History of Research

1. Forty years ago; I came across a book called “The Moon Has No Rotation”. This book was written and self-published by someone called T.W. Dow. If Mr. Dow lived today, he would have been a blogger. Apparently he was not a professional physicist and instead of repeating the official Newtonian explanation, he was questioning it. This is how I learned about Newton and his miracle.

2. It seemed that Newton discovered something called «Newton's force of gravity» and he explained everything in nature with this force. This is what physics textbooks said.

3. Further research showed that this force was defined as something that traveled from one object to another without time passing. The force crossed vast distances in zero time and  set other objects in motion without touching them.

4. This was absurd. In this world nothing happens without time passing.

5. Newton's force acted without time passing, therefore Newton's force could not be a natural cause of motion. Newton defined his force as a supernatural miracle.

6. I believed as a principle that no new motion can be created in this world; motion can only be transferred.

7. But Newton's force created new motion in distant objects. For an object to change its motion another motion must be transferred to it. The only way to transfer motion is by contact.

8. As a corallary, motion is not diminishing or disappearing; it only changes form and it changes dimensions. When a car breaks, it comes to a stop, meaning that it transfer all its motion to friction and heat. Nothing is lost. What is not created cannot be lost.

9. Newton's force is defined as a cause that lives outside of time and creates new motion from a distance without contact.

10. I refused to accept Newton’s force as a cause of natural phenomena. 

11. Instead, I accept my two principles as fundamental and want to prove that Newton could not have calculated the orbits of planets by using a supernatural agent he called force:

Principle 1: Motion can only be transferred; no new motion can be created.

Corrollary: No motion ever disappears; it only changes form.

Principle 2: Nothing happens without time passing.

Corollary: “Time is passing” is another way of saying “something is happenning”.

12. Since Newton’s force was a supernatural miracle, I firmly believed that, orbits cannot be calculated with it.

13. Physicists will never accept that Newwton’s force is supernatural. What else do you expect from people who name this miracle’s unit after Newton! Physicists make this childish argument that: “we don’t know how this force works, but it works so it works. So let’s crown this miracle with Newton’s name.” Naming a miracle with Newton’s name does not make it any less miraculous.

14. In textbooks, I saw that physicists compute planetary orbits by using Newton's force. It all worked perfectly. Physicists reasoned that they computed orbits by using Newton's force, therefore, Newton's force must exist and orbits must be dynamical. Physicists ignore the truth that miracles cannot explain natural phenomena. 

15. I knew physicists’ reasoning was wrong but I could not see any holes in textbook Newtonism.

16. I couldn't solve my puzzle by reading physics textbooks. How can you compute planetary orbits with a supernatural and absurd miracle and get the correct results?

17. So, I decided to read Newton's original writings.

18. That wasn't easy. Newton’s disciples completely rewrote Newton's original calculations and filled the gaps, rationalized all logical absurdities, formalized Newton’s childish and/or awkward proofs, that is, streamlined the Principa and expressed everything in it in the form of equations, that is, with standard units. Newton, worked only with ratios and proportions. He did not use standard units. He wrote most of his proofs as a mixture of verbal statements and proportionalities.

19. I attempted to read the Principia several times and failed miserably.

20. Newton's Principia is a hotchpotch of propositions and proofs, mostly wrong, or childish; proof by authority abound; and a network of cross references make anybody trying to read this book dizzy. And finally, you admit to yoursef that this guy must be a genius? Genius but of what? Genius of obstructionism, of polemics and sophistry; a genius of self aggrendisement and a genius of propaganda.

21. Then I thought that since Newton's book contained geometrical looking figures I needed to learn Euclidean geometry to decipher Newton’s propositions. Newton claimed that he proved his force of gravity with the rigor of classical geometry, then he applied his proofs to phenomena and calculated orbits with this force that he claimed he discovered. This is all self-serving propaganda. All the proofs in Book I and Book II are exagerated air guitar motions because none of that is used in Book III to compute orbits. Newton computed orbits with a simple application of Kepler’s Rule.

22. My mistake was to try to read the Principia from the beginning to end. Because Newton pretended to prove propositions by using rigorous mathematics and then pretended to apply his proofs to observations. This is nonsense. Ninety percent of the Principia is filler. 

23. At this point I was about to give up. I was not interested in Newton's calculations of the speed of sound (wrong) or his childish calculations on how ships float (totally wrong)... I was only interested in finding out how Newton computed orbits.

24. One day I was browsing in the library and I saw a book called “Newton's Principia: The Central Argument” by Dana Densmore. This was the turning point.

25. Dana Densmore explained Newton's cryptic proofs step by step, filling in the details Newton left off. Finally, the secrets of Principia were revealed to me.

26. In the Principia there are only six propositions where Newton computes planetary orbits (Propositions I.57, I.58, I.59, I60, III.4 and III.8). Newton's disciples developed the “Newtonian mechanics” from these six propositions. This is how scholasticism works. Master of the cult writes one sentence and his disciples multiply it to one million sentences of commentary in order to advance in the career ladder of scholastic hiererchy.

27. After I read Densmore's proofs and understood what Newton did, I clearly saw that Newton did not use a force term in his calculations of orbits. Newton used Kepler's Rule. Nothing else. Kepler's Rule does not have a force term.

28. What is Kepler's Rule?

29. At that time I knew about Kepler's Rule but I did not know how fundamental it was. The reason, most probably was because physicists bundle Kepler's Rule with Kepler's other two "laws" and call it «Kepler's third law».

30. But Kepler's third law, is different than the other two.

31. With Kepler’s Third Law you can compute orbits, not with the other two. To make this distinction clear, I call what physicists call “Kepler's third law" Kepler's Rule. After all it is a rule, that is, a proportionality.

32. Newton was a hoaxer. He computed orbits with kinematical Kepler's Rule and then he said that he computed orbits with his dynamical force and that orbits were dynamical.

32. Newton became the new Aristotle of the European scholasticism. Professional academics who call themselves «physicists» today are dedicated disciples of Newton. They are part of the cult of Newton. Because anyone who believes in a miracle purely because he considers Newton's authority sacred can only be a cult member.

33. Einstein developed his theories to get rid of the Newtonian miracle. Einstein thought that such a supernatural miracle has no place in physics. But we see that Einstein was unsuccessful against the cult of Newton because just the opposite happened because Newtonian cultists stuck their Newtonist flag called the constant of force G into Einstein's equations that rejected the Newtonist force.

34. Newtonism is still going strong.

35. So, I started by denying the Newtonian force, and 40 years later, I still believe the same two fundamental principles: Motion can only be transferred, no new motion can be created and nothing happens without time passing. Newton's force contradicts both of these principles, so Newton's force must be a supernatural miracle. And Newton said as much. Newton claimed that the cause of gravity was God.

36. I'm on the side of Huygens, Leibniz, and Einstein who denied Newton's absurd notion of force.

37. Newtonism is a scholastic cult.

38. Physicists are dedicated priests of the cult of Newton. Let them deny this.

39. Physicists have total monopoly on topics that are accepted as "physical" topics. “Gravity” and “Newton” are such topics. No layman can question physicists' monopoly on these subjects. So if I state a historical truth and say that «in the Principia Newton did not use a force term to compute orbits» a physicist with enough authority can overrule this true statement. He never read the Principia but he has monopoly on Newton so he will defend his Master's authority.

40. If I say that «Henry Cavendish did not compute G» as all the textbooks claim --G was not even defined in Cavendish's time-- a physicist with enough rank and seniority will overrule this historical fact and claim that Cavendish computed G or he could have, even if he actually didn't. This physicist never read Cavendish's original article. Physics is done by authority.

41. Physics is a closed knowledge field. Professionals hide knowledge wholesale and sell it retail by teaching. In order to teach they must hide knowledge. This is how scholasticism work.

42. One day physicists too will see that Newton fooled them and that for 300 years they have been believing in a miracle the cause of which is God and they have been explaining natural phenomena with this miracle because they are afraid of questioning Newton's authority.

43. But physics will not change and cleanse itself because I say so; physics will go through its scientific revolution when an enlightened physicist will dare to question the Newtonist doctrines of his cult.

44. But, my aim has never been to criticize physics. 

45. Physics is a proffesional field, it has its own sacred text, rather two sacred texts, written by two demi-gods of physics, Newton and Einstein, and a physicist’s sole objective is to advance in the academic hierarchy by writing commentary to these demi-gods. 

46. The problem is these professionals who call themselves physicists have an absolute monopoly on Newton and Einstein and all of the subjects these two wrote about. One of these subjects is motion. Newton defined motion to be forceful. Newton defined orbits to be forceful and dynamical. Someone like me who says that “we compute orbits with Kepler’s Rule, and Kepler’s Rule is kinematical and not dynamical therefore orbits are kinematical” has no chance of discussing this topic with professionals. Maybe what I’m saying is stupid and wrong and a professional physicist can convince me to its wrongness. But I don’t accept argument by authority and physicists argue solely by authority. 

47. Physics is strictly hierarchical. The rules of professional interactions in physics are defined by rank and seniority. Authority is sacred. The senior physicist tells you what to do and you do it. You must respect absolutely the authority of your seniors. Physicists communicate with students by teaching them the doctrine. You never allow the questioning of the doctrine in class. Any student questioning the doctrine persistently is eliminated, he cannot be a physicist. And you never demean your profession by communicating with lowly creatures who are not professional physicists, you call them “cranks” and “crackpots”.

48. So I have no intenion of asking anything to these neo-scholastics who call themselves “physicists”. I’m trying to understand for myself. That’s all. And as soon as I convince myself, either way, I’ll move on to doing other things.

49. Orbits are explained perfectly well with Kepler's Rule. Kepler's Rule is kinematical, therefore, orbits are kinematical.

50. Can you deny that orbits are calculated using only the period T and the radius R of the orbit by using the proportionality $R^3 \propto T^2$ ? Can you deny that Kepler's Rule is kinematical and that it does not contain a force term? You cannot. Only fools and physicists can.

51. Physics has no standard of falsification. A physicist can use his authority, he can say, «this is wrong I can prove but you cannot understand the sophsticated and beatiful(!) mathematics I will be using so take my word for it and shut up.» This is how physics work. 

52. That physics theories must make observable predictions is propaganda too. Physicists define experiments to give the results they want. The best example is the Cavendish experiment. 

53. So we must ignore physicists, the corrupters of the old science of physics, the corrupters of mathematics and geometry, and the corrupters of the English language and develop our own standards of proofs.

54. I have to try to do that next.