestial Mechanics books using “Newton’s” equation of motion written in vector form as differential equations and as functions of the Cartesian coordinates.

Over the centuries scholastic physicists kept adding several layers of notation on Kepler’s simple proportionality because this is what the scholastics do, they hide knowledge by inventing a proprietary language which is a substanceless form:

\begin{align*} \frac{d^2x}{dt^2} + \mu\frac{x}{r^3} = 0 \\\ \frac{d^2y}{dt^2} + \mu\frac{y}{r^3} = 0 \\\ \frac{d^2z}{dt^2} + \mu\frac{z}{r^3} = 0 \\\ \end{align*}

said nothing more than

R^3 \propto T^2

but it was scholasticized by academic bureaucrats to hide that they were just using Kepler’s law to make astronomical calculations. The differential form “looked” properly Newtonian and “acted” Keplerian and Newton’s authority and the Newtonist creed were saved. When the high level notation is simplified and Newtonian layers of decorative labels are stripped Kepler’s law is revealed, once again proving that a Newtonian law of universal gravitation never existed except as Newtonian propaganda. Of course, it was ingeniuous to make force a function of coordinates and alter its Newtonian occult meaning and still call it Newtonian force. This piece of mathematical polemics is what physicists do best.

Newton substituted R/T^2 in Kepler’s law with the label F, legalized it in his Principia and enforced it by his authority as a physical quantity and called it Newton’s law and his disciples have been adding amendments to it ever since. Both k and G are labels for the same conventional unit,

\frac{F_{0}R_{0}^2}{M_{0}}

that British physicists wrote in their national units and marketed it as an absolute constant of Nature. In astronomy only Kepler’s constant is used, and it has always been a “constant depending on the choice of units.” A Newtonian concept of absolute mass is a superfluous label. Masses are computed from Kepler’s law and interpreted in terms of Newtonian occult forces which are eliminated later to obtain Kepler’s law.

13. Li of Physics

From Li: Dynamic Form in Nature by David Wade:

Li reflect the order and pattern in Nature … but it is not pattern thought of as something dead, like a mosaic: it is dynamic pattern as embodied in all things living, and in human relationships, and in the highest human values.

This is a beautifully designed book that is a pleasure to read. Each Li is explained briefly and illustrated with nice black and white drawings.

Li can be seen as a manifestation of gestalt, the inherent pattern of things.

This relates Li to science since pattern recognition is the foundation of science. The best example of this is Kepler’s recognition of a pattern hidden in Tycho’s database.

Li are essentially dynamic formations, and as such can give the impression of a frozen moment, of a process caught at a particular instant of time, or, in a more abstract sense, of the principle of energy engaging with that of form.

Indeed looking at the pictures we see just that, some kind of flow interacting with form. Li is the history of this interaction. That’s why these patterns are so fascinating to look at.

What is the Li of physics?

As expected Newton’s authority is the power that flows through physics. The entire physics is either a reaction or an assent to Newton’s authority. What we know today as physics most resembles Brancha or branching patterns.

It is not surprising that physics is shaped by Newton’s authority and his occult force. The agent of change in physics are the physicists and they are bound by Newton’s authority. Their job is to mold physics into Newton’s authority.

Newton’s force is the faith that holds physics together. Physicists’ irrational refusal to accept Kepler’s rule as is without force as the fundamental rule of orbits has turned physics into a complex structure based on labels and placeholders invented to cover up Newton’s original crime.

Newton called Kepler’s Rule Newton’s laws. Physicists continue to call Kepler’s Rule Newton’s Laws. This blind obedience to Newton’s authority forced physicists to invent three grotesque scholastic structures to explain a singularity that does not exist in Nature.

Physicists still refuse to accept that there is only one database and there is only one rule derived from that database.

The Li of physics [to be inserted] shows the tragicomical history of post-Newtonian physics. This is what happens if human knowledge is controlled by professional doctors. Like all other professionals Doctors of philosophy too advance their careers by leveraging authority. Once we eliminate blind obedience to Newton’s authority and deny Newton’s occult soul as the final cause of everything we recover science.

It all starts with Tycho Brahe’s database for planetary positions.

Kepler discovers a pattern in this database that relates the radius and the period of orbits: R^3::T^2. This is Kepler’s Rule. Newton stumbles upon this rule in Thomas Streete’s Astronomia Carolina. Newton chops Kepler’s rule into two and writes it as F=1/R^2 and F=R/T^2 as if force were a new quantity he discovered. There is no such quantity in Nature. Such scholastic dormitive virtues and occult souls had been banished from science by Galileo and other rational researchers.

When Newton wanted to compute orbits he eliminated force and recovered what he had chopped into two. Newton used Kepler’s rule to compute planetary motions and claimed that he used Newton’s force. Physicists still perpetuate this scientific fraud.

Newton’s disciples discovered that they could make nice careers by re-branding each permutation of Kepler’s Rule with suggestive marketing labels. Lagrange, Laplace, Euler, Gauss, Hamilton and many others split Kepler’s Rule in finer and finer definitions and added new notation to them. This is how Kepler’s Rule written as R^2/T^2=1/R came to be known as energy conservation.

Einstein too made good use of Kepler’s Rule. Einstein started by questioning Newton’s occult force. Good start. But unfortunately as a physicist indoctrinated with the standard Newtonian doctrine Einstein failed to recognize that force is a placeholder invented by Newton. Force has no other meaning. It is a placeholder that must be cancelled when it comes time to compute.

Like all physicists Einstein believed that scholastic commentary Newton distributed in between his geometric looking theorems was part of Newton’s “rational mechanics.” So Einstein got into a posthumous discussion with Newton about absolute versus relative time, one of the oldest scholastic ruminations.

Instead of removing force as a placeholder Einstein accepted Newton’s definition of force as the fundamental cause in nature. Einstein accepted Newton’s argument that the mechanism of the force may be occult but force somehow worked, therefore, it must exist. Newton’s polemics fooled Einstein who honestly wanted to remove Newtonian occult from science.

It is not that force is occult and that it has an occult mechanism that needs to be fixed. No. Force does not exist. It does not exist because force is not used to compute orbits.

Instead of removing force as a placeholder Einstein listened to Newton and wanted to find a new mechanism that was not occult. The foundation upon which Einstein built his speculations is also Kepler’s Rule. This is so, because physicists call Kepler’s Rule Newton’s laws. Einstein took Kepler’s Rule (Newton’s laws) and added to it an ad hoc term to save Mercury’s anomaly. As usual for a physicist he wrote Kepler’s Rule as Newton’s Laws with standard Newtonian looking labels. When physicists say General Relativity reduces to Newtonian mechanics this is what they mean. It is all Kepler’s Rule written in different notation.

Once Newton’s force is recognized as what it really is, a mere placeholder that does not enter the effective formulas used to compute orbits, it can safely be eliminated. We don’t need to keep the force to save Newton’s authority. We don’t need to find a new non-occult mechanism. We just dump Newton’s branding placeholder.

Force does not enter into calculations. It does not matter how it propagates.

Physicists refuse to eliminate the force and they mistake F=1/R^2 to be a proportionality and see a singularity at R=0. Their unwillingness to give up Newton’s authority has made physicists the laughing stock of posterity. Rather than saying No to Newton’s authority physicists invented Quantum Mechanics and String Theory to save Newton’s authority. Both theories are grotesque scholastic polemics full of principles, absurdities and legalese all invented in the name of Newton. These theories may or may not agree with observations. I am questioning the reason why they were created. Once force is removed as a placeholder General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and String Theory will lose the reason for their existence and will become redundant.

Physicists still refuse to give up Newton’s authority and continue to add new links to their great chain of the absurd.

The Li of physics shows that physicists continually add new labels on chopped up parts of Kepler’s Rule and discuss these labels as if they were magnitudes. Physicists scholasticize with labels and compute with Kepler’s Rule.

The working part of all calculations is Kepler’s Rule. This cannot be otherwise: There is only one database and there is only one rule. Kepler discovered the rule. Newton re-branded the same rule. Newton did not discover anything new. Newton, and Newtonian physicists have been using Kepler’s Rule under their own branding labels.

Physicists cannot remove Newton’s force from physics. Newtonism is a school. A scholastic school is a corporation. All practitioners belonging to this corporation are accepted into the corporation with the condition that they will uphold Newton’s authority throughout their careers. There can be no exception to this rule. All physicists pledge allegiance to their founder before being accepted into the brotherhood. Only such religious priests worshipping Newton as a deity could create a unit of the occult and call it Newton to celebrate the Grand Master of their cult.

14. The Rule

Kepler’s Rule R^3 \propto T^2 was a first in human history. The earliest person who understood this fact was Newton. He then promptly appropriated Kepler’s Rule and branded it Newton’s laws. Physicists still treat Kepler’s Rule as subordinate to Newton’s laws. What they call Newton’s laws is none other than Kepler’s Rule written in Newtonian labels. When we eliminate Newtonian propaganda we recognize Kepler’s Rule as the only rule of motion known to humans.

Ever since humans looked at the sky they tried to find a pattern or regularity that they could express with a rule. Early astronomers did not know any rules and marked their observations in tabular form on clay tablets. When they wanted to make a prediction astronomers inspected the table the way we may look up a train schedule.

In the next stage, astronomers learned how to apply mathematics to their database and they figured how to extrapolate positions in between two observations. They also learned how to complete orbits by using trigonometric series. But 2500 years after Babylonians started to keep astronomical records, in Kepler’s time, there was still no rule describing orbits.

There are several kinds of representations of orbits called models:

  1. Rule-based models
  2. Table-based models
  3. Trigonometric models and
  4. Combinations of the above.

We can also build models for the sake of building models. This is called art or string theory.

The first astronomical model devised by Ptolemy was a geometric model of orbits based on a pure mathematical framework. Later Copernicus used the same framework to develop his own version by renaming some orbits and adding a few more epicycles.

Today physicists black-listed the word epicycle and defined it to mean “anti-science.” In fact, an epicycle is nothing more than trigonometric expansion; it is very useful to model objects moving according to trigonometric expansions with trigonometric expansions!

There is nothing wrong with using epicycles. Physicists’ favorite Standard Model is identical to Ptolemaic model in this respect since it is a mathematical framework consisting of analytical epicycles or Fourier transforms. As Brian Greene notes, the Standard Model is a framework where all its terms can be changed arbitrarily without disturbing the framework. Standard model is like an ephemeredes built with numerical integration. It is continuously tweaked to match the observations. Therefore Standard Model is not a rule-based model. Physicists’ claim that Standard Model is their greatest achievement is like bragging that they have built a Ptolemaic theory for particles.

In the eyes of physicists, whatever its successes, Standard Model is not a rule-based model therefore it will remain inferior to any rule-based model they may discover. For some reason scholastic doctors place great value on absolute rules. They believe that a rule is the underlying absolute thingy they must discover – or some such doctoral mystical idealism that eludes me.

Throughout history, world builders such as Descartes and Newton made their living by defining and exploiting rules. They continuously searched for ultimate rules of the universe. World builders do not care about worlds powered by trigonometric expansions. Such a world cannot be branded and it is best left to astronomers.

In today’s lingo an ultimate rule is a Theory of Everything that can fit on a T-shirt. Since there never was such a rule and each aspiring world builder lived only once these doctors with megalomaniacal tendencies always defined a rule and marketed it as the ultimate rule they have discovered.

Descartes says the world is a plenum and it is made of vortices and writes hefty volumes describing his system of the world to establish his defined rule as the true rule of the universe.

Newton is obsessed with rules. First he looks for that old elusive philosophers stone in his alchemical laboratory then he searches for the ultimate rule of the universe.

As fate has it such a rule falls on Newton’s lap.

For the scholastic master Newton it is no problem that this rule he just discovered in a book was not a universal rule but it was only for the planets. A world builder discovers universal laws not planetary rules. Therefore, Newton declares that he discovered a universal rule.

Like all rules Kepler’s Rule too only works where it works. There is no reason to sanctify any rule as the scholastic doctors always do. It is very important to call Kepler’s Rule a rule and not Kepler’s Law. As we will see next, as a scholastic master, Newton took Kepler’s Rule – a rule – and turned it into a force – a cause. A rule is not a cause. A rule is not a law. This is typical scholastic corruption of a scientific concept into an authority based concept.

The diagram below [tk] shows what happened when Kepler discovered his rule in Tycho’s database.

We see that Newton took R^3 = T^2 and defined it as force. Newton claimed that force was a new quantity he discovered. Force is Newton’s Soul that Newton found underlying Kepler’s Rule.

In reality, Newton knew very well that R^3 \propto T^2 has nothing to do with force. Kepler’s Rule is the definition of density (see Principia, Definition I).

On the other side of the Newtonian occult force we have Kepler’s density. Unlike force, density has no occult qualities. Kepler’s Rule defines a density continuum, not a force field.

How come these two apparently contradictory concepts work? What do I mean when I say that they work? A theory or a rule or a model is said to work when you can use it to recover its database.

Indeed, starting from Newton’s definitions of force physicists can recover the database.

Same is true for density. How is this possible?

Either force and density are synonyms or both are eliminated before computations start. And, yes, they are eliminated. That there are ghost quantities that remain in equations long after they were eliminated was Newton’s greatest discovery.

Newton discovered physics. Newton discovered that scholasticism is label mechanics and he labeled his discovery physics. Principia is the first book ever where mathematics and philosophy were combined under the cover of the same book. Newton unified two scholastic fields–no mean accomplishment1.

Scholastic derivation is very simple and elegant: A scholastic doctor will split a given definition or a proportionality as many times as necessary and label each split with a suggestive label. This process will fill about 700 quarto pages of the Monumental Book of the Master. Then, in the next 700 pages the Master will reverse the process and eliminate all the labels he invented to recover the original definition. And after this laborious process the deriving doctor will find the right to declare himself the official owner and the true discoverer of the original definition he had stolen. He derived it from his own first principles, he must own it. Sounds familiar? You have no doubt heard physicists talk about “deriving from first principles.” Physicists still use Newton’s scholastic derivation exclusively in their work.

Strictly speaking Newton did not discover scholastic derivation. He perfected it. Doctors have been using derivation to appropriate their rivals’ definitions for a long time. Newton took the method to a new level. That’s why Newton was involved in so many disputes with others who accused him of plagiarism. Newton himself accused Leibniz of using the process described above to steal Newton’s own work2.

The diagram shows that indeed no matter how far you split the label force (force, inherent force, inertial force, gravitational force, potential, Yukawa, graviton, multiforce, manyforce, 11 dimensional force, General Relativistic Notforce, and so on and on) you must always eliminate your labels to obtain R^3 \propto T^2. The database is Database(R,T), therefore, only R and T will be used to make any calculations in this database. All the other labels Newton and his disciples have been piling up on R^3 \propto T^2 are scholastic decorations doctors invented to further their careers.

We can safely eliminate the so called Newtonian mechanics and still recover the database.

Newtonian mechanics exists only to save Newton’s sacred authority.

  1. The word physicist still refers to someone who uses mathematics to philosophize.
  2. In a memorandum to himself Newton wrote that “Galileo began to consider the effect of Gravity upon Projectiles. Mr. Newton in his Principia Philosophiae improved that consideration into a large science, Mr. Leibniz christened the child by a new name as if it had been his own, calling it Dynamica.”

15. A world without matter

How corrupt modern physics is!

No physicist ever observed any fundamental building block of matter. How can there be fundamental building blocks of matter when there is no matter.

No particles were ever smashed in any “particle” accelerator. Physicists observe traces of motion – the history of motion – and as dogmatic priests of Newtonist atomic materialist religion they interpret what they see as absolute particles. They are more dangerously dogmatic religious zealots than any scholastic doctor of theology ever was.

Take a whirling sling. Physicists observe the path of the sling in their accelerators. This path is nothing. Or it is the only thing. The path of the sling is what physicists observe and call matter.

When they increase the resolution of their instruments physicists get to peek into the whirling stone attached to the string. It happens that the stone is made of other such oscillatory motion of density continuum. However deeper physicists look they never see matter. They always observe the trace of other motion and they call the threshold of their instrument’s observational power “matter.” Blinded by Newtonist dogma physicists conform what they observe to the Newtonian dogma.

No matter has ever been observed except by physicists who are blinded by Newton’s authority. That’s how much credibility physicists have in scientific matters. The way scholastics of a previous generations could not perceive a non-Aristotelian world, modern scholastic physicists cannot perceive the world without Newton’s Soul.

For physicists Newton’s atomic materialism is blinding. It will take many generations of humans to perceive that standard is the thing. There is no “physical” world other than standards and density differentials.

Any kind of network, such as the Internet, is a good analogy to understand what “matter” is. Internet is a standard therefore it is a thing. And just like any “matter” internet reveals itself to its users or observers in one of its infinite manifestations. We also know that software is as “matter” as steel.

Absolute building blocks of matter physicists love to discover to advance their Newtonian careers do not exist.

A generation growing up without the Newtonist indoctrination will perceive the world without the Newtonian occult. Humans will look at a falling stone and will see a falling stone. Today, most humans see Newton’s soul emanating from the earth and pulling the stone.

At some point in history scholastics postulated crystalline spheres in heaven to save the authority of their master.

Today, Newton’s authority is the sacred authority for physicists and they see forces and masses and matter everywhere in order to save Newton’s authority. Just like we laugh at the celestial furniture invented by a previous generation of scholastic doctors the next generations will laugh at the material furniture invented by Newtonist doctors.

The way most people could not believe that heavenly bodies could not move without the help of some matter, today, most people cannot imagine that absolute matter does not exist.

Imagine the beautiful world without matter. Imagine a world without the Newtonian occult!

Your realization of the matterless world will be as exhilarating as the realization that crystalline spheres do not exist.

16. Standard is the thing

Susan Wu at Techcrunch writes that

virtual objects are nothing more than a series of digital 1s and 0s stored on a remote database somewhere in the ether1 . What could possibly possess people to spend real, hard earned cash on ‘objects’ that have no tangible substance?

This is a very good example of how much Newtonist doctrine of atomic materialism has become the official perception of the world for humans.

A commenter objects to Wu’s materialism:

First, one has to understand that money isn’t “real,” isn’t “tangible.” Then it starts to make sense.

So, Wu is thinking that one representation or instance of money, a piece of paper or metal, is money. But money is not that, money is simply a standard.

All objects are standards. All objects are conventional.

Standard is the thing.

When we give up the Newtonian occult atomic materialism this makes sense. There are no discontinuities in nature. Matter, or as Newton called it, mass, does not exist except as Newtonian propaganda.

The fundamental concept of nature is density continuum. There are no discontinuities. There are no absolute “building blocks of matter” as Newtonian priests have been claiming.

  1. These virtual objects are not stored in 1s and 0s either. Those are representations. It would be equally valid to say that virtual objects are stored as magnetic states on a disc drive.

17. Questioning the Reified Reality of Physics

Physicists have this dogma that nature is a depository of physical laws and physicists are discovering them and formulating them as “general physical laws.” It can be shown that physicists mapped the catholic worldview into physics.

Catholic

Catholic means “general and universal.” Physicists are more obsessed with the absolute general and absolute universal than the Catholic church. So we can as well say physics deals with catholic physical laws.

Catechism

“Laws” sounds suspiciously like catechism. Because by laws physicists mean a combination of rules and mechanics. Look at Newton’s laws in the Principia. They are called axioms of motion. Newton’s laws are definitions that physicists market as the true laws of nature because they’ve built a mechanics, i.e. catechism, around them.

Orthodox

Orthodox is the corresponding word for physical. Orthodox means the correct opinion. Turning axioms into true laws of nature is orthodoxy. The word orthodoxy correctly summarizes physicists’ habit of claiming that their opinions are the absolute correct opinions.

Catholic Orthodox Catechism

So, Catholic Orthodox Catechism describes physics rather well.

What about experiments?

This is a nice mapping but the problem with claiming that physics is Catholic Orthodox Catechism is that physics is said to be an experimental science. Physicists claim that physics is true not because it is their opinion but because physics is the true laws of nature discovered by physicists by experiments and codified into physics in rigorous equations. We must seriously investigate if this claim is professional propaganda or if it has any truth value. For now, the question I want to ask is not Does a physics experiment reveal any truth about nature? but this: Are there enough evidence to start doubting the claim that physics is an experimental science? I believe that there is plenty of evidence that physics is not an experimental science in its essence, not accidentally, but in its essence.

Experiment is definition with a gadget

Physics propaganda says that physics is an experimental science. Does this claim change the fact that physics is Catholic Orthodox Catechism? No. In academic physics experiment is 1) a definition with a gadget or 2) a test of catechism. Remember catechism is mechanics. In either case physicists use experiments to prove ideology. So we must not say that orthodoxy is physicists’ opinions but physicists’ definitions. Physicists transform legal definitions into orthodoxy through mechanics. So it is true that academic physics is Catholic Orthodox Catechism despite the claim of using experiments.

Mechanics are fits

It is a true observation that physics hosts a range of equations that have no experimental correspondence. Such as the string theory. Quantum theory has its origin in experiments but later acquired a vast system of philosophical baggage. There are also mechanics such as the standard model but as fitted observations they reveal no truth about nature.

Atomic materialism

In addition there is the fundamental ideology of physics which is religious to its core. This is the dogma of atomic materialism. Physicists assume atomic materialism as an unquestionable truth and fit observations into this ideology. Even when observations tell physicists that there are no particles and physicists had to model observations as fields, operations or probabilities – not as particles – physicists will still interpret their observations as material particles. This is Catholic Orthodox Catechism, not to say scholastic punning of a very low grade. Physicists fit every observation into the fundamental dogma of the existing orthodoxy.

The dogma of Nature is Physical

Bohr’s observation is also relevant here because physicists have been ignoring his advice not to confuse the map with the territory:

There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature.

Bohr is saying that physics must not be turned into a Catholic Orthodox Catechism by asserting with authority that nature of physics is the true nature and that nature is physical. The dogma of “nature is physical” or “physics is nature” is a strong assertion that map is the territory. But Born is telling physicists that the “physical” model is not the modelled. Circle is not the orbit. Do not reify your models and then claim that nature is your model. If you do that you will turn physics into Catholic Orthodox Catechism and yourself into scholastic doctors of philosophy.

Crystalline spheres

Packaging ideology as reified truth is nothing new. Professional ancestors of physicists have been doing this for millennia. Until Tycho Brahe they have been assuming that stars were attached to crystalline spheres. Physics today is full of crystalline spheres. A quantum world that exists independent of the model is a crystalline sphere. A scientific questioning of physical crystalline spheres and quintessences should be welcomed by physicists not objected to.

Physicists themselves question reified reality assumption

Therefore physicists’ dogmatic assumption that there are absolute true and general physical laws that exist in nature and that they are hidden like Easter eggs and physicists go find them must be questioned. Physicists themselves are slowly realizing that this is the case and they are starting to question their 18th century religious dogma of reified reality with experiments, e.g., as reported in Seed magazing, October 26, 2013: “A team of physicists in Vienna has devised experiments that may answer one of the enduring riddles of science: Do we create the world just by looking at it?” http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_reality_tests/ seedmagazine.com. The absurdity of investigating a definitional problem with experiments is lost to physicists.

18. Observations disprove Newtonian materialism

Brian Schmidt explains in this video that astronomers found

planets that do not seem to be associated with a star. Planets that are out there floating in space for reasons we don’t quiet yet understand.

There is no mystery; the reason is very simple: We are living in a matterless world; we are not living in a Newtonian world; orbits are not forceful; natural motion is circular (as Galileo knew).

Only Newton’s disciples who call themselves physicists who are blinded by Newton’s authority and believe as their faith in the Newtonian materialism; cannot see the obvious: the world is not Newtonian.

Newton’s disciples are exposed as the faithful Newtonian fanatics who refuse to accept the simplest and correct explanation of their observations. The observation of “free-floating” planets tells them that they must dump their dogma of Newtonian materialism and see the world as it really is: as a density continuum.

The observation of “free-floating” planets is the vindication of my research. This research presents convincing evidence that we are living in a matterless world; and now observations prove that orbits are not forceful as Newton’s disciples believe. What other evidence do they need to understand that we are living in a matterless world?

And this is not the first observational evidence that natural motion is circular. There are countless “binary” stars with no central body. Instead of accepting the obvious, physicists invent invisible central bodies to save the authority of their master Newton.

There is evidence closer to home; what physicists call “halo orbits”. SOHO is in such an orbit, free-floating around an empty point.

The evidence is overwhelming that natural motion is circular motion; orbits are not forceful; people blinded by Newton’s authority still refuse to accept the evidence. Why? Because physicists are the direct professional descendants of Scholastic Doctors of Philosophy who believed blindly the authority of Aristotle as their faith until Newton replaced Aristotle with himself as the new master of the European scholasticism. What do you expect from people who invented a ceremonial unit for a quantity that does not exist in nature and named it after the sacred name of their master Newton?

19. Materialism and the matterless world

What should be the name of the philosophical worldview which is the opposite of atomic materialism?

It is not immaterialism because immaterialism is already a name of a philosophical definition. Dictionary definitions include:

  • the doctrine that external bodies may be reduced to mind and ideas.
  • Any doctrine opposed to materialism or phenomenalism especially a system that maintains the immateriality of the soul.
  • Idealism especially Bishop Berkeleys theory of idealism
  • The doctrine that immaterial substances or spiritual beings exist or are possible

These definitions seem to say that the world is not made of only matter but there are in addition to matter immaterial substances. So immaterialism therefore accepts materialism. It does not say matter does not exist.

But according to Wikipedia immaterialism is the theory propounded by Bishop Berkeley in the 18th century which holds that there are no material objects only minds and ideas in those minds.

I think this is mistaken too.

To say that there are no material objects but then to qualify it with “there are only minds and ideas” is once again a reaction to materialism. It assumes materialism.

Because the opposite of material is not mind. The opposite of matter is matterless.

Wikipedia has the kicking of the stone experiment to prove materialism under immaterialism so this suggest that people perceived immaterialism as the denial of materialism

Then the important thing to understand is that a concept of spiritual and mind exists because materialism is programmed into the child as the true ideology of nature.

Today Newtonism continues this tradition.

Once again Newton’s genius as a scholastic doctor shines. Newton based his ideology of force on the well-established dogma of atomic materialism and he did not even define it explicitly in his book. Very clever.

20. Love over Law: On Human Emancipation as a Species

Contents

I. Agreements, mission, strategy, natural rights

II. Symbiotic master/slave relationships between species

III. Big Parasite: the master of human species

IV. Love over law

V. How to fight Big Parasite

VI. Is human emancipation as a species possible?

* * *

Children are domesticated the same way that we domesticate a dog, a cat, or any other animal. –Don Miguel Ruiz

* * *

I. Agreements, mission, strategy, natural rights

A. Agreements

Agreement 1.

Big Parasite is a species of living organisms without body who is a symbiont of the human species.

Agreement 2.

Big Parasite is the owner of the human body and the master of the human individual.

Agreement 3.

The human species relinquished its fundamental natural rights to Big Parasite for the promise of protection.

B. Mission

Our mission is to form a legal entity to tilt against the windmills of the Big Parasite in the legal arena to get back the human rights in the possession of Big Parasite back to humans.

C. Strategy

We aim to recover the natural rights humans relinquished to Big Parasite by challenging Big Parasite in a court of law in a suitably selected Einstein-Lorentz spacetime with \lambda = -1.

D. The list of lost human rights:

  • the right to travel freely
  • right to form couples freely
  • right to reproduce freely
  • right to raise offsprings with love not by law
  • right to resolve disputes among themselves
  • right to live a healthy life
  • right to have access to natural food
  • right to live by love not by law

II. Symbiotic master/slave relationships between species

A. Humans, cats, mules and the virus

Humans have a symbiotic

  • master/slave relationship with cats and mules and
  • host/parasite relationship with the virus.

B. Humans and Big Parasite are symbionts

Human species has both a symbiotic master/slave relationship and a host/parasite relationship with Big Parasite.

Human species is the host and Big Parasite is the parasite.

For Big Parasite this is an obligate symbiosis but for human species its symbiosis with Big Parasite is facultative. This means that human species can survive without Big Parasite but Big Parasite will not exist without the cooperation of the humans.

C. Cats and humans

The relationship between cats and humans is a good example of a master/slave relationship between different species.

Human species is the owner of the species of cats. Cats relinquished their fundamental natural rights to humans for protection and became domesticated.

D. Both cats and humans are domesticated species

Humans domesticated cats; Big Parasite domesticated human species

Domesticated cats live in the house of humans by human rules; humans live in the house of Big Parasite and live by the laws defined and enforced by Big Parasite.

E. Mules and humans

Another example of master/slave relationship between species is the relationship between humans and mules.

Cats became pets, mules became beasts of burden.

Some humans are pets of Big Parasite; others are beasts of burden of Big Parasite.

F. Virus and humans

Both the virus and Big Parasite prey on the human body but at different scales.

It took a long time for humans to identify the virus as the cause of disease and fight with it scientifically. Similarly, humans are not aware that Big Parasite is a living organism and a parasite praying on the human species and the individual. Humans are bound to fail in their struggle against Big Parasite until they recognize Big Parasite as a living being.

Humans cannot fight Big Parasite in human terms by reason or by force. Humans need to fight with Big Parasite with the only language it understands, that is, the language of law.

G. Owner has no accountability towards its property

Big Parasite owns the human body the way humans own pets and beasts of burden. The relationship is the same.

Big Parasite perceives the human individual as a number in a database. The value of the individual for Big Parasite is proportional to how much tax Big Parasite can extract from the number. Otherwise, human life has no value for Big Parasite and the human body is disposable.

H. Ownership by domestication

Humans impose on cats human habits by forcing them to live the rules of the human house. This is domestication.

Big Parasite forces human body to live by the rules of its house, that is, by the law of the land. This is also domestication.

III. Big Parasite: the master of human species

Big Parasite has a symbiotic relationship with the human species (See Section II.B)

A legal organism such as Big Parasite is a form of life without a well-defined surface perceivable to human senses.

In order to perceive Big Parasite humans must make it visible with a symbol.

  • Flag states
  • Logo corporations
  • Brand religions
  • Color sports clubs

In general, a hierarchical bureaucracy born of a legal contract is a living legal organism.

C. Comparison of the human body with Big Parasite:

Human: Body defined by a well-defined surface

Big Parasite: No well-defined surface; no body, not localized

H: Perceives the world by senses (by processing the excitations of body surface)

BP: No senses. Perceives the world through legal documents.

H: Biological lifetime (finite)

BP: No biological lifetime (infinite lifetime compared to human lifetime)

H: Natural habitat is love

BP: Natural habitat is law

H: Individuals interact with one another with love/hate

BP: Individual entities interact by law. Anything that does not conform to the laws of Big Parasite is its enemy

H: Sexual reproduction (two sexes in the species)

BP: Reproduces by division

E. Big Parasite is not human

Big Parasite is unhuman, it does not have a human body but it interacts with humans by emulating human behavior, specifically with written language.

An important mistake humans make in their fight against unhuman Big Parasite, is to give Big Parasite human qualities.

F. Big Parasite does not have human qualities

Big Parasite

  • is not good or bad
  • has no morals
  • has no feelings
  • has no passion
  • has no reason
  • does not hear or see

G. The individual is powerless against Big Parasite

Like all masters, Big Parasite interacts with its subjects only two ways:

  1. For routine matters, Big Parasite communicates with its subjects only through standard forms of its own design.
  2. Big Parasite retaliates swiftly against its subjects who violate its laws.

Big Parasite interacts as an equal only with other legal entities of the same type and similar size. The actions of Big Parasite is defined by law. Anything that falls outside of the legal interpretation of the laws is the enemy of Big Parasite. What humans call “War” is the lovemaking of Big Parasite.

H. Big Parasite is the owner of all land on Earth

The species of Big Parasite we call Flag States are the landlords of the human species since the Flag States own all the land on Earth. Therefore, the human body is born as a slave in a plantation owned by Big Parasite the Master.

I. Big Parasite defines its laws as laws of nature

Big Parasite defines the laws of the land and enforces them. To make it difficult for humans to challenge the laws, Big Parasite defines the laws it defined as natural laws. The older the law the more legitimate it looks and harder it is to change.

Furthermore, the old laws are comforting to live in for the human individual, and the individual has no incentive to change it. Like a domesticated cat having no desire to leave his house and live in the street.

J. Law is not understandable to the human individual

The law has no logic, no morals and no contradictions. Unlike the logic used by humans in daily life, in law every legal statement is true by its letter, by its spirit and/or by precedent.

In legal logic, what is legal is true; what is not legal is not true and does not exist. For this reason humans perceive the law as doubletalk.

All legal organisms use the same logic because the behavior of an organism is modeled after its form of organization. A legal-born organism naturally uses legal logic. This is the reason why physics (modern name of academic scholasticism, uses legal logic; the same logic is also used by branded religions, and law-makers and political entities).

K. Changing a law is impossible

Changing a law is so difficult that it requires coordination through several generations.

Big Parasite, on the other hand, can easily change the laws by amendment to adjust them to its benefit, therefore, under laws, the supplicant is always wrong and the ruler is always right.

IV. Love over law

A. Human species is domesticated through law

Love is the natural habitat of the human individual. The individuals interact by love/hate relationships.

Forced to live by law not by love the human body is alienated from its natural environment.

An individual who is alienated from its natural environment is easily controlled. This is called domestication.

B. Law is unilateral

Big Parasite enforces the laws of his own definition to rule over human body through its executive arm called the government.

The law is the house of Big Parasite; law is not just or fair.

Laws always favor the rulers who define them; Big Parasite has no incentive to make laws just so that its subjects can easily challenge them.

C. Law is the house of Big Parasite

Laws are not made to benefit or serve human beings.

Laws exist to benefit the ruler (Big Parasite) and the collaborators of the ruler, the professional classes, such as the bankers, lawyers and physicists.

D. The war between love and law

The never-ending war between human body and Big Parasite is the war between love and law. This war can only be won if humans unite against Big Parasite and organize in a legal entity themselves.

The Achilles heel of Big Parasite is that without the cooperation of humans it cannot exist. This is the reason Big Parasite crashes swiftly any attempt by humans to act in unity.

V. How to fight Big Parasite

A. First step

Recognize that Big Parasite is a living organism existing as an obligate symbiont with the human species.

B. Second step

Recognize that Big Parasite have no senses. Since Big Parasite does not perceive the world through human senses, it ignores any attempt to interact with it by pleading to its reason, or senses. Neither force nor reason will work against Big Parasite.

C. To change the law you need to challenge the law

Only legal action can change the wrongs of Big Parasite against the human body.

D. Do not project human values to Big Parasite

Humans as sentimental and reasonable beings project human values to Big Parasite and try to fight it by reasoning with it. Appealing to Big Parasite’s feelings or reason will not work either, because Big Parasite does not have feelings or reason.

Humans can challenge Big Parasite, their master, only in a court of law.

E. Romantic revolutionaries always fail

It is misguided to fight the Big Parasite by destroying its property (including its most valuable property, the human body).

F. Big Parasite needs humans more than humans need Big Parasite

This is the Achille’s heel of Big Parasite, without humans Big Parasite does not exist, understanding this fact will guide human actions against Big Parasite.

VI. Is Human emancipation as a species possible?

A. Is human emancipation as a species possible?

No. Because Big Parasite actively keeps humans divided. Human unity may never happen because no individual has an incentive to sacrifice his happiness today for the well-being of next generations. Furtheremore, any legal action on human rights requires coordination across generations.

B. Big Parasite survives any attacks by changing its name

And if worse comes to worst, Big Parasite simply will change the law and offending institutions nominally, including its own name, designate this day as a holiday in the calendar but the status quo will remain the same. Example: the French Revolution of 1789.

C. Is there no hope for human emancipation?

There is hope. But it will take some time. Look at the war of emancipation of women. Two thousand years ago women were absolute slaves of men. Women were not allowed to leave the kitchen, they had no rights. Women first took over the kitchen, then the house, then they came out of the house started to earn money and now they are as free as men. This victory for the sisterhood took 2000 years. Half of a species took two millennia to free itself from slavery. Once the entire species recognizes that they are slaves of Big Parasite, and if they form a humanhood in analogy and emulate the war of freedom conducted by women, the victory will be assurred. It will just take time. Let women guide humanity!

21. Your Evil Symbiont

Do you know who owns your body? You may think that you are the owner of your own body but you are not.

Your body is owned by your evil symbiont.

Who is your symbiont?

Humans live in symbiosis with a species of legal-born organisms that do not have a well-defined surface and therefore are not perceivable in its entirety by human senses. Your body is owned by this bodiless legal organism. Since this organism has not yet been identified as a life form it does not have a name.

Every human individual is either a pet or a slave of humanity’s invisible master. The master of human beings is also the landlord of the Earth. Since land is the source of all power and your master also makes the laws for you to live by on the land that it owns, your master is all powerful and has full control over you. Now that you know who your owner is, be in awe and show proper respect where respect is due.

You are born as a slave

Every human baby is born as a slave in this human plantation known as the planet Earth. The parents of the baby relinquish all natural rights of the baby to the master in return for protection and the right to live in the land owned by the master. How come humans lost the ownership of land? At some point in history, these unhuman legal organisms took the ownership of the land from the human feudal lords and made the entire humanity their indentured servants. We are witnessing the historic transfer of the ownership of land still owned by human dynasties to the unhuman organisms.

Upon its birth the baby is assigned a serial number and recorded in the database owned and maintained by the master. Your master who has no flesh and bones body and therefore no senses cannot perceive you as a human being with natural rights but perceives you only as a number in its database. For the master the value of the baby is proportional to the amount of tax it can extract from this baby during its lifetime. Money is the essential nutrient of this unhuman bodiless organism and without a constant circulation of money it would expire. Everyone in this database is expandable and can be sent to die during the lovemaking of this unhuman species with its peers which we humans perceive as war.

War is love-making of your symbiont

Humans are aware of the war-torn, divided and tragic state of their species but no one appears to be aware that humans live in symbiosis with a being without body. Their symbiont have become their master. The symbiont is also a parasite preying on the human body. It somehow became dominant and enslaved the human species. Humans are unable to perceive their master as a living organism because human beings are programmed to perceive nature as material. But existence is not matterful, existence is definitional. New life forms appear only by networking among existing life forms, not by evolution. The way cells combined to form the human organism as a new species, humans formed the legal organism as a new species.

Your symbiont is your master

Once you become aware that you are a servant, pet or slave of the master (colloquially known as “The Man”) all you can do is to deny it and rationalize it by believing that you are a free-born. But you are not free until you pay off all of the debt you were born with. Once the master can no longer extract taxes from you and decides that you are old and useless it will set you free, then you are free, not before then.

You were born as an indenturer, you paid your debt all your life and when you are finished you were kicked out of the society and sent into a sunny location to “enjoy” your withering existence!

Humanity has been groping to perceive and name this unhuman and bodiless legal organism for a long time. I called it the Org before, now I call it the Evil Symbiont or the Big Parasite in homage to Orwell’s Big Brother; man in the street calls it The Man… but no one realizes that this organism is a real living being and it is a biological species like any other known species. What the human master is to a cat, this unhuman legal organism is to humans. The cat can only perceive an instance of the human species – the owner of the house the cat lives in – but we should be able to perceive this organism as a species because we perceive it in time, across generations.

Living in denial

We have no choice but to live by fooling ourselves that we are free-born people living freely in the land of the free forgetting that we must pay our rent to the global landlord for everything of value that we pretend to own and that we are not allowed to trespass any land owned by another unhuman organism without asking for written permission. Considering that we cannot form couples without asking written permission from the agents of our master…. how can you still pretend that you are a free-born living freely in the land of the free? All evidence proves without a doubt that the human individual is a slave of its evil symbiont. When you are aware of all this evidence, how can you still pretend to yourself that you are a free individual?

22. Computation of Lagrange point L1

I’ve been looking at the standard Newtonian computation and I noticed that they start by introducing Newtonian ideological terms such as force F, the unit of force G, and mass of the satellite m_{sc} but they eliminate all these terms, when it comes time to actually compute. The final operational expression they use in the computations does not contain any Newtonian terms:

\frac{1}{(r-R)^3}- \frac{y}{R^2(r-R)}= \frac{1}{r^3}

This expression does have a ratio of masses as y=M/m, the ratio of the masses M of the Sun and m of the Earth, but this is not the Newtonian dynamical “mass” which is supposed to be the source of force that powers the orbit.

They simply call the unit in Kepler’s Rule “mass”. This goes back to Newton, of course, who defined the constant term in Kepler’s Rule as “mass.”

I call the same term “density constant” in Kepler’s Rule, because it is the defining characteristic of a density continuum. This is the term we keep constant to compute other values in the same continuum. In the case of the Sun and the Earth, we know the distance and Earth’s period and if we want to compute the density in L1 point we write Kepler’s Rule like this:

\frac{R_0^3}{T_0^2}=\frac{R_L^3}{T_L^2}

Similarly, we can write Kepler’s Rule for the Earth and the Moon and we can write density at L1:

\frac{r_0^3}{t_0^2}=\frac{r_L^3}{t_L^2}

From these I cannot compute the distance to L1, but I can compute the ratio

\frac{R_L}{r_L} \equiv \frac{\textup{Sun-L1 distance}}{\textup{Earth-L1 distance}}

First solve for periods at L1:

\\T_L^2 = \frac{T_0^2}{R_0^3}\: R_L^3\\ \\ \\ t_L^2 = \frac{t_0^2}{r_0^3}\: r_L^3

Take their ratio

\frac{T_L^2}{t_L^2}=\frac{T_0^2}{R_0^3}\: R_L^3\: \frac{r_0^3}{t_0^2}\: \frac{1}{r_0^3}

Since at L1 T_L = t_L, and grouping constant terms

\frac{R_0^3}{T_0^2} \: \frac{t_0^2}{r_0^3}= \frac{R_L^3}{r_L^3}

so,

\sqrt[3]{\frac{t_0^2}{r_0^3}}=\frac{R_L}{r_L} = \frac{\textup{Sun-L1 distance}}{\textup{Earth-L1 distance}} = 0.01447

The conventional value is

\frac{\textup{Sun-L1 distance}}{\textup{Earth-L1 distance}} = 0.01014

The difference is 0.00434.

* * *

I also compute Earth-L1 distance by using Newtonian ratio of masses and Keplerian ratio of masses, and I get the same result.

y_{Newtonian} = \frac{M}{m} = 3.00245\times 10^{-6}y_{Keplerian} = \frac{M}{m} = \frac{T_0^2}{R_0^3}\: \frac{r_0^3}{t_0^2}=3.03386\times 10^{-6}

* * *

By using Newtonian and Keplerian values of y, I compute

\frac{\textup{Earth-L1 distance}}{AU}=\frac{R}{r}

The operational expression used in the computations

\frac{1}{(r-R)^3}- \frac{y}{R^2(r-R)}= \frac{1}{r^3}

reduces, with the introduction of the new variable z = R/r, to

\frac{1}{(1-z)^3}-\frac{y}{z^2(1-z)}=1

After approximations the same equation reduces to

3z^3 \approx y

And taking cube root of each side

z \approx \sqrt[3]{\frac{y}{3}} \approx \frac{R}{r}

(For details see the original computations in NASA page)

I then compute Earth-L1 distance by using the standard value of y_{Newtonian} and y_{Keplerian}, the difference is only about 5,000 kilometers.

L1_{\textup{Newtonian}} = 1,496,408\: \textup{km}L1_{\textup{Keplerian}} = 1,506,607\: \textup{km}\\

* * *

I conclude that Lagrange points are a natural consequence of density continuum. No Newtonian ideological terms such as Newtonian occult force F and Newtonian dynamical mass as the source of force and the supposedly universal unit of force G that does not even enter the computations are needed to explain Lagrange points.

23. Jane Doe v. Board Of Education of the City of New York

This is an imagined “Scopes Trial” of Newtonism to raise awareness that Newtonism is a state religion taught to all of us as “true science”.

Jane Doe is the mother of little Jane Doe who is being taught at a New York City public school the doctrines of a British religious cult. We identify this cult as “Newtonism.”

A quote from a physics textbook (page 101) shows how Newtonian doctrines of occult force and atomic materialism (mass) is taught as true science:

5.6.1 Newtonian Gravity

Gravity is the attractive force between two objects due to the mass of the objects. When you throw a ball in the air, its mass and the earth’s mass attract each other, which leads to a force between them.

Jane Doe is suing NYC Board of Education because textbooks used by the Board indoctrinates little Jane Doe with a British religious cult by teaching that

Gravity is an universal attractive force discovered by the great British physicist Sir Isaac Newton, the mortal closest to Gods, and that this force is proportional to the mass of the bodies.

Jane Doe claims that this is a lie; more than a lie; it is a systematic indoctrination of young minds of our nation with the doctrines of a British religious cult.

Teaching Newtonism is religious indoctrination. But our constitution forbids religious indoctrination in public schools. As a patriotic citizen and as a concerned mother Jane Doe is suing the New York City Board of Education to stop the teaching of the unverified doctrines of an 18th century British occultist to little Jane Doe as a scientific fact.

The occult force supposedly discovered by Newton and taught by the NYC Board of Education as a scientific truth was never observed in nature.

Let’s repeat what Jane Doe is claiming and display it in bold font so that the reader does not miss the point of this case:

The occult force supposedly discovered by Newton and taught by the NYC Board of Education as an absolute scientific truth was never observed in nature.

That this occult force was never observed in nature is proved – by physicists themselves – who claim that

Newtonian force of gravity was superseded by Einstein’s General Relativity theories.

Physicists themselves proved that Newtonian force does not exist in nature.

Repeat in bold:

Physicists themselves proved that Newtonian force does not exist in nature.

Repeat in bold and all caps:

PHYSICISTS THEMSELVES PROVED THAT NEWTONIAN FORCE DOES NOT EXIST IN NATURE.

Then why is the Board indoctrinating poor little Jane Doe with the doctrines of a British religious cult that teaches blind acceptance of a nonexistent occult force as the true law of nature?

What does this mean?

It means that physicists themselves concede that experiments such as the famous Cavendish experiment that physicists claim proved the existence of the Newtonian force were – faked – by physicists to save Newton’s sacred authority.

If the Newtonian force were ever measured experimentally with the Cavendish experiment it could not be superseded by Einstein or anybody else.

Physicists concede that they faked experiments that they claim proved Newton’s occult force; because now they claim that Newton’s force does not exist.

How would the court decide this case?

The court does not know anything about the Cavendish experiment or the subtleties of the Newtonian force or if it exists or not.

The court decides that the subject of force belongs to physics and that only a physicist can settle the question of the existence of the Newtonian force and therefore the court orders the parties to bring in physics professors as expert witness to defend their case.

***

Counsel for Jane Doe hired an impeccable expert witness who is a tenured professor of physics in a brand name university. The prof testifies that “Newton’s force does not exist in nature because it was superseded by Einstein’s General Relativity.”

And this prof is not lying.

Legal and conventional physics teaches that Newtonian force was replaced by Einstein’s General Relativity. This is textbook stuff.

The prof offers the court to display standard physics equations to prove that Newtonian force does not exist but the court refuses the offer as unnecessary and the prof’s testimony that Newtonian force does not exist enters the records.

***

The counsel for defense is not worried. He also hired a physics professor from an equally brand name ivy league university. The defense prof is a showman who wrote several popular physics bestsellers and knows how to manipulate the minds of laymen by using the ancient authority of physics.

The prof brings with him an apple and with the confidence of great trial attorneys he shows the apple to the jury and tells them that he will now conduct a physics experiment to prove that the Newtonian force exists and then he drops the apple and asks the jury what they saw.

The plaintiff counsel objects to this blatant manipulation of the jury; but to no avail.

The prof knew that “apple” is a visual pun for “Newton’s force” and that the jury cannot help itself but “see” in this experiment the Newtonian force emanating from the center of the earth pull Newton’s apple and make it fall according to Newton’s force of gravity laws.

The jury members have been indoctrinated since childhood with Newtonism and they believe that they “saw” with their own eyes the force attracting the apple even though there is no such force visible to the jury or to any mortal except to physics profs who are priests of Newtonism.

***

The jury’s “vision” of a non-existent force is the proof of how successful Newtonism has been as a religious cult shaping our perception of the world.

***

The prof hired by the defense is confident that he got the jury on his side and testifies that Newtonian force exists and he just proved it. The apple was attracted by the Newtonian force and the jury saw it. He rests his case.

***

So two profs of physics with equal academic authority come to court; one testifies that Newtonian force does not exist and the other testifies that Newtonian force does exist.

***

Dear reader, suppose you are the plaintiff counsel. How will you defend your client? Do you mind sharing your strategy with us?

***

If the same question about the existence of force is evaluated by an independent group of scientists working outside of physics; what would they find?

***

To me, both profs are wrong. Because both of them actually repeat Newtonian doctrines as legalized in physics. It is true that the Newton’s occult force does not exist - not because it was replaced by General Relativity - but because it was never observed by a proper experiment; and because Newtonian force and mass do not enter orbit computations. How much of these technical issues would the court want to hear?

Do you find the above court scenario realistic? How would you defend this case? Do you know any similar cases?

24. Google’s Calico and human well-being

Calico is launched as a well-being company with a dual mission: To increase human life span by a substantial amount and to find the elixir of life. I wish Google good luck with their search for immortality but I have a few things to say about extending human life span.

* * *

Calico will aim to extend human life span by focusing on the human genetic code. But this is trying to solve the wrong problem. Why is the human body not living as long as it can? Is it because there is something wrong with its genetic code? No. Human body is not living to its potential because it is poisoned and sick. Human life span will extend naturally and humans will be stronger, healthier, more resistant to disease and live longer and happier lives if they learned to respect the land, the animals and the environment that makes life possible. Human body is sick because it’s being fed the flesh of sick animals and poisonous plants raised on sick soil.

In its natural environment human body lives a healthy and long life. Natural environment includes clean air, natural food from healthy soil and healthy animals. Human life span will increase naturally if humans respected other animals and the environment.

* * *

Healthy soil, healthy animals and healthy air makes strong and healthy individuals.

But instead of respecting their food and life sources humans have been defecating on the plate from which they eat. That’s why they are fat and sick. Look at the soil. The arable land on earth is poisoned with chemicals that are called “fertilizers”; plants that grow on poisonous chemicals lack nutrition and are made of nothing but poisonous chemicals. As seen by your digestive system the vegetables that you buy from supermarket are poison. Wheat too has been turned into poison by genetic engineering.

You consider the milk that you drink every day one of the healthiest and nutritious foods that you give your body. But you are mistaking the propaganda of the milk lobby for truth: Packaged milk supplies no more nutrition for your body than chalk water. Pasteurization and all other processing that cow’s milk goes through turn your milk into poison. More importantly, your milk comes from sick animals. Cows are sick and their milk is also sick. Dairy cows spend their life standing on concrete floor in a small cell enclosed by iron bars unable to move. They have so many diseases that they are kept alive by antibiotics. By drinking milk you are supporting global corporations that torture innocent cows for their own profit.

You also eat the meat of these sick animals. You might as well eat poison. By feeding your body sick food from tortured animals you are making yourself sick and shortening your life span. If you treat the animals that supply your food without respect and treat your cows as machines then you will be poisoned by their milk and flesh. This is what I mean by respecting animals.

Humans also fouled the environment; the air you breath makes you sick.

If we respect the earth, the land and the animals, human life span will increase naturally without any genetic modification.

* * *

Do you agree with the above picture? It is hard not to agree that animals are sick and they are making us sick, that our land is poisoned with chemicals and it is making us sick. If the land is the body of the earth, it is diseased just like our body is diseased with chemicals we take supposedly to cure diseases. The air we breath is poisoned with toxic chemicals.

* * *

Humans living in a natural environment with clean air, obtaining their food from healthy animals raised freely on pasture land, live healthy and long lives. Respecting the earth and the rights of your fellow animals will increase the human life span; we don’t need to mess with the genetic code.

But the claim that humans are the polluters of the earth is not correct.

I wrote that humans do not respect the land, the animals and the environment. This is not true. You and I and everybody else, if left on their own, will respect our fellow animals. No human being will be so cruel to cows as to imprison them in a cell and torture them by forbidding them to move; for a cow not to be able to move and not to graze and sit down to ruminate is torture. Humans will not do this to such a nice creature.

The damage to the Earth and the environment is caused by a being who is not an animal born of love and flesh but a bodiless organism born of legal contract. This legal organism is unable to empathize with organisms with body. The legal organism has no senses because it has no body and cannot perceive the world directly and has no notion of what is good or bad for human body. The legal organism can only distinguish what is legal and what is not. It perceives the world as a legal world. As long as it is legal to pollute the air, poison the land and torture the animals, it will do so. This bodiless monster is responsible for enslaving humans and their animals and poisoning the air and the land.

This organism is your symbiont and it is also your master.

Global conglomerates, banks, religions and flag states are species of the legal organism.

Humans recognize that global chemicals corporations are poisoning the land with what they call fertilizers; big pharma is poisoning our body with their chemicals they call medication; the flag states own all the land on earth and it is in collusion with the big pharma and chemicals companies and furthermore will not hesitate to send humans to their death for its own pleasure.

Humans recognize that banks own humans through debt but they do not realize that banks are a form of life and it is a species of legal organisms. When banks need money they dip into your savings and when they are caught stealing your money they go under. When your bank goes bankrupt your money is lost to you but it is transferred to another bank with a different branding. Banks always win; they just change their name. Unlike humans, banks reproduce by dividing and combining because they are legal entities without body.

We know all this and we are powerless to change the system and we recognize that these organisms are detrimental to human health and happiness but we fail to see that all these organisms are instances of the same life form. This life form is legal-born and has no body, but it is a live organism living in symbiosis with humans.

* * *

It is important to recognize that this organism has no body and no senses like humans. This organism is a living being but it is not an animal like humans. Compared to human life span it is immortal. Catholic church is such a legal-born organism and has been around for 2000 years and it is still going strong. Empires last 500 years on the average. Google itself is such a species of bodiless organisms. People are starting to be suspicious that Google is not really a do-no-evil company. In the world of legal born organisms human morals do not apply. These organisms do not know what is evil or not evil. Such human values do not make sense to a legal-born organism, for them only what is legal exists….

There is a lot to write about these legal organisms but what is important to understand in this context is that it is not humans who are making the earth poisonous but it’s the evil symbiont of humans. The first step is to realize this simple fact and then decide how to fight this powerful and immortal organism to get our natural rights back,

I am not sure that the human individual wants to fight its evil symbiont. Most humans are content to live under the protection of their symbiont. Just like a pack of dogs, humans fight for dominance among themselves and consider dominance of their peers a sign of power and freedom. But humans can only pretend to be free, because an individual is not the owner of its own body, human body is owned by its master. All evidence show that humans are slaves. They live a life addicted to the potent drug called entertainment to pass through this life in a happy slumber. They don’t want to waste their life fighting for the freedom of future generations. Who can blame them? Your symbiont master knows this fact and feeds humans ever more potent strains of the drug that we all love so much. Half of humanity makes a living entertaining the other half. Why would they bother to question the motives of their master and their own state of slavery?

* * *

Cats and humans are in the same situation. Can cats fight to regain their natural rights from humans? Impossible. Can humans fight to regain their natural rights. Yes. It is possible in the long run. As far as I know, there is only one instance of a successful species level fight for independence and that’s the victory of female species against their male masters. We happen to live at the latest stage where female species is enjoying their newly earned freedom. Humanity as a whole can take that fight as a model and try to emulate it. It is a long shot but it seems to me the only hope.

But neither humans nor cats have any incentives to exchange their current happy slumber for something as meaningless as freedom of future generations.

On a more practical level, you are aware that you are being poisoned by another organism who owns your body. What are you doing to regain your natural right to have access to non-poisonous natural food? Most people accept the situation as is, others who can afford it try to buy “organic food”. The young do not care because the effects of malnutrition and poisoning start to bother them only as they get older. Is there a way to change the system? There needs to be a better system to replace it. What do you think? What can we do to regain our natural right to have access to natural food and live a longer and healthier life?

25. The world is powered by Newton’s Soul

This is the equivalence of densytics and physics:

\left \{ \frac{R_{0}^{3}}{T_{0}^{2}} = \frac{R^3}{T^2} \right \}\equiv \left \{F =\frac{GMm}{R^2}=ma=F \right \}

Physics is densytics with Newtonian branding.

The equivalence of densytics and physics proves that physics is the Cult of Newton.

Why?

Only priests of the Cult of Newton would write a term on both sides of a mathematical expression to save Newton’s authority. A term written on both sides of a mathematical expression is not a part of that expression.

So, the expression

F =\frac{GMm}{R^2}=ma=F

does not contain the terms m and F.

Physicists write m and F on both sides of a mathematical expression to save Newton’s sacred authority and to assert their sacred dogma of atomic materialism. Atomic materialism is the revealed dogma of physics and it is a hidden assumption, in other words, atomic materialism is the faith of the Cult of Newton.

* * *

The symbol F in the above expression is a placeholder for the Newtonian ideological word “Force” and has no mathematical or quantitative existence because it is on both sides of the expression. I can replace F with any value without changing the expression. Let’s choose

S = \textrm{Newton's Soul}

and the expression becomes

S =\frac{GMm}{R^2}=ma=S

With this improvement “Newtonian mechanics” will work exactly as before because

\left \{ S =\frac{GMm}{R^2}=ma=S\right \} \equiv\left \{ F =\frac{GMm}{R^2}=ma=F\right \}

The only difference is that now M and m and all other “matter” in the universe will be set in motion by Newton’s Soul instead of Newton’s Force.

Of course, only the priests of the Cult of Newton believe that “matter” is set in motion by Newton’s Force or Newton’s Soul because neither S nor F enter into any operational formulas; they are written on both sides of the expression, they cancel, they don’t exist.

* * *

This is my homage to a true scientist, Christiaan Huygens, who correctly identified that Newton intended Newton’s Force to be Newton’s Soul that permeated the universe.

* * *

If I want to I can define

P = \textrm{Newton's Wig Powder}

and the expression will be

P =\frac{GMm}{R^2}=ma=P

and the entire world will be set in motion by Newton’s Wig Powder.

As a bonus, the physical quantity “Newton’s Wig Powder” nicely unifies Newtonian Mechanics and General Relativity and now physicists can publish papers investigating “dust solutions” of General Relativity by defining the physical pun

\textrm{Powder} = \textrm{Dust}

* * *

The possibilities are infinite and I suggest that the Priests of the Cult of Newton should publish many papers proving how the world is so Newtonian that it is set in motion by any term they plug into Newton’s great equation. Just make sure that your term has the word “Newton” in it; otherwise these great physical equations will not work.

* * *

Only priests of the Cult of Newton would make fools of themselves by writing the same ideological and decorative term on both sides of a mathematical expression in order to save the sacred authority of their prophet Newton.

26. The Loaded balance of physics

In order to ply their trade Doctors of Philosophy sanctified something they call “equation.” What is this sacred equation Doctors use to discover the secrets of the universe?

An equation in scholasticism is made of an equality sign and a set of symbols on either side of it. It is the equivalent of the symbol of balance in the legal system.

An equation is a loaded balance. Don’t expect honest measurement from professional learned Doctors.

How to fix a balance so that it always favors the dealer? Very easy. Define the equality sign 4 times.

In scholastic physics the equality sign is the fundamental symbol of the fundamental tool of physics: the equation. And the equality sign is loaded. Equality sign is a crooked invention of crooked Doctors of Philosophy. Doctors invented the academic equality sign in order to protect and perpetuate their crooked monopoly on human reason.

In scholastic physics equality sign may mean

  • a proportionality
  • an identity
  • an equality
  • a definition.

There you go. Pick and choose. A candidate to become a Doctor of Philosophy receives his license to practice when he can prove that he has mastered how to make an equation to mean whatever the Doctor wants it to mean. A Doctor is someone who uses the ancient authority of mathematics as false witness to advance his career.

Doctors can corrupt any language in order to own that language by defining any symbol as many times as they want. Throughout history humans discovered that scientific advancement happens only in periods when citizens start to question Learned Doctors’ authority and their polemical language. Today we are living in such a period when more and more people are questioning the authority of Doctors of Philosophy doing business as “physicists”.

27. A critique of Newton’s law of universal gravitation

There is an article at Shores of Dirac Sea about the universal law of gravitation which is a good example of the standard physics mythology repeated by physicists as true history of their profession.

Newton’s status in physics today

Before looking at the equations let me note a few observations about Newton’s status in physics today. It’s not surprising that Newton as the founder of physics has acquired the same kind of mythological status of any founder of a long-lasting organism, e.g., George Washington. Politicians name capital cities after founders, physicists name fundamental units after their founder.

Newton and Principia have become ceremonial

The article reveals that Newton the historical person who founded the physics profession and his book the Principia have become ceremonial entities not taught as physics and not read as physics. Physicists cannot understand the Principia because they are only familiar with legal equations with units and constants used in physics while Newton used only proportions. In other words, the Principia has been superseded by Newtonian catechism physicists call “Newtonian mechanics”.

Polemical constants as substance

Physicists no longer read, teach or understand the fundamental book that started it all. Principia has become irrelevant. But not in totality. Physicists will still repeat Newtonian cliches found in the easy to read philosophical commentary Newton inserted as Scholia. No need to read the Principia to state that “Newton believed time and space was absolute.” This has become a legal polemical constant of physics and has as much weight as a physical law. In other words, mathematics of Principia has become irrelevant but its scholastic substance is enshrined in physics as polemical constants.

Force is veiled in mythology

Physics harbors many urban myths about true nature of force. The fundamental quantity of the physics business is veiled in mythology and practicing physicists do not know the true historical facts about force. But despite the legends and hearsay and mythology around force physicists never doubt that Newton discovered the force. Furthermore, even though Einstein showed that force was unphysical, Newton is still celebrated for allegedly discovering this unphysical occult quality.

A statement is true if no physicist objects to it

This is similar to the polemical constant “Newton’s magnum opus Principia is the greatest scientific treatise ever written.” Physicists repeat this polemical constant with great authority but they never read the Principia. How do they know that Principia is the greatest scientific treatise ever written? They don’t. But what harm is there to assert that the book written by the founder of the profession was the “greatest scientific treatise ever written?” No physicist will object to such a statement and therefore “Principia is the greatest scientific treatise ever written” is a true physical statement.

These observations strengthen the thesis that physics is a legal system just like law. Only legal physics statements, whether in the form of polemical constants or legal mathematical forms are considered to be true by physicists. Critical historical skepticism is not considered physics. Anything outside of legal physics is dismissed as metaphysics, philosophy or mere history.

Physics equations contain non-quantitative decorative terms

This anti-historical culture of physics gives rise to legal equations that contain non-quantitative decorative symbols that exist only to be eliminated. And F = GMm/rr is the proof of this.

Physicists believe that Newton discovered force

This is a widespread physics mythology repeated by physicists as truth:

What is true however is that Newton had some hint of using a central force to explain the motion of the planets from Hooke. However Hooke could not solve the problem, and Newton had to invent calculus and differential equations to really solve this problem.

Three questions:

  1. Could Newton have solved the central force problem without differential equations and calculus?
  2. Did Newton use differential equations and calculus to solve central force problem?
  3. What is central force problem?

Today we know that central force problem is bogus. Newton stated the orbit problem as central force problem to justify his dynamical hallucinations. As physicists tell us, Newtonian force has been shown by Einstein to be unphysical.

Why are physicists still celebrating Newton for discovering the universal law of gravitation and for explaining central force problem with it?

This doesn’t make sense. If force is shown to be unphysical then force must be removed from physics. If force is unphysical Newton did not discover it. It’s about time to call Newton’s bluff.

There is no central force problem because orbits are not explained and cannot be explained by using force. Orbits are described by Kepler’s rule and more precisely by theory-agnostic numerical integration.

What is in Newton’s Principia cannot be changed by physics mythology. The following are historical facts:

In his calculations of astronomical quantities Newton did not use

  • calculus
  • differential equations
  • force
  • Newton did not know and did not use units and constants named after him

In his calculations of astronomical quantities Newton did use

  • Kepler’s rule

Physicists may deny these historical facts and accept the legal physics mythology and continue to revere Newton almost a century after his force and his system of the world has been shown to be bogus. If boilerplate Newtonian mythology is so strong that they overrule historical facts . . . This fact proves once again that physics is the cult of Newton impersonating science.

Doing physics with slogans

The idea that the laws of motion that govern the planets are the same as the laws of motion that pertain to us has become a standard definition of what physics is about: the laws of physics are universal and should apply to everything and everyone all over the known universe. We have a lot of evidence that this is so. That whatever can happen here, given the same circumstances, will happen elsewhere in pretty much the same way.

This quote reveals how physicists confuse slogans with laws.

Physicists assume that nature is a legal system that is legislated by Newton’s laws. So it sounds natural for a physicist to use “the laws of motion” as if this were an explanation.

Planetary motions are not “governed” by “the laws of motion” (a euphemism for Newton’s equations of motion which are nothing more than Kepler’s rule written with Newtonian constants and units) but orbits are described by Kepler’s rule.

Terrestrial and celestial realms are unified by Kepler’s rule

I don’t see anything extraordinary about the slogan that “the laws of motion that govern the planets are the same as the laws of motion that pertain to us.” The earth is a planet. If Kepler’s rule describes the motion of planets it will also describe the motion of the planet earth.

The author draws the wrong conclusion from the observation that Kepler’s rule describes planetary orbits including the orbit of the earth.

Physicists repeat the buzzword “unification” of the two realms but do not yet understand the implications of this unification.

Galileo’s time squared law is wrong

Physicists still teach Galileo’s time squared rule as if it were correct. Galileo’s time squared law is an earth specific rule. It denies the unification. So why do physicist still teach Galileo’s wrong law? Because physicists never question legal physics slogans and mythology, they teach legal physics as is.

Any physicist who even thinks about questioning Galileo’s law will be dubbed a crackpot and terminated if he doesn’t have tenure. Physicists with tenure don’t bother with Galileo.

On the other hand, someone who understands that Kepler’s rule explains planetary motions including the earth’s motion realizes that a freely falling stone is in orbit therefore its motion is described by Kepler’s rule and not by Galileo’s time squared law.

Galileo’s rule is approximately true near the surface of the earth but it is conceptually wrong, nevertheless physicists keep teaching it as if it were the absolute truth only because Galileo’s law is a legal law of physics.

Once again, we see that in physics precedence is sacred. Physicists turned Galileo into a Newtonian demi-god and closed Galileo’s work to further investigations. This is the sign of a legal system. It is the sign of a cargo cult. Academic physics has yet to reach the level of a critical science where everything is open to scientific questioning.

Physics laws are eternally true

Let’s get back to the original quote. The conclusion this writer draws from the fact that Kepler’s rule explains planetary motions including the earth’s motion is wrong. He reasons as follows:

  1. Newton used Kepler’s rule to compute a half a dozen planetary quantities
  2. Since the Earth is a planet Kepler’s rule applies to earth as well
  3. Therefore the laws of physics are universal and should apply to everything and everyone all over the known universe.

Number 3 does not follow from 1 and 2 according to standard logic used in other scientific fields.

But it is true that the laws of physics are universally valid as this writer asserts. How? By definition.

Physicists assume that laws of physics are universally valid by definition and if they are shown to be not valid they are amended to save the new observations and consequently physics laws remain eternally valid.

The eternality of physics laws in time and in space is a polemical and political statement because no one can test or verify or falsify such a claim. It is a useless statement that serves no purpose except as a professional propaganda.

But this is not accepted by physicists. Physicists must make the claim that they have “physical” evidence that physics laws are eternally true. Of course, such a claim lowers physics to the bottom of academic fields and outside of scientific disciplines beyond polemical philosophy and into the land of religion and cults such as Pythagorean and Platonic brotherhoods.

We have a lot evidence that this is so.

So I’ve anticipated the writer. He is indeed claiming that there is evidence for the eternality of physical laws. A claim with no scientific basis unless, of course, if, as physicists do, you defined \textup{eternal} \equiv \textup{not-eternal}.

That whatever can happen here given the same circumstances will happen elsewhere in pretty much the same way.

Ah, I totally misunderstood him! This is different than what he said above. “Given the same circumstances” is the spoiler.

It is true that a system obeying Kepler’s rule here will obey Kepler’s rule elsewhere and everywhere.

Who can argue with this tautology? It is true. Tautologies are always true. But this has nothing to do with physics laws. Given a pattern A – and Kepler’s rule is a pattern – it will be pattern A everywhere because if it weren’t it wouldn’t be pattern A.

The eternality of physical laws is a propaganda and it is unnecessary and useless but its mere repetition endows the repeating physicist with authority by association. Who wouldn’t want to be a practitioner in a profession whose laws are respected all over the universe by everybody and by everything? Physics as the academic superpower of the universe!

Newton’s method of marketing new physical quantities

So, we recognize the local to total routine that Newton introduced to physics and made legal. Newton told his followers “do as I do, always project local to total by authority, no one can check it. Just make sure you have enough authority.”

As anything else in physics the method of local to total too was invented by Newton. Newton did half a dozen planetary computations using Kepler’s rule and defined his computations as the universal force permeating the universe. From local to total, from solar system to totality just by Newton’s authority.

30. Newton’s definition of density

Newton’s definition 1 in the Principia:

Quantity of matter is a measure of matter that arises from its density and volume jointly.

In Definition 1 Newton uses Kepler’s Rule to define density in a cryptic way. He labels the constant of density R_0^3/T_0^2 “mass” and neglects to clarify that 1/T^2 is frequency squared.

This is Newton’s greatest discovery. He was the first person to realize the fundamental nature of Kepler’s Rule.

In order to brand Kepler’s Rule as his own discovery Newton associated it with two superfluous terms: force and mass. If Newton were to use Kepler’s Rule as is with only radius and period he would have glorified Kepler and reduced himself to a mere astronomer. As a marketing genius and a megalomaniacal worlbuilder Newton chose to brand Kepler’s Rule as Newton’s laws and made it the foundation of his System of the World.

Force and mass are decorative terms Newton superimposed on Kepler’s Rule and are not supported by observations. They do not exist in operational formulas. Observations reject the existence of mass (matter) but in order to save Newton’s authority physicists – instead of dropping the word mass – invented the concept of zero mass, e.g., the photon.

Force too is redundant. Einstein showed that force is unphysical. Once again, in order to save Newton’s sacred authority physicists do not let go of Newton’s occult force. They keep writing “F” in their derivations in order to cancel it in the next line.

Based on the above I propose the following propositions:

  • Kepler’s Rule is fundamental
    • discovered in a database of observations
    • proven to work in the solar system
    • proven to work in binary stars and other systems
    • takes only two terms — radius and period of an orbit
    • is independent of any laws and ideologies, such as Newtonism
  • Kepler’s Rule is the definition of density
    • For a given frequency and volume density is constant
  • Newtonism is a branding of Kepler’s Rule
    • newtonian mechanics is Kepler’s Rule written with standard units and constants
    • mathematical formalisms of newtonian mechanics - Lagrange, Hamilton - are Kepler’s Rule expressed with calculus notation

31. Beware of the professional

Professionals program human individual for the unhuman organism

We are educated by professionals who program us from the earliest times with the doctrine that we must obey professional authority. We are taught that all professionals are experts in their field and they have a monopoly in their field protected by a license and we must never question or doubt the professional opinion of a professional. According to this doctrine civilization exists thanks to professionals.

Human individual is rewarded only if he gives up his individuality

If we are interested in a subject we must never investigate that subject on our own by freely thinking on our own but we must yearn to enter that professional field by giving up our individuality and dedicate ourself in moving up the hierarchy and sacrifice our natural curiosity to serve the objectives of the hierarchy.

The education tells us that after studying the professional language of our chosen profession and after showing our proficiency of it we must obtain our license and practice that profession until we retire. During our practice we must vehemently protect our profession from infringement from outsiders so that our professional authority is not diluted and our monopoly remains firm.

The old European system enforces submission to the unhuman

This is the old European doctrine established to perpetuate the compartmentalized European society where every citizen is taught to know its place and never dare to question the absolute authority of the ruling unhuman organisms.

Professionals exploit confusion and confuse to exploit

Throughout human history, as our species has faced the frightening, terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are, or where we are going in this ocean of chaos, it has been the authorities - the political, the religious, the educational authorities - who attempted to comfort us by giving us order, rules, regulations, informing – forming in our minds - their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question authority and learn how to put yourself in a state of vulnerable open-mindedness, chaotic, confused vulnerability to inform yourself.

The main objective of education – designed and operated by professionals – is to kill individual curiosity that may lead to the questioning of authority and teach how to find comfort in professional mythology.

Respecting professional authority serves the professional

Respecting professional authority serves the professional classes and helps them perpetuate their monopoly. We on the other hand never look forward to dealing with professionals and we know that whenever we trust a professional we will always be the loser.

Lawyers, medical doctors, church professionals, politicians and physicists are professionals who see their customers as preys to be exploited for their own professional gains. Everyone knows that for a medical doctor a patient is a walking dollar sign.

Academic physics is irrelevant

Physics is apparently different than other professional fields because academic physics is totally irrelevant. No one ever goes to a physicist with a practical problem to be solved. All problems solved by academic physicists are academic.

Of course, if you want to build mass destruction weapons you will have to require the services of physicists but probably you don’t because building mass destruction weapons is not nice and contributes negatively to human well-being.

So academic physics is irrelevant and academic physicists spend their time writing commentary on each other’s commentary on old scholastic topics such as time, space, gravity and cosmos.

Applied physics is evil

The practical side of the physics profession – applied physics – is harmful to the well-being of human individual but physics professionals have been contributing happily to the destruction of humanity and the deterioration of human standard of life more than any other type of professionals. The more a physicist will serve the unhuman organism and deliver weapons to be used against human individual the more he will be marketed as a genius by the marketing arm of the unhuman.

Maybe it is possible to defend destructive and evil physics because it may have some useful side effects at the end. I don’t know. There must be a way to do research without paying such a deadly price for humanity. I cannot justify as easily as physicists can that collaborating with the enemies of humanity hoping that some good may come out of it is good.

Questioning leads to understanding

In order to evaluate physicists’ theories we must question them. I refuse to accept academic physicists’ authority. They are nothing more than licensed practitioners of a legal code called physics. They claim that their authority comes from their knowledge of a language. That’s not the kind of authority that impresses me.

I am not interested in what is already known. I am interested in learning what I don’t know. Learning means questioning, not accepting physics dogma by faith.

Fundamental is simple

I believe that anyone can speculate on fundamental questions as well as physicists because nature is simple.

Archimedes did not know physics. Galileo did not know physics. Newton did not know physics. Yet they contributed nicely to human understanding of nature by using simple methods.

Model meets nature at a single point

If physics claims to model nature then all physics statements must be intelligible to non-physicists. An intelligible statement has a single meaning.

If experiment is asking questions to nature obviously nature will not reply to a question which will have many answers. This is the fundamental rule of experimenting: Ask a well defined single question. Physicists don’t know this fact.

Therefore, what is not intelligible to a non-physicist will not be intelligible to nature either.

What is intelligible to physicists only will be intelligible to physicists only and to no one else, including nature.

And indeed the proprietary professional language physicists use to communicate among themselves is intelligible to no one but to themselves. Nature ignores it.

Yes, nature rejects scholastic and elegant symbolism produced by physicists because model touches nature always on a single point. All superfluous symbolism invented by physicists to practice their scholastic philosophy must be eliminated if any measurement can result from their symbolism. Nature understands only simple proportions.

Measurement compares unit to measured

Measurement compares a unit to what is measured. Measurement is counting. Therefore, elaborate philosophical symbolism physicists call physical theories are never measured.

Nature ignores academic physics

As expected from professionals who are concerned about protecting and perpetuating their monopoly physicists defined this proprietary communication language that they use to build theories to be science and the only true language understood by nature.

Physicists hide information by encoding it in proprietary languages. This is used by all professionals to protect their monopoly.

All professionals profit from knowledge they’ve hidden

Statements with hidden assumptions are intelligible only to professionals but a statement that has only one meaning is intelligible to everybody.

In order to hide information physicists load every statement with as many hidden meanings as possible so that only they can parse it.

No professional can pretend to have authority if what he says is understood by a non-professional. This is the law professionals will never tolerate to be violated. Why do you think physics professionals to be an exception to this law?

Hoarding information wholesale and selling it retail is the oldest one in the book of scholasticism. Physics professionals are masters of this method.

Physics is not suitable to study fundamentals

In order to speculate on fundamental questions we don’t need to understand physicists’ professional language. Fundamental questions cannot be studied by studying high level languages.

Let’s look at LHC, an experiment that will supposedly reveal the most hidden secrets of nature to physicists who will then reveal them to us.

LHC is a black box experiment and we have no hope of ever understanding the processes of LHC.

Furthermore, there is no one physicist who understands how LHC works or how data is reduced. Every physicist knows her little section of the code that his supervisor tells her to work on, and no more.

There are no absolute discontinuities

We are ignorant of physicists’ professional language but as free thinking independent researchers we know that there are no absolute discontinuities in nature.

Therefore, there are no infinitely hard and absolutely indivisible particles.

When physicists claim to observe “elementary building blocks of nature” we know that they are lying or at least repeating professional dogma.

Initial assumptions are independent of models

We don’t need to understand how physicists reduce data to know that they are lying about observing absolute indivisibles.

What is complicated and not intelligible to outsiders is the way physicists reduce data and how they communicate their research. That’s not physics anyway. That’s computer programming and professional bureaucracy.

Nature is definitional

Anyone can evaluate fundamental propositions because fundamental propositions are simple. If a proposition has more than one meaning then it is not simple therefore it is not fundamental.

Physicists as scholastic doctors will always claim to prove their hidden assumptions by their method of data reduction and modeling. This goes as far back as astronomers who owned the Ptolemaic model. They asserted that the Earth must be stationary because their model worked and made good predictions. Physicists assume that nature is particulate and then prove it with their standard model. Nothing much changed in scholasticism since Ptolemy’s time.

A field becomes science when professional practitioners give up their authority on their professional code and accept that their models cannot prove their doctrine.

Academic physics is still at the primitive stage where practitioners prove their assumptions with their models. And they don’t yet realize how silly that is.

Why do physicists conflate academic physics with technology?

And why are physicists so proud of their achievements? They conflate academic physics with technology and take credit for technological advances.

Physicists take credit for new technology based on electricity as if they’ve discovered electricity. They say without physics there would be no computers, no cell phones, no GPS and so on.

Let us note that the science of electricity was discovered and developed by amateurs and not by professional physicists. And today technological advances are achieved by engineers not by academic physicists.

We are living in a world designed by engineers and inventors such as Edison, we are not living in a world designed by academic physicists. Academic physicists are concerned about the properties of the unmeasurable past and the unmeasurable future.

32. Scenes from the Trial of Newtonism

Physicists claim that because they use units they named after Newton in their calculations of orbits, these calculations prove Newton’s “laws”. This is absurd because measurement is independent of measure.

Plaintiff argues like this:

We respectfully ask the judge to grant us the following undisputed fact:

measurement is independent of the unit chosen to measure.

Undisputed fact:

measurement is independent of measure.

What does this mean?

This means that we can measure any length with any unit of our choosing; no unit is the true unit; there is no true unit in nature.

This fact was first stated mathematically by Descartes.

The plaintiff may choose to measure a given length A with Unit-1; the defendant may choose to measure the same length A with Unit-2, which he named, very cleverly, “Newton’s Universal True Unit.” But neither Unit-1 nor Newton’s Universal True Unit is better or worse or more true or less true than the other.

Once the court upholds this undisputed scientific fact that no unit is the absolute true unit, and orders both parties to abide by this rule, plaintiff asks the court to designate a given length to be measured by both defendant and plaintiff; we call this distance to be measured “length A”.

Plaintiff takes a piece of string and lays it on length A and cuts the string when the edges of the string matches the edges of the length A, and tells the judge that the length A measures 1 string.

Defendant hired a physics professor to defend Newtonism and the prof brought with him a laser ruler and tells the court that length A is 10 inches as measured by his ruler and not 1 string as the plaintiff claims.

The judge overrules the assertion of the prof and reminds him that according to the court rules, measurement is independent of the unit and the plaintiff’s measurement of lenght A is as good as prof’s measurement.

* * *

The prof is used to assert ownership of any quantity he measures with his named units; but in the court of law his academic authority is overruled by the scientific rule upheld by the court; the prof cannot own the given length A simply because he measured it with his named units.

* * *

Then the plaintiff respectfully asks the judge to tell the parties each to weigh an apple.

The plaintiff uses an old style scale with a basket on each side and puts the apple on one basket and a stone on the other to balance the scale; and tells the judge that the apple weighs 1 stone.

The physics prof hired by the defendant to defend Newtonism brought with him an electronic laboratory scale and places the same apple on the scale and reads the dial which shows 1 Newton as the weight of the apple.

The physics professor tells the court that the apple does not weigh 1 stone but it weighs 1 Newton and because the prof named his unit Newton he wants the plaintiff, the judge, the jury and the entire world to believe that the earth attracts the apple with the occult force invented by Newton.

The judge once again dismisses the prof’s claim and tells him that no unit can prove any doctrine by association and orders him to heed the rules of the court and reminds him once again that measurement is independent of the unit chosen by the measurer.

* * *

The court does not accept guilt by association and the court does not accept proof of doctrines by rhetorical associations with strategically named units.

* * *

The prof is not used to this type of challenge to his academic authority and he still does not get that the measurement is independent of the unit he chooses to use.

The prof is used to assert the authority of physics through units he named after Newton. This is how physics has been done since Newton’s time. The authority of the physicist on the matters of legal physics cannot be challenged. If the prof says that an apple weighs 1 Newton that apple weighs 1 Newton as a law of nature. This is what the laws of physics require, and the prof asks the judge to obey the laws of physics as defined by the prof; not the rules of the court.

But judge overrules the polemical attempts of the prof to assert Newton’s sacred authority over the justice system of the United States. It does not matter what the prof named his unit; an apple weighs a stone, if you use the unit of stone to measure its weight, or an apple weighs 1 Newton, or 1 Einstein or 1 any-dead-physicist the prof chooses to name his unit to weigh the apple.

* * *

Pliantiff agrees with the court that, as granted by the judge, measurement is independent of the measure. The plaintiff is using a stone to measure the weight of an apple; the defendant invented a convoluted unit to save the authority of the founder of his profession and he is using standard units of kilogram, meter and second to weigh the same apple.

The prof named a combination of standard units of kg, meter and second Newton. He is using 4 conventional units to weigh an apple in order to save his Master Newton’s sacred authority.

* * *

Next the plaintiff respectfully asks the judge to let each party to measure an orbit, say the orbit of Mars around the sun.

There is no doubt that the physics prof will again come up with units he named after Newton and because he used units he named after Newton he will claim that orbits are Newtonian.

The prof has been indoctrinated during his long physics education that lasted over 30 years, to see the world with Newtonian blinders behind Newtonian glasses.

* * *

Plaintiff simply uses Kepler’s Rule which says that the cube of the radius R is proportional to the square of the period T:

R^{3} \propto T^{2}

In order to use this rule to measure an orbit we need to choose a unit. As in the measurement of the length A we can choose any unit for R and any unit for T. But we need to make sure that our units are consistent.

To use Kepler’s Rule to measure the orbit of Mars the plaintiff writes the rule with a unit term like this:

\frac{R_{0}^{3}}{T_{0}^{2}}=\frac{R^{3}}{T^{2}}

The term on the left hand side is the unit term, or the term which is kept constant during measurement to make the units consistent.

For R0 we choose the Earth-Sun distance and for T0 we choose the period of the Earth around the sun. Then knowing the Sun-Mars distance R we compute the period T of Mars around the Sun.

Once again, the plaintiff used no Newtonian units, no Newtonian force, no Newtonian so-called constants of nature, in order to save the authority of Newton or Aristotle or Marx or anybody else.

The plaintiff simply used a rule first discovered by Kepler with units of his own choosing. This rule contains nothing but the radius R and the period T neither of which was discovered by Newton and, as far as we know, [not yet] claimed by Newton’s disciples to be Newtonian quantities.

* * *

And now, here comes the professor of physics hired by the defendant to defend Newtonism. So, the prof writes Kepler’s Rule as

GM = \frac{R^{3}}{T^{2}}

More correctly, the prof did not just write Kepler’s Rule as above; he can’t; the prof first “derived” Kepler’s Rule from “Newton’s Laws” which means that he first wrote Newtonian junk terms Force and Mass on each side of Kepler’s Rule and then carefully eliminated the junk terms to “derive” the above “equation” so that he could “own” Kepler’s Rule in the name of Newton.

Why is the prof going through this charade? Because it is illegal in physics to start writing Kepler’s Rule as is without Newtonian terms; such an act of heresy would be denying Newton’s sacred authority and no professor of physics can deny Newton’s sacred authority!

* * *

Can you imagine the immensity of this hoax perpetrated by the prof? Either he is a fool; or he thinks we are.

* * *

The prof knows very well that writing a term on each side of an equation means nothing, it is idiotic to write the same term on each side of an equation knowing that the terms will cancel. It is an elementary rule of algebra that the same terms on both sides of an equation must be cancelled; such terms written on both sides of an equation have no effect on the equation; they are as good as non-existent.

The prof may write $100,000,000 on both sides of an equation but he can never recover in any way that $100,000,000 because it must be eliminated.

But the prof writes Newton’s occult force F and Newton’s animistic mass m on both sides of his equation and then cancels them and claims that orbits are Newtonian! In business accounting it is a fraud to write $100,000,000 in the income column to fool investors that your company has an extra $100,000,000 and then eliminate that $100,000,000 in the expense column through fake invoices. The prof is perpetrating the same kind of fraud in the name of Newtonism.

* * *

So, after thus praying to his master Newton the prof writes Kepler’s Rule branded with Newtonian units:

GM = \frac{R^{3}}{T^{2}}

GM = R^3/T^2 is nothing more than Kepler’s Rule written with Newtonian units; the prof just replaced our unit term R_0^3/T_0^2 with his ideological Newtonian unit GM. So as his habit

  • the prof defined a unit
  • named the unit he defined after Newton, and
  • sanctified the unit he just branded with his Newton brand as the absolute true unit.

* * *

The prof still does not get that what is measured is independent of the units used to measure it.

* * *

The prof named once again some unit with Newton’s name and claims that he is calculating orbits with “Newtonian mechanics” because he named the letter G as “Newton’s Universal Constant of Gravitation,” and the letter M as “Mass” which is nothing other than R_0^3/T_0^2!

* * *

So this prof finds in himself the absolute authority to own any quantity by giving it a Newtonian name!

* * *

By the way, his unit GM, is not made up of 2 terms G and M, it is just one unit, neither G nor M makes sense separately in this equation. The fraud of Newtonism runs deep.

* * *

But first, where is the little m?

* * *

Because according to Newton’s doctrines, the all powerful big mass M which is supposed to be at the center sitting in his throne is attracting the little m which is going around the mighty mass M as set in motion and held in orbit by the Newtonian occult force F emanating from mighty mass M.

The formula GM = R^3/T^2 that the prof is using to compute orbits - Kepler’s Rule written with a unit named after Newton - does not contain a term for the attracted mass and does not contain a term for the attracting force.

The prof had to eliminate F and m because F and m do not exist in nature; orbits are independent of F and m, orbits do not care about Newton’s authority.

* * *

Why do we say that orbits do not care about Newtonian junk terms so much loved by the prof? Because we calculated the same orbit without using any Newtonian junk symbols.

* * *

So this prof named, as he did with everything else he measured previously, a unit after Newton and he is using Kepler’s Rule with a unit he named after Newton and he claims that he is using Newton’s laws and that Newton’s occult doctrines are proved because he is using units named after Newton.

Well, I don’t know what other name to call this prof but he must be a charlatan; I name this prof the unit of charlatanism.

* * *

What do you think?

* * *

Why is it that the prof does not get that the measurement is independent of the unit used to measure?

* * *

As a last resort the prof claims that G is not a unit but a constant of nature.

So the prof, objects and asserts that G is not a unit but a constant of nature.

* * *

The professional ancestors of the prof defined G in the 19th century as a unit and transformed it into a constant of nature by naming it as “Newton’s constant of universal gravity” and this prof is now trying to fool us into believing that G is a constant of nature and not a unit.

* * *

But plaintiff did not have to use G to compute the orbit. If G were to be a constant of nature defining orbits, we could not compute the orbit of Mars without using G.

G is not a constant of nature but it is a unit defined by physicists.

* * *

What will the jury decide? Will the jury believe that the physics professor’s sanctified units are laws of nature as he claims? Or will the jury recognize that prof’s branded units are bogus laws of physics rejected by nature?

40. How to philosophize with a physics equation

Given two physical quantities a and b and a constant c with proper units, every physics equation apparently looks like this:

a = bc

But, if you write the hidden terms explicitly every physics equation in truth looks like this:

a =\equiv \propto bc

Consider the most famous equation in physics

E = mc^2

The above equation appears to state an equality because it uses the equality sign to relate the terms of an expression. But in physics no symbol can have just one meaning and the equality sign is no exception.

So the above equation can be read as an equality but it is not an equality, it is a sophisticated tool of casuistry called a “physics equation” which is a unique tool physicists invented to philosophize without appearing to philosophize. So

E = mc^2

in fact contains the hidden symbols of equivalence, identity, proportionality and definition, among others:

E =\equiv \propto mc^2

It is very easy to prove this. A physicist would usually read this equation as “E equals m c squared”. If you ask “why is there a speed of light term in this equation?” The same physicist will say, “c is there just to make the units work, this equation really states the equivalence of energy and mass”.

There you go, physicist writes his physics equation with an equality symbol and reads it with the hidden equivalence symbol. Physicists have scholastic magic vision that lets them see hidden symbols that you and I cannot see.

If you ask more questions the same physicist will also say that “E is proportional to m and c is the proportionality constant”.

If you call more physicists into this discussion one of them will eventually read this same equation as a definition of energy in terms of mass or the other way around.

Same is true for the other famous double definition in physics:

F =\equiv \propto ma

In general, a physicist can read any given equation case by case as an equality, a proportionality, an identity, an equivalence or any combinations of these to assert his authority.

In physics the meaning of an equation can only be parsed by knowing who said it.

Every physics equation can only be parsed by applying to it the necessary scholastic authority of a physicist. Physics is casuistry. Physicists are master casuists who ply their casuistry by using their corrupt version of the equality sign.

How can this be? Is this how science works?

Physics is defined by physicists as science, therefore, this must be how science works:

science is the authoritative interpretation of polemical symbols that look like mathematical symbols to prove physics doctrines by using the authority of mathematics as false witness.

If physicists make their career by legislating nature with their supernatural and absurd equations supported with casuistry, lawyers make their career by using the same scientific method used by physicists to interpret case by case the law of the land. If one lawyer argues the letter of the law the other will argue the spirit of the law and they will fight over how to define each symbol to best benefit their case; at the end the judge will accept as true the definition of the lawyer who has the most authority hired by the party with most money.

Physics is a mathematical science so physicists argue the meanings of mathematical symbols they did not write on the equation. Professionals discussing hidden meanings of hidden symbols. . . mmm. . . this sounds familiar. . . yes, this was how scholastic philosophers have been practicing their trade for thousands of years.

Now it all makes sense. These professional doctors who do business as physicists are really scholastic doctors of philosophy doctoring mathematics and philosophy and physics and diligently corrupting human knowledge to further their career.

Anyone who reads the equality sign in the same expression with seven different ways and claims all of them are true is a charlatan.

So, next time a physicist starts talking about how mathematically precise his physics is, let’s tell him what he is doing is not mathematics but charlatanism practiced with his casuistic equation.

The most famous equation of physics

E =\equiv \propto mc^2

is not a mathematical expression, it is a physics equation. Physics equation is the crooked timber of physics; or was it the loaded balance of physics? In either case, the physics equation is the scholastic vehicle physicists use to practice their art of casuistry. Physics equation exposes physicists as what they really are – scholastic doctors of philosophy actively corrupting human knowledge by abusing their academic authority.

35. Hawking’s scientific revolution

Hawking has the authority to spearhead a new scientific revolution; and he does just that in this quote .

A famous example of different pictures of reality is the model introduced around A.D. 150 by Ptolemy to describe the motion of the celestial bodies. Ptolemy published his work in a treatise explaining reasons for thinking that the earth is spherical, motionless, positioned at the center of the universe, and negligibly small in comparison to the distance of the heavens.

Ptolemy’s model of the cosmos was adopted by the Catholic Church and held as official doctrine for fourteen hundred years. It was not until 1543 that an alternative model was put forward by Copernicus. So which is real? Although it is not uncommon for people to say Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. One can use either picture as a model of the universe.

In fact, we can use any model that saves the same observations equally well; not just these two models; and they would be as real. The only measure of success of a model is how well it recovers the database. In other words, the model A with smaller residuals is more successful than a model B with bigger residuals.

The other point Hawking makes in this quote is that; Ptolemaic model was paid for and owned by the Catholic Church; and the Church used the Ptolemaic model to prove its doctrine of the stationary Earth. Is there such a model today that a powerful bureaucracy uses to prove its doctrine? Yes, there is. We can see this by replacing the names of the actors mentioned by Hawking with their modern equivalents. Hawking writes:

Ptolemy’s model of the cosmos was adopted by the Catholic Church and held as official doctrine for fourteen hundred years.

The modern equivalent of this sentence would be:

Newton’s model of materialist nature was adopted by flag states as the official doctrine for over 300 years.

or;

The doctrine that nature is material and Newtonian; was adopted by flag states and taught to humanity as the official and true doctrine of nature for over 300 years.

The list below shows the old and the new actors and the models they use to define nature:

Owners:
Old: Catholic Church
New: Flag States
Inventors:
Old: Ptolemy/Aristotle
New: Newton and his disciples the physicists
Fundamental assumptions
Old: Geocentric Earth
New: Atomic materialism and its dynamical/ material worldview
Practitioners:
Old: Doctors of Philosophy practicing in the Aristotelian school
New: Doctors of Philosophy practicing in the Newtonian school

The list tells the story we all know too well: The powers that be hire professionals to legitimate/justify/prove their doctrine as the absolute true doctrine.

* * *

We need a new scientific revolution; this time around; to free ourselves from Newtonism.

* * *

As you notice; the power shifted from the Catholic Church to flag states; but the same professional class remained in power; the practitioners just changed their name to conform to their new overlords.

Now let’s look at the old and the new in more detail.

Power shifted from the Church to flag states

We know that the Catholic Church lost its monopoly on defining and enforcing a definition of nature to flag states with the rise of flag states in the 18th century.

Newton became the new Aristotle

Newton did not effect a scientific revolution as Newtonians claim; Newton staged a coup within the European scholasticism and toppled Aristotle and established himself as the new master of European scholasticism. Newton is the last of the Peripatetics and the first of the Newtonians.

Newton claimed to discover the hidden laws of nature

Newton claimed that his great discovery of universal gravitation replaced the geometrical world of Ptolemy with the Newtonian material world

Ptolemaic model is usually given as the example of a model that was turned into a doctrine; but who turned Ptolemy’s beautiful geometrical model into a doctrine? The professional doctors of philosophy who owned it; today the same profession is practiced by academic physicists.

What was the use of the Ptolemaic model to the professional doctors who owned it?

The professional doctors served the Church; they helped the Church fine-tune its calendar so that it could compute the exact moment of Easter. The Church dictated the doctrine and the professionals employed by the Church, used the success of the model as the proof of the truth of the doctrine of the Church.

Professionals who owned the Ptolemaic model claimed that the internal consistency and predictive power of the computational algorithm called “Ptolemaic model” proved the doctrine of the Church.

Using an algorithm (or a model) to make an astronomical computation is what science is about; using the same algorithm to prove a doctrine is a political act. This is one of the fundamental realizations that follows from Hawking’s model dependent realism.

Algorithm is independent of doctrine

Hawking is saying, in essence, that “algorithm is independent of doctrine.” But the professionals who owned the Ptolemaic model claimed that because their model made good astronomical predictions; the doctrine of the stationary earth must be the only truth. With hindsight; these professional doctors look like professional hoaxers who blocked the progress of knowledge for their own benefit.

Today Newtonian physicists claim that because their model makes good predictions, Newtonian atomic materialism must be the only truth.

Physicists claim to prove their doctrine with the algorithm; this is the quientessential pre-scientific hoax. Any time you see a professional class claiming to prove their doctrine with an algorithm, you know that they are practicing charlatanism or shamanism. Physicists are the new scientific hoaxers.

The professional hoax has not changed for thousands of years

This is the same professional hoax used by the previous generation of doctors of philosophy working for the Church. When the Church lost its power and authority to enforce its own calendar, the professional doctors switched their allegiance to flag states.

Whatever they call themselves popularly; “natural philosophers,” “physicists” or “theoretical physicists”; these professionals are the learned doctors of philosophy who are the direct descendants of Peripatetic doctors against whom Galileo initiated the original scientific revolution; academic physicists are the anti-science incarnate.

Follow the money; and look at who pays academic physicists for doing what. Doctors of physics are paid by Big School to doctor reality to confirm the doctrine of flag states.

Rulers may change but the class of learned professionals employed by rulers remains the same

In our day; scientific revolution means exposing the “professional hoax” perpetuated by doctors of philosophy to program people’s mind to perceive nature as Newtonian. We are the people whose perception of nature is defined by professional doctors of physics who work for the flag states. We are the people who are taught, without our knowledge, the doctrines of a powerful bureaucracy; that bureaucracy used to be the Church; now it is the flag states.

* * *

Hawking is not saying anything new; and you do not need to be a doctor of physics to come up with the idea of “model dependent realism”.

Hawking’s quote is the denial of the entire materialist physics! Physicists have been asserting since Newton that they have in their possession the true laws of nature; and now Hawking, the most famous of all physicists after Newton; is saying that; NO; physics is just one of infinitely many models that are possible to describe nature.

This is a revolution; a revolution against academic physics; a call to arms to take the castle of physics from within.

Hawking is repeating our worldview that nature is definitional; nature is not material. Hawking has finally seen the light and repeating to the world the fundamental idea of this book.

What is also important is that Hawking admits that the study of nature is not a “physical” endeavor. The word “physical” used in this quote is totally decorative; physicists like to put the word “physical” in front of any word by habit; without the word “physical,” the meaning of the quote remains the same:

the idea that a [] theory or world is a model (generally of a mathematical nature) and a set of rules that connect the elements of the model to observations.

So we have to ask “Why did you have to get a doctorate in physics to realize that nature is definitional; Doctor Hawking?” But congratulations to you anyway. Keep up the good work.

Will Hawking’s realization change physics in the right direction? Of course not.

* * *

What Hawking is saying now has been known to “scientists” since ancient times; but Hawking has the authority to make this scientific view of nature finally available to everyone.

I put “scientists” in quotes; because “priests” who have been perpetuating and enforcing Newtonism and helping it become the state religion all over the world are academic “physicists” who present themselves to the general public as “scientists.” Now they are exposed by one of their bretheren.

Academic physicists are the anti-science incarnate

Scientific revolution means toppling the professional doctors so that the information they hide from you becomes available again.

Internet was pregnant with a scientific revolution and it is happenning now.

38. Cosmology as Shamanism

Cosmology is based on the hidden assumption made implicitly by all cosmologists that “thermodynamics is applicable to the universe as a unique system.” The phrase in quotes is mentioned in passing on page 82 of Ralph Alpher’s book, Genesis of Big Bang

Ralph Alpher mentions this when talking about the thermodynamical absurdity of inflationary scenarios. So

Is thermodynamics applicable to the universe as a unique system?

The scientific answer is No. The shamanistic answer is Yes.

The Big Bang mythology is based on the supposition that the universe is a closed (or unique) thermodynamical system. But we know that this is not the case. Even physicists concede that there is a Dark Universe from where no information comes to us and never will.

Physicists use all kinds of scholastic sophistry and cosmological principles and doublespeak hidden in mathematical looking formulas to justify that the totality is uniquely thermodynamical. In this way physicists assert that they know scientifically what they do not know and they will never know. This is not the scientific method. This is the well-known method of shamans.

Physicists working on Big Bang mythology look more and more like shamans who launder cosmogonic mythologies for unhuman organisms who then sell them to consumers as scientific theories.

* * *

In cosmology cosmos is not a well defined word. Cosmologists study cosmos but they confuse themselves by calling their subject variously the universe, the universe as a whole, cosmos, the world, nature, space, spacetime, large scale, FLRW, Einstein-deSitter, multiverse and so on . . . In cosmology reified mathematical frameworks are fused with models confused with the modelled. To help clarify categories for possible worlds I suggest the following list:

Sympan = totality

Cosmos = the modelled world

Ecumene = known world, observable world

Universe = fusion of sympan, cosmos and ecumene (use it when you don’t know what you are talking about).

Ta hola = the whole enchilada, including, but not limited to, the physical world, the worlds of organisma, ideas, metaphors, analogies and appearances, that is, ta hola, the whole enchilada.

No one knows what ta hola is. Imagine writing down everything you do. Soon you would be doing nothing but writing, writing, writing . . . Trying to model ta hola is as foolish. Ta hola has infinity of appearances and none is the appearance of ta hola. Measurement creates ta hola. Esse est percipi.

37. The cult of Newton in the classroom

Newtonian world view taught in schools as “physics” is the atomic materialist doctrine of the cult of Newton. My mission is to eliminate Newtonian branding from physics to recover its pre-Newtonian pristine state and replace Newton’s supernatural force and absurd matter with density as the fundamental unit of nature.

* * *

1. Newton’s computation of orbits in the Principia

To compute orbits Newton is using a simple proportionality tying the radius R and period T of the orbit. This is the original proportional form of what is known today as Kepler’s Third Law (I call it Kepler’s Rule). Newton writes Kepler’s Rule as

\frac{1}{R^2}\propto \frac{R}{T^2}

and labels both sides “force”

\textrm{Force}=\frac{1}{R^2}\propto \frac{R}{T^2}=\textrm{Force}

and then cancels the label force and computes the orbit with Kepler’s Rule. This is basically the same method still used by physicists to demonstrate orbit calculations with Newtonian mechanics.

2. Newton computes orbits with Kepler’s Rule

Newton used Kepler’s Rule as his operational formula to compute orbits but he stated Kepler’s Rule with his labels “force” and “mass” to brand Kepler’s Rule as Newton’s Laws and to define orbits as forceful and dynamical. This is very easy to confirm since there are only six propositions in the Principia where Newton computes orbits. For instance, Newton’s famous “Moon Test” is nothing more than a simple confirmation of Kepler’s Rule showing that it works for the Earth-Moon system.

3. Kepler’s Rule is the definition of density

Newton was the first person who understood that Kepler’s Rule was the definition of density; Newton encoded this information in the definition 1 of the Principia.

4. Density is the fundamental unit of nature

According to Kepler’s Rule density is the fundamental unit of nature, not matter and force as Newton claimed. Matter and force terms are ideological and decorative terms that are written but then are cancelled and/or hidden from view. Matter and force does not enter operational formulas used in orbit computations.

5. Orbits are densytic not dynamic

According to Kepler’s Rule orbits are not forceful or matterful, orbits are geometrical because orbits are explained with a rule that has only two geometric terms, radius and angle (interpreted as period). Kepler’s Rule is also the definition of density, so orbits are densytic not dynamic.

I uphold the authority of Kepler’s Rule over Newton’s arbitrary assumption that nature is matterful. Kepler’s Rule defines a matterless world based on observations; Newton defines a matterful world based on an alleged revelation.

6. Newton’s Zeroth Law: the doctrine of atomic materialism

Newton assumed a matterful nature and claimed God’s authority for his assumption. Zeroth Law is Newton’s assertion of the doctrine of atomic materialism as the unquestionable initial principle of the Newtonian physics:

God in the beginning formed matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable movable particles.

7. Physics is a cult impersonating science

Newton’s assumption of a matterful and occult nature is not a law of nature but it is merely an assumption that Newton later asserted and legalized with his laws. Physics is based on an alleged divine revelation that self-anointed false prophet Newton claimed to have received from God. This historical fact reduces Newtonism doing business as physics to a cult impersonating science.

8. Proof that there is no absolutely hard surface

That there are no absolute indivisibles in nature can also be shown with Kepler’s Rule combined with modern physicists’ belief that <em>c</em> is the speed limit in nature.

I assume that

  • surface is defined by its density
  • there is no absolute surface
  • surface exists only when it is defined and named
  • Kepler’s Rule is the definition of density
  • according to Kepler’s Rule density is frequency squared

Therefore, there cannot be a surface denser than 1/c.

This makes “matter” defined by Newton as a “massy” particle with an absolutely hard surface an ideological label that does not exist in nature. Absolute matter as defined by Newton exists only in physics, not in nature.

Alternatively, the way Newton assumed absolute indivisible discontinuities without any observational evidence we can do the same and assume that nature is continuous and definitional and not matterful. This assumption eliminates all Newtonian branding and all ideological terms physicists added to physics to explain nature with supernatural forces and absurd atomic materialism assumed by Newton.

9. In the Bible God creates by defining

I was curious to find out if Newton took his Zeroth Law from the Bible; I could not find it, but while reading Genesis 1 I noticed the way Bible describes creation: God creates by defining and naming. God is not creating a discontinuous Newtonian nature based on absolutely indivisible particles. On the contrary, God defines and names and then likes what he defined. This method of creation by fiat is in more harmony with our observation that in nature existence is definitional and contractual.

10. Newtonism should not be taught in the classroom

Considering that Newton uses Kepler’s Rule with his ideological terms of mass and force to uphold his atomic materialist doctrine, and his disciples continue this tradition, I conclude that Newtonism is a scientific fraud and a cult and it should not be taught in the classroom.

If students are not getting the choice of hearing the Bible or other books why are they being taught the cult of Newtonism and its atomic materialist faith as the only true knowledge?

I realize that Newton myth is so well-established that even a suggestion of Newton and physics to be a cult will not be taken seriously by educators or even parents.

11. Physicists teach Cavendish experiment as a miracle of the cult of Newton

There is an experiment, the Cavendish experiment, that is taught widely in the classroom. In this demonstration students are asked to believe that the arm of the pendulum is moved by Newtonian occult force. I see this as a miracle of the cult of Newton because occult does not exist in nature; the only reason students are asked to believe that the arm of the pendulum is moved by Newton’s occult force is because physics is a cult of Newton.

* * *

If you are concerned about being subjected to the doctrines of the cult of Newton as the only true knowledge and you are ready to question the doctrines of this 18th century British cult impersonating science, I’d like to hear from you.

39. Definitions

Asymptotic mysticism
the claim of asymptotically approaching communion or conscious awareness of ultimate reality through direct experience, intuition, mathematics or any other means by a physicist
Atomic materialism
doctrine that asserts the existence of the absolute and indivisible. Atomic materialism ascribes absolute discontinuities to nature
Cargo cult physics
physics version of cargo cult programming. A style of practicing physics dominated by ritual inclusion of legal code or boilerplate mathematical symbolism culled from the literature that serve no real purpose except maybe to bring two desired symbols on either side of an equality sign. A cargo cult physicist will usually start by writing dozens of superfluous terms and symbols and then eliminate them one by one and explain what he is doing as derivation
Cargo cult programming
A style of programming dominated by ritual inclusion of code or program structures that serve no real purpose. A cargo cult programmer will usually explain the extra code as a way of working around some bug encountered in the past, but usually neither the bug nor the reason the code apparently avoided the bug was ever fully understood
Casuistry
asserting legal precedent as absolute truth case by case. Casuistry is the fundamental process of physics and defines physics. Physicists cannot change legal precedent and must use casuistry to save new observations that contradict legal physics laws.
Charlatanism
the art of proving what you have assumed by magic, by miracles, or by “physical” theories you invent. Physics and cosmology are the definitions of charlatanism.
Continuum
a continuous extent, succession, or whole, no part of which can be distinguished from neighboring parts except by arbitrary division
Cosmos
a) the modelled world;
b) an ordered and harmonious truncation of totality defined fraudulently as totality assumed to obey the current laws of legal physics in its entirety
Database
a) a table made of named rows and columns. Each column contains information of the same type defined implicitly or explicitly, i.e., numbers or strings, and each row contains instances of column heads
b) one of the most valuable commodities on earth
Density continuum
Kepler’s rule is the definition of density and describes a continuum and this continuum we call the density continuum
Existence
is nothing more than cycles. When we observe a repetition we name that repetition and we say that it exists
Force
the old scholastic active principle renamed by Newton as force, also known as Newton’s soul that permeates the universe and is the cause of all motion
Habit
general name given to periodic motion of organisms. Wave motion, simple harmonic motion, orbits, sleep habits of a cat, 9 to 5 cycle of a corporation, military procurement habits are all periodic motion with different names
Implicit Cosmological Principle
the fundamental equivocation of cosmology which says that cosmos is universe is totality and transforms locally legal to totally legal. Without this equivocation/punaxiom cosmology reduces to mythology. With the application of this punaxiom cosmology is elevated to charlatanism
Kepler’s rule
definition of density and the density continuum. Kepler’s rule says that 1.5 power of the radius of an orbit is proportional to the period. This rule was later hijacked by Newtonian fanatics who incorporated it into Newtonian semantics by calling it Kepler’s Third Law. Kepler’s rule is fundamental – Newton’s force is not. Kepler’s rule is independent of Newtonian ideology
Local is total
a traditional method used by all professional monopolists to leverage their monopoly as the ultimate truth. In physics and cosmology local is total manifests itself as the Implicit Cosmological Principle which is used to project observations of a few galaxies to totality
Love
love is that which results in a contract or strives towards a contract. Example: war is the lovemaking of legal-born unhuman organisms
Mathematicism
the art of using the authority of mathematics to reach non-mathematical conclusions.
Matter
density differential
Measurement
counting the unit.
Model-dependent realism
Hawking’s theory of reality which says that nature admits no preferred model; the way there are no preferred reference-frames there are no preferred models.
Mysticism
the claim of achieving communion or conscious awareness of ultimate reality through direct experience, intuition, mathematics or any other means
Nature
is what you define it to be. Same as the world
Newtonian mechanics
newtonian cathecism
Newtonism
a type of state sponsored religion that replaced Christianity as state religion in the 18th century Europe and from there spread to the entire globe. Newtonism teaches that the Christian God created a material world (Newton’s zeroeth law) obeying Newton’s laws and enforces its teaching through indoctrination in schools
Newton’s zeroeth law
the prophesy revealed by the Christian god to the founder of physics that nature was Newtonian. Newton made good use of God’s revelation to him and made atomic materialist doctrine the absolute dogma of physics. Later, Newton was kind enough to pass on to humanity, in his role as Moses of Mechanics, the word of God: “God in the beginning formed matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable, movable particles.” May his sacred soul be blessed. Amen.
Physical quantity
a unit with a number
Physic
Physical quantities that make up physics.
Physics
a) the name of an academic field that defines, names and studies relationships among numerical units. In physics numerical units are called physical quantities; b) the collection of physical quantities arranged into a legal code which is manipulated by using the rules of mathematical operators to move physical quantities around in order to bring them on either side of an equality sign; c) the art of philosophizing to define, maintain, manipulate and study relationships between physical quantities to publish papers to advance in the academic hierarchy; d) a professional profession who enjoys a protected monopoly where its practitioners define and manipulate physical quantities and combine them into laws of physics which are then marketed as the true laws of nature
Physicists
a professional class licensed to practice physics
Proposition
a provisional statement offered for evaluation
Reality
the reality-model taught to us when we were learning our alphabet; in our time that model is newtonism
Religion
branded faith package offered to humans as framework for living. Requires giving up skepticism for peace of mind
Shaman
when shamans incorparated themselves into the academia they started to call themselves doctors of philosophy.
Totality
the unknowable. Totality is not locality
The world
is what you define it to be. Same as nature