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

The main problem for my research has been to understand how Newton could compute orbits with this occult quality he called force. I believe that nature is not occult; therefore, Newton could not have used the occult force in his operational formulas to compute orbits. It took me a long time to unravel the scholastic deceit Newton weaved around Kepler’s Rule to establish himself as the new master of European Scholastic tradition.

Below is an earlier version of the slides with slightly different wording:

* * *

1. I started by asking the question “What is force?”

2. Eventually, I learned that force is a placeholder for the parts of Kepler’s Rule, that is, 1/RR and R/TT.

3. I prefer to call the orbit rule discovered by Kepler a “rule” rather than a “law” because Kepler’s discovery is a proportionality tying the radius R and period T of the orbit.

4. Kepler’s Rule describes orbits and it is fundamental; Newton’s force is superfluous; force cancels out and does not enter the operational rule used to compute orbits.

5. There is no “underlying dynamical cause” to Kepler’s Rule; Kepler’s Rule itself is the underlying rule that describes orbits. Orbits need a “cause” only if Newton’s force is assumed to be true.

6. Newton used Kepler’s Rule to “legalize” his assumptions.

7. The three fundamental axioms on which Newton built his “System of the World” are Newton’s answers to three oldest philosophical questions.

8. Newton’s three axioms,

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 the philosophical questions

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

Newton stated his preferred answers as axioms and successfully established them as “true laws of nature”.

9. Newton was able to establish his three initial assumptions as true laws of nature because his computations gave good results. Newton obfuscated the fact that he was using Kepler’s Rule to make his orbital computations.

10. Newton claimed that he used his dynamical laws and occult force acting between intelligent matter to compute orbits; a study of Newton’s calculations show that he simply uses Kepler’s Rule to compute orbits.

11. Newton first learned about Kepler’s Rule in Thomas Streete’s Astronomia Carolina.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. But 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.

15. Newton chose to hide this discovery — arguably his greatest — in definition 1 of the Principia.

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

17. 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.

18. Newton discovered the true “law” 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 discovery Newton invented a fantastical world based on his three false premises.

19. The Principia contains the secret that once revealed will make the Newtonian world described in the Principia obsolete.

20. Henry Cavendish, too, knew about “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 Newtonians fed up with their inability to measure the Newtonian occult force experimentally after trying for 200 years defined the Cavendish experiment posthumously as the first experimental verification of force.

# # #

An open letter to the French people

[Read this letter in French]

Dear friends:

Let me start by asking you a question:

Is France an intellectual colony of Britain?

I can guess your answer:

No! Of course not. France is proud of her intellectual independence; France has the best educational system in the world; and French people like to think for themselves. France an intellectual colony of Britain? No way.

My answer is different than yours and I hope that you will give me the chance to explain.


My thesis is this:

As long as France teaches her pupils the Newtonian doctrines as true science; France will remain an intellectual colony of Britain.

To explains this thesis, let’s go back to the 18th century, just before Newtonism reached Continental Europe. Let’s observe that today Newtonism is the official state religion of practically all countries in the world, including France, but before Newtonism took over, it was the French-speaking scientists of the continental Europe who defined the scientific world view. Newton was a great admirer of Descartes so much so that he stole Descartes’ First Law of Motion and renamed it “Newton’s First Law of Motion”.


History is written by the victors; so Newtonians corrupted history of science to define Newton as the perfect scientist and Newtonian doctrines as the true science.

In truth, when the Newtonian doctrines reached the continent, French scientists and other continental scientists writing in French (which was the language of science along with Latin) rejected the Newtonian doctrines of occult force and animistic matter.


These continental researchers correctly identified Newton’s doctrines of occult forces and intelligent and animistic matter (now called “mass”) as the reincarnation of the old scholastic “hidden virtues”.

This is very important; let’s repeat:

True scientists, such as Clairaut, Huygens, Leibniz, d’Alembert [and others] rejected Newtonian force and mass as scholastic hidden virtues.

Huygens went even further and with great insight perceived that Newton meant his “force” to be “Newton’s Soul” which permeated the universe. Huygens clearly saw that the British cult of Newtonism was aiming to reestablish the rule of scholasticism in Europe.

But even though the continental scientists resisted Newtonism for over a century, they finally gave in and accepted Newtonism.


The reason why the continental scientists had to accept Newtonism was because Newton claimed to have computed astronomical quantities with his new dynamical system using force and mass.

If so, what is the problem?

If Newton computed astronomical quantities successfully by using his doctrines; then you may think that his doctrines must be correct. For instance, according to the Newtonian myth, Newton and Halley computed the return of the Halley’s comet by using Newton’s dynamical doctrines. . . correct? No. When you look at Newton’s original calculations in the Principia, you will see that Newton uses purely geometrical methods to predict the orbit of the comet.


Newton successfully fooled the greatest minds of his time into believing that he was using his own dynamical methods to compute orbits and astronomical quantities while he was using only geometrical methods.


How can we explain this Newtonian fraud, proved by Newton’s own writings, to the general public without getting too technical?


My goal is to ask the French government to establish an independent committee of experts to investigate the truth of what my research has revealed. This committee should include scientists, historians and lawyers but not fanatic Newtonian physicists.


But for now, let’s state without explaining that Newton did all his astronomical computations by using what I call “Kepler’s Rule”. This rule was discovered by Kepler and was appropriated by Newton and later by Newton’s disciples who now write it with Newtonian units to make it look like a Newtonian law. Kepler’s Rule is a geometric rule and explains orbits without Newtonian force and mass.


Please bear with me. I know that if you are not a specialist in the history of science or in physics, you may start losing interest in the subject when I start writing about the fine points of how Newton may have computed orbits; but this is a “political” issue of great national interest to the French people (in fact to the entire humanity) so please continue reading.


I wrote extensively about how Newton used Kepler’s Rule to compute astronomical quantities in this blog; if you are interested you can read them here; but for now I want to ask you to ignore the details and just go along with the story. In fact, I am asking your help and support so that I can collect all the evidence I have so far on this topic to show definitively how Newton fooled the world into believing his occult force and materialist faith.


What is important to understand is that French scientists mentioned above were right:

Newton was trying to reintroduce occult forces and hidden qualities to science in order to colonize and dominate European science with British standards.


British are the undisputed masters of colonization:

the British colonization is nothing more than the imposition of British standards on a non-British people.

You know how “political” colonization works; now understand how “intellectual” colonization works: the British have been colonizing your mind through the British cult of Newtonism presented to you as the true British standard of science.

A world view is also a standard. Newton, with the aid of the British institutions, was able to establish a British religious cult as standard of science in Europe.

As long as France teaches Newtonism as the true science; France will remain a British colony; whoever controls your mind becomes your master.

French speaking scientists of the 18th century lost their fight against Newtonism; the British won and they have been colonizing the mind of humanity with the Newtonian cult ever since.


Newton’s force is an occult hidden soul and it does not exist in nature. Now we know that Newton did not use force to compute orbits; he used Kepler’s Rule.

But Newton’s crime against science was not to compute orbits with a geometrical rule and then to claim to have computed orbits with his so-called laws.


Newton indeed made a discovery of historical importance but he encoded this discovery as a hidden message in his Principia.

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

And this discovery leads to the post-Newtonian world without matter.


As a French citizen you have a duty to protect your heritage from British and American corruption. Of all nations, France is the most protective of her own culture. You protect your cinema against Hollywood; but you accept with open arms an American/British religious cult and teach it to your children as the true science!


Protect your heritage and clear the reputation of the French scientists of the 18th century who tried their best to defend the colonization of science by the British.


I am asking you to start questioning your irrational belief in the British cult of Newtonism. I am offering enough evidence here for you to question Newtonian doctrines that were taught to you as absolute truths. All I am asking you is to believe that French-speaking scientists of the 18th century were correct and that Newtonian force and mass are occult scholastic hidden qualities and do not exist in nature.

I understand that it is difficult for you to question Newtonian doctrines of force and mass because Newtonism was taught to you when you were a child as the only true representation of nature. You were indoctrinated to see nature as material and forceful; atomic materialism is the British religion believed by Newton and still believed as their faith by Newton’s disciples who call themselves “physicists”.


You are taught to perceive nature as material and Newtonian. Over the centuries the Newtonian faithful corrupted your language by defining the words “Nature” and “Newton” and “Physics” as synonyms so that when you say “physical” the word implies a material and Newtonian world.


You may be skeptical about what you have been reading here because you believe that I do not have academic credentials to project to you enough authority in this matter; you may think that I do not have enough authority to claim that we are not living in a materialist and Newtonian world but in a matterless world.

To convince you that nature is matterless may I mention a venerable French scientist called D’Espagnat? You may have heard of him, he believes that matter does not exist and we are living in a matterless world. He arrives at this conclusion through his studies of Quantum Mechanics; I believe that my argument is stronger and more fundamental but what matters is that we arrive at the same conclusion and he has more authority for you to respect the idea that nature is matterless.

Newton’s contemporary Leibniz also denied that nature was material and believed in the matterless world. Even some British thinkers such as Bishop Berkeley denied the materialist view of Newton. D’Alembert also questioned materialism.

There is a strong scientific tradition in France to reject the British materialism.

But as I said, history is written by the victors and in this case the British and the Newtonians were the victors and they deified Newton and established his materialist cult as true science. And this British cult infiltrated the education system in France (and around the world) and started to impersonate science.


Free thinking and questioning dogmas imposed on them by foreign forces are also strong traditions in France. It is time again to practice some scientific skepticism against this British cult of Newtonism colonizing your mind for over 300 years.


Let’s go back to the scientists who refused the Newtonian occult as scholastic hidden virtues. They were right in their identification of the Newtonian doctrine as a cult trying to overtake the continental science just recently freed from scholasticism. But they should never have given up their faith in their belief that nature is not occult.

I never did. And now I am asking you to do the same: uphold the principle that nature is not occult.

This principle is so important that I call it the Scientific Principle:

Nature is not occult.

If nature is not occult and if Newton’s force is occult (and Newton’s force is occult by definition); then Newton could never have computed orbits by using his occult force.


If nature is not occult then Newtonian force could not be used to compute orbits. Now I know how Newton computed orbits by using Kepler’s Rule. Newton never used force in his computations of orbits


I am asking your support to expose Newtonism as a British religious cult. I am asking you only to start being skeptical about Newtonian atomic materialism as taught to you as the absolute truth.

The idea is very simple:

  • Newton’s force is occult;
  • Nature is not occult;
  • Newton used only Kepler’s Rule to compute orbits;
  • Newtonian atomic materialism is a religious cult; and
  • Newtonism must not be taught in the classroom as the absolute scientific truth.

Take action and show your support by commenting here or writing to me in person.


Let France lead the war to free humanity from the British colonization of the mind!




An open letter to the faithful

No one so far took my research seriously enough to question their faith in Newtonism; readers of this blog do not find the evidence presented here convincing enough to suspect that their world view is shaped by a religion.

Why? Maybe the evidence presented here does not meet your high level of standard of evidence? But that can’t be because as someone who believes without question the absurd theories of physicists, your standard of evidence must be really, really low. In fact, you don’t care about evidence at all; you are taught to trust the authority of the professionals and that’s what you do.

I have been writing about a discovery of historic proportions and you fail to get involved. Why? Because you cannot judge a discovery on your own; you don’t trust your own judgment when it comes to science; you believe it only if it is reported to you by the Big Media as a discovery made by a physicist who is dubbed to be the “new Einstein.”
I claim to have discovered a major historical fact that was hidden from humanity up to now; you are lucky to be living in era where such a discovery is made and this is not enough to motivate you? No. Because, any discovery reported in a blog cannot be a discovery that can meet your high standards of scientific authority. You don’t care about evidence; you only care about authority.
No one ever “refuted” – by using their own independent powers of reasoning – the conclusions that I draw from my research. When it comes to science you defer to the professional doctors. Do not argue with me by reporting the authority of physicists as evidence. I present hard historical facts and verified data for your review; I don’t argue by authority or by platitudes such as “Newtonian mechanics works therefore it must be correct.” I am explaining why Newtonian mechanics cannot and does not prove the Newtonian doctrine of atomic materialism.
Physics assumes atomic materialism as its faith. And you still call physics a science! Physics is institutionalized shamanism that “proves” its faith with “mechanics.” This fact alone must raise red flags against Newtonism.
You, as a human being, were taught the Newtonist faith as true science. If you are happy with this, I don’t blame you. Do not change. It takes a great investment of time and curiosity and skepticism to change a hard-wired faith. And Newtonism is a hard-wired faith that was administered to you through your natural language. Newtonism is built into your natural language. Newtonism is a physical prison that you cannot escape; you are not even aware that Newtonian priests corrupted your natural language to make their faith appear “natural” to you. Or should I say “physical”. Until you get the “physical” pun you will never realize how much physicists corrupted your mind. That’s why you hate anyone who tells you that Newtonism is not science but a religious cult.
For you there is no hope. You will never give up your faith in Newtonism for several reasons. The first reason is your absolute respect for professional teachers. Newtonism which you think is science is a professional field, practiced by professional Doctors of Philosophy and for you the word of a physicist is the word of science.

The second reason is that in this brief adventure we call life, you do not have the time to question useless philosophical and existential topics that do not increase your financial worth or do not contribute to your entertainment. So you ignore this issue. Who can blame you.
The change can only come through legal action against institutions that teach Newtonism as scientific and experimental truth. Such a trial can last a decade or more; it will take generations before post-Newtonian worldview takes root.

I do not have the funds to pay for this trial and I do not know who can fund it, although I know that there are parties who will be interested in this issue if they become aware of it. The first group must be parents who trust the education of their offspring to the state. These parents would not want their children to be poisoned with the doctrines of a religious cult.

Another party, is the conventional religious institutions who are told by the state to stay out of the classroom; they do not realize that the state keeps them out of the classroom but teaches a British religious cult as the state religion under the name of true science.

Also, everyone who believes that he or she is living in a Newtonian world should get involved in understanding how they are being indoctrinated with Newtonism.
Let’s be clear: I am not trying to “convert” you or anyone else to a “new religion.” I just want you to be aware that we have here a major discovery that must be of interest to you as a human being. This discovery is as important as the realization of the Earth’s motion.
I do not claim to have made this discovery: Newton did. Newton discovered that Kepler’s Rule is the definition of density. The rest follows from this unique discovery.
I claim credit for ignoring physics mythology that Newton discovered an occult force in nature and Newton’s disciples verified this force with an experiment.

I also claim credit for reverse engineering 300 years of scholastic commentary Newton’s disciples weaved around Newton’s branding of Kepler’s Rule as Newton’s laws.

And I claim credit for being absolutely uncompromising about the principle that nature is not occult. I continued my search until I understood the reason why the occult Newtonian force apparently explained natural phenomena as claimed by Newtonian priests.

Nature is not occult; Newtonian force is occult; then how come “Newtonian mechanics” based on the Newtonian occult force appears to explain orbits?

The answer is obvious — with hindsight: Newtonian mechanics is Kepler’s Rule written with units named after Newton.

Physicists claim that because they write Kepler’s Rule with units named after Newton, the world must be Newtonian.

This Newtonian world revealed to Newton by God and believed by physicists as their faith is atomic, matterful, forceful, occult and animist. Newtonian priests teach you this absurd and occult doctrine of their cult as the representation of true nature. And you believe it!
I offer you concrete evidence that Newton used Kepler’s Rule, and nothing but Kepler’s Rule, to compute astronomical quantities; Newton’s disciples hid this fact further by writing Kepler’s Rule with units named after Newton.

So, I am telling you that Newtonism is a hoax; Kepler’s Rule is fundamental; Newtonism is a scholastic school that morphed into a religious cult and it is taught as state religion around the world.

But against all evidence, you refuse to question your hard-wired faith in Newtonism.

This religious faith was imposed on you by professional teachers in the payroll of the states. You still refuse to think for yourself and evaluate the evidence I present here by your own powers of reasoning by ignoring the past and present authority of professional teachers. These teachers are paid to teach the legal doctrines of scholasticism as legalized in their books; these professional teachers never ever encourage you to question their own books; they defined scientific skepticism as the questioning of the books of the “other” teachers. As you know there are two species of professional teachers who hate each other as much as they hate science.

Doctors of Theology tell you to question the books of Doctors of Philosophy (Newtonian priests the physicists) and the physicists teach you to question the books taught by Doctors of Theology. For professional doctors of either type you are nothing more than a walking dollar sign they call a “student” who is lured into their temple to get an “education.” These two types of scoundrels have been fighting each other for market share in the education business ever since written word existed. You are just their newest victim.
Understand this: Bankers own the money; teachers own the written word. These professionals designed the system to profit themselves at your expense.
My advice to you is to question the teachings of both species of doctors. Remember “doctor” means “teacher.” In fact do not believe the books of any kind of professional doctor on the words of these doctors. Questioning the doctrines of professional doctors of any kind is science. Do not stop with just one type of books because your teacher is teaching you its own book as the only true knowledge. Once you realize this you become a scientist.
You think that for an ideology owned by a hierarchical bureaucracy such as Newtonism to be called a religion it must be the owner of a branded building we call a temple or a church. Since Newtonism does not have a church it cannot be a religion. So, you really do not realize that physics departments are the temples of Newtonism? Unless physicists hang a sign in the entrance to their department saying “The Church of the Sacred Soul of Newton” you will not believe that Newtonism is a religion? Are you really such a fool?
Understand that religion never tells you that it is religion.

Once you perceive religion as religion it becomes religion. You then realize that you have been fooled by professional teachers working for that religion.

Maybe it is difficult for you to understand this fact: Every new religion presents itself to its customers as true knowledge or, scientia. Every new religion defines itself as true knowledge and defines the old religion as religion. Understand this, please, and don’t be fooled again by the same professional doctors selling you their latest snake oil as the true science. Classic example: Emergent monotheism successfully challenged the state religion of Rome by presenting itself as true knowledge – not as an alternative religion.
Newtonism is religion because it impersonates science. Religion is revealed knowledge sold to you as true science. And Newtonism fits this definition: Newtonism is revealed knowledge taught to you as true science.
If you are such a rational human being, why aren’t you supporting this project to expose Newtonism as religion?
Remember that the Fed is a private corporation owned by a cartel of private banks. You perceive a private corporation as a government entity because it is named “Federal” Reserve. Bankers needed to pretend that – not them – but the government controlled the money in the land so they branded their cartel the Federal Reserve.
Newtonism is branded as science – not by bankers who control the money – but by another professional class – who control your education, that is, your mind.

Think about it.

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

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:


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?

And finally, what is the most important inducement for you, as a lawyer, to take this case? This is not a pro bono case but you should only take this case for the intellectual satisfaction of solving a new and interesting legal challenge for the good of humanity.


Slides for Jane Doe v. Board of Education of the City of New York

Scenes from the Trial of Newtonism or 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:

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:

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

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 = R3/T2 is nothing more than Kepler’s Rule written with Newtonian units; the prof just replaced our unit term R03/T02 with his ideological Newtonian unit GM. So as his habit

  1. the prof defined a unit
  2. named the unit he defined after Newton, and
  3. 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 R03/T02!


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 = R3/T2 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?

Physics is Kepler’s Rule expressed in Newtonian units

Wientje questions how density can be defined in terms of frequency and makes some other comments.

My answer:

>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.

Gravity is not a force; gravity is a hoax

Commenting on this story I wrote that:

Gravity is not a force; gravity is a hoax. I am glad that physics establishment finally is realizing this.

teraflop replied:

That’s certainly an unorthodox view. As far as I can make out from that post and the rest of your blog, you seem to reject Newtonian gravitation in favor of Kepler’s laws of planetary orbits. How does your model account for the perturbations that are observed in three-body and more complex systems?

For instance, right now there is a satellite called SOHO at the Sun-Earth L_1 Lagrangian point. Why do you say that Newtonian gravity is a myth, when the existence of such an orbit violates Kepler’s third law but is in perfect agreement with calculations according to the Newtonian model?

Here’s my reply to teraflop:

>>As far as I can make out from that post and the rest of your blog, you seem to reject Newtonian gravitation…

Reject Newtonian gravitation?

Why would I reject a meaningless concept such as “Newtonian gravitation?”

Newton did not know “Newtonian gravitation.” There is no “Newton’s constant of gravitation G” in the Principia. There are no equations in the Principia… “Newtonian gravitation” is an invention of Newtonian physicists.

My point is that if you want to understand the concept of force; look at its origins in Newton’s writings. Why? Because academic physics is a legal system. In legal systems, once a “law” enters the system, and it is canonized that law can never be removed from the system. The legal system of physics must remain consistent. This is the reason why Einstein’s Field Equations which claim to describe a nature without force has Newton’s constant of force G in them. Only in a legal system an equation denying force can have the unit of force in it.

As you can see from reading the comments in this thread by otherwise intelligent people they are utterly confused about what force is because they take the authority of physics as the absolute truth; and physics teaches nothing but the legal concepts of physics; in a legal system there is no right or wrong, or true and untrue, the truth table is not valid and there is no and/or; there is only legal and not legal.

Consequently, in a legal system, every concept comes in triplicates:

  1. the letter interpretation of the law;
  2. the spirit interpretation of the law; and
  3. combination of letter and spirit interpretation of the law.

So, in physics it is legal to state

  1. “force exists”;
  2. “force does not exist”, and
  3. “force existsnot”.

These are all legal statements in physics. If you try to conform your research on force to physics, you can only write a commentary on the concept of force in physics. The original article is a commentary on force in physics; it is a legal document.

>>…in favor of Kepler’s laws of planetary orbits.

You see how much the Newtonian worldview is innate in your reasoning. You can only perceive nature in Newtonian terms. “Kepler’s laws” is the invention of Newton’s disciples who now call themselves physicists. Newton did not call “Kepler’s Rule” “Kepler’s Third Law.”

Kepler’s Rule is a rule, because it is a proportionality which ties the radius of an orbit to its period. Newton used Kepler’s rule to compute planetary orbits; this is what my blog is about. If you disagree; or you believe that my math is wrong, I cannot be happier to know that. But do not try to dismiss what I write by throwing Newtonian mythology at it.

>>How does your model account for the perturbations that are observed in three-body and more complex systems?

Again, you are using post-Newtonian notions invented by Newton’s disciples the physicists. You are assuming, when you write “three-body system”, that the world is Newtonian, and the three bodies in question interact according Newtonian occult force.

The world is not Newtonian.

Newton dealt with perturbations in the Principia in proposition III.13. So the myth that “perturbation” is a dynamical phenomenon goes back to that proposition in the Principia.

What is perturbation and how does astronomy account for perturbations?

There is only 1 way to make orbit calculations in astronomy:

  1. define a model;
  2. make observations;
  3. subtract observations from the model to obtain residuals.

This is it. There is no other way. This is how astronomical calculations are made. Anyone who claims otherwise is a charlatan.

The residuals are the perturbations. So for example: if your model is the Ptolemaic model; and you make a table of naked-eye observations, and take residuals you will find that your residuals are close to zero; Ptolemaic theory explains planetary orbits perfectly well for the naked eye observations.

Now take the residuals of Ptolemaic theory with the telescopic observations of planets and you will see sinusoidal “perturbations.” How do you account for these perturbations? You add new terms to your model to eliminate the perturbations. This is usually done with trigonometric expansions. There is no other way; you must add new terms to your model to account for perturbations. There is no Newtonian magic or occult force that explains these perturbations. This is where the hoax is.

So take a look at the proposition III.13 and you will see that Newton’s explanation is geometrical, not dynamical. This is why “Newtonian gravitation” is a hoax. Newton used Kepler’s Rule to compute orbits but he claimed to have used his dynamical force instead.

>>For instance, right now there is a satellite called SOHO at the Sun-Earth L_1 Lagrangian point. Why do you say that Newtonian gravity is a myth, when the existence of such an orbit violates Kepler’s third law but is in perfect agreement with calculations according to the Newtonian model?

Can you tell me how Lagrangian point violates “Kepler’s Rule”? Can you compute Lagrangian points by using Kepler’s Rule only?

And conversely, can you compute Lagrangian points without using Kepler’s Rule? No you can’t. If you can let me know.

What physicists do, is to express Kepler’s Rule in Newtonian units such as GM and they claim that because they used a conventional unit of their own invention and named it after their master Newton, they used Newtonian dynamical force in astronomical calculations. If this is not a hoax what is it?

Take a look at Lagrange’s original paper. He states his goal as to calculate the orbit of three bodies by nothing but the distances between them.

This is the definition of Kepler’s Rule.

But Lagrange must still conform to Newtonian doctrines so he adds A, B, C as the “mass” of bodies A, B, C. But “mass” exists only to scale the calculations. Once you realize that mass in the Newtonian lingo is the constant term R03/T02; in other words, “mass” is the ratio of two lengths and it serves only to set the scale, you will see that Lagrange’s original equations do not concern themselves with Newtonian force; force terms exist only as cosmetic terms either eliminated or used as scaling units.

From Newton to the present day, physicists compute orbits by using Kepler’s Rule but claim to have used Newton’s dynamical terms.

All we have to do is to look at the equations, ignore what Newton’s disciples write in their commentary; look at the equations.

Can you look at this calculation and compute Lagrange point L1 by using Kepler’s Rule only?

Try it. All you have to do is to eliminate Newtonian labels G, M, m and F from formulas and use Kepler’s Rule directly.