14. The Rule
Kepler’s Rule
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:
- Rule-based models
- Table-based models
- Trigonometric models and
- 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
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
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
. 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
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.