>How exactly do ‘square seconds’ form a density in any meaningful way?
Frequency f is the reciprocal of period T: T = 1/f.
Take a string and turn it into a sling by attaching a stone to it and whirl. A fly may go through your sling initially; as you spin faster and faster any time a fly will try to cross your sling, it will hit your sling as if hitting a “solid” wall; higher frequency means higher density. There is no other kind of density.
Read Newton’s definition I in the Principia where I get that formula and let me know if you can find Kepler’s Rule in it. Kepler’s Rule is the definition of density:
>Postulating is all good fun but are you actually planning to do some physics with it?
No. Definitely not. Physics is modern scholasticism; it is a corrupt legal field no different than law. Your comment only proves how Newtonism aka physics indoctrinates human beings and shapes their worldview. Your assumption is that nature is physical and since physical means Newtonian nature is Newtonian. This is not true. You may start in your scientific quest to understand nature by questioning physics.
Once you realize that physics is Kepler’s Rule expressed in Newtonian units all you have to do is to remove Newtonian units added to it by generations of Newton’s disciples. But first, you need to realize that all of us have been indoctrinated since childhood by the Newtonian doctrine which is taught all around the world as the state religion. That’s why you reject automatically any criticism of Newtonian atomic materialism as nonsense.
>You’re just saying Newton is evil and wrong…
Yes, I wrote that Newton is an evil marketing genius; but I am not saying Newton is wrong. This is the puzzle that you need to understand. Read the article again. Newton uses Kepler’s Rule but names it with his own dynamical sounding names. Newton himself did not use conventional units such as G, he used Earth-Venus distance as his unit (R0 in the article), but generations of Newton’s disciples invented a unit system with Newtonian names; so you can no longer separate what is conventional unit and what is the rule that is used in computations. Physicists have been fooling us into believing that because an equation contains G (a conventional unit they named after Newton) that equation must be a dynamical equation. This is the hoax. If you think otherwise let me know.
>…but are not giving any reasons why his laws don’t sufficicently confirm to reality.
“Newton’s laws” are not used in astronomical calculations. This may come as a surprise to you, but it is true. NASA (more correctly JPL) computes orbits with numerical integration; no Newtonian terms enter astronomical calculations. But it is a tradition started by Newton himself to call geometric calculations “Newton’s laws”. Read this article and check the link for LeVerrier’s original calculations for anomalies in Mercury’s motion. It is all geometric and trigonometric expansions, yet physicists insist on calling it “Newton’s laws”. Same is true today; physicists compute orbits by geometric and numerical means but they call their calculations “Newtonian.”
>Neither are you explaining why your alternative fits reality better.
The alternative is to remove the Newtonian units; what is left is Kepler’s Rule. The rule is the same. So if you use in your calculations the conventional physics unit called GM and call your calculations “Newtonian” or alternatively, if you use Earth-Venus distance as your unit, it makes no difference, in both cases you are using Kepler’s Rule to compute orbits. In other words, Newton’s disciples branded Kepler’s Rule as Newton’s laws.
>Calling relativity an offshoot of Newtonian gravity is also not quite correct.
Why? Einstein started from the anomaly in Mercury’s motion and added a term to correct that anomaly. He presented his correction terms in the new mathematical fad of his time, namely, non-Euclidean geometry and couched the whole thing with his philosophical doctrines about the “space” and “time” and so on. No operational astronomical equation contains terms for “space” or “time”, only terms for “radius” and “period”.
Astronomical calculations are simple: you take residuals between your model and observations. Anyone who claims otherwise is a charlatan.
>On the Verlinde article, I haven’t read it. While it sounds interesting, it hinges on the definition of entropy. IMO, it might be a big circular argument.
Verlinde article is an attempt to solve the problem of force within physics; that’s nonsense. In physics force is a legal concept. If Verlinde succeeds he will succeed only to add a new legal definition of force in physics.
Einstein thought he could overthrow Newton; but he failed. You cannot overthrow the guy who started the academic school named after himself and whose disciples named the main unit of their school after their founder. It’s like trying to change the name of Washington D.C.; it’s not going to happen.