# God particle in Newton’s temple

What evidence do you need to convince yourself that Newtonism is a cult?

What is Newtonism?

Newtonism is a religious cult whose revealed faith is atomic materialism. This old British cult presents itself to the world as “physics”.

There is no doubt that Newtonism doing business as physics assumes atomic materialism as its unquestionable faith. Once you agree that atomic materialism is the sacred hidden faith of physics that Newton claimed God revealed to him, then, it becomes obvious that Newtonism is a cult.

* * *

You’ve heard about Newton’s laws and you are told that nature is Newtonian and Newton the mortal closest to Gods discovered the laws of nature that lay hidden until Newton revealed them to humanity.

But have you ever heard about Newton’s Zeroth Law? No, you haven’t. Physics textbook will never mention this fundamental hidden assumption of physics.

Newton discovered no law of nature; Newton assumed the doctrine of atomic materialism as a revealed truth and tried to fit nature to his materialist and occult doctrines by defining his faith as laws of nature.

To believe that nature is matterful and that there are absolutely hard surfaces in nature is not different than believing in the occult. Physicists believe in the occult; and more importantly, physicists control the education system and they teach their occult faith as the only scientific truth. Do you want your child indoctrinated by these priests of the cult of Newton?

This is Newton’s Zeroth law:

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

Newton claims, in the name of God that nature is discontinuous; there are absolutely hard surfaces and he calls these absolute indivisible discontinuities “matter” and endows matter with a quality he calls “mass”.

This doctrine of atomic materialism supposedly revealed to prophet Newton is the fundamental and unquestionable hidden faith of physics.

Atomic materialism is the revealed faith of physics that every physicist believes as his faith without question. No physicist can deny or even question his faith in the cult of Newton and remain a physicist. When a physicist repeats the official physics propaganda that as a physicist he always upholds the authority of mathematics and experiment, he is lying.

The last 300+ years physicists have been trying hard to fit nature into their absurd atomic materialist faith. But nature is not matterful. Nature is not occult.

* * *

Physics is based on atomic materialism; physicists made the occult the fundamental quantity of physics and they even defined a unit for the occult and named the unit of the occult with the sacred name of their Grand Master Newton.

By trying to explain nature with their occult faith physicists corrupted the old science of physics and filled it with absurdities and then claimed these absurdities generated by their physics belonged to nature. Physicists market bugs in their esoteric language as features of nature. What charlatans!

What other evidence do you need that physics is the cult of Newton!

Physics is the cult of Newton.

Physicists are ultra-fanatic, radical, and extremist anti-science priests of the cult of Newton who will defend the occult doctrines of their cult and the sacred authority of their Grand Master Newton at all cost.

Physicists built a 4 billion dollar machine to save Newton’s sacred authority.

Yes, you should be in awe of Newton. His disciples built a giant temple to their prophet Newton to save his sacred authority by using miracles they will coax out of a machine. LHC is the newest cathedral of the cult of Newton.

LHC exists because to this day physicists will not give up their unquestioning faith to Newton’s Zeroth’s law. If God revealed to their prophet Newton that he created matter in solid and “massy” particles, for physicists, nature must be matterful and massy regardless of what experiments and physicists’ own theories say.

* * *

What does their own Standard Model tell physicists? Standard Model tells physicists that particles that they observe are not massy as revealed to Newton and there are no particles.

The Standard Model is not just any theory; physicists claim that their standard model is the most beautiful theory ever and it explains all their particles and their interactions perfectly. This is true by definition because physicists built the Standard Model over 50 years by fitting observations to it, in other words Standard Model is “phenomenology” or a model that saves the phenomena.

Standard Model saves the observations and tells physicists that particles have no mass.

But Newton says that God revealed to him that particles are massy.

Can you guess what physicists will do? As cult members of the cult of Newton what would they do?

Unlike physicists, what would scientists do?

Scientists will reason scientifically, like this: here’s a theory that we built; it is so good that it explains all observations perfectly and it tells us that what we observe as particles have no mass; particles we observe are not massy as Newton claimed; forget Newton and his divine revelations; physics is a science, divine revelations and sacred authority of a prophet have no room in physics; our theory and experiments say particles are not massy therefore we are living in a world without matter regardless of what that self-annointed prophet Newton claims. Amen!

What do Newton’s disciples the physicists say: Wait a minute, forget the Standard Model and experiments; Newton’s authority is sacred and it cannot be challenged; Newton is always right therefore we must invent a field impersonating a particle impersonating mass so that Standard Model will give all massless particles mass.

And this is what physicists did and they built the LHC to save Newton’s authority.

Are you yet convinced that these people are fanatic priests of the cult of Newton and they built a huge machine to prove that nature is occult and matterful to save Newton’s authority?

Probably not. Then, let me tell you that this kind of charlatanism to overrule experiments and theory to save Newton’s authority is not the exception in physics, it is the rule.

* * *

The best example of how physicists uphold the authority of Newton over the authority of experiments is how they defined the Cavendish experiment of 1798 as the first observation of Newton’s occult force.

Newton’s disciples the physicists tried for over 200 years after their Master’s death to observe experimentally this occult quality Newton called “force”. Physicists could not find such a force in 200 years of trying.

What would you conclude? I would conclude that the force is occult, I would say, physicists tried 200 years to find the occult in nature and they failed and they could not find a trace of the occult in nature; so nature is not occult, Newton is lying.

What would physicists do? Physicists in the 19th century named the old Cavendish experiment posthumously as the first observation of the occult force!

Experiments say nature is not occult; physicists say nature must be occult because Newton says so, and they defined an old experiment as the first observation of the occult.

Never mind that Cavendish did not measure force and he did not intend to measure it, he just computed the mean density of the earth. But in order to save Newton’s sacred authority physicists redefined an experiment to fit their doctrines. Physicists could not observe the occult so they defined an old experiment as verifying the occult because the sacred authority of Newton must be saved.

You are still not convinced?

Physicists built another absurd edifice to save Newton’s sacred authority when they realized that the way they wrote Newton’s force definition resulted in division by zero at r=0. So what physicists do? Do they say, Newton’s force is absurd, we could not observe it in 300 years, and now the same occult and absurd definition of force results in division by zero, so enough is enough, let’s dump this force and forget about that self-annointed prophet Newton… Not a chance. Physicists are the priests of the cult of Newton and charlatans. Physicists are not scientists.

So what do physicists do? They invent elaborate mathematical procedures and mathematical gimmicks and mathematical polemics to divide by zero without appearing to divide by zero. And they dub the charlatanism of dividing by zero without dividing by zero “normalization”. When mathematics warns them again and tells them “don’t normalize me,” fanatic physicists don’t listen and increase the dose of their polemical sophistry and re-normalize and re-re-normalize until they got what they want and Newton’s sacred authority is saved.

Physicists Steven Weinberg and company are given a Nobel Prize for inventing subtle mathematical sophistry that overruled the authority of mathematics with Newton’s sacred authority.

* * *

These charlatans who corrupted the old science of physics with absurdities to save the sacred authority of their Grand Master Newton overruled experiments, overruled theory, and overruled mathematics with Newton’s authority… these people are continuing to corrupt what used to be the science of physics with their occult faith.

How can you let these charlatans and extreme priests of the cult of Newton to teach your child the occult doctrines of an 18th century British Grand Master of the Occult?

* * *

Newton was the agent of the British colonialism to impose British standards and colonize the continental Europe in the name of the Crown. Newtonism is now exposed as what it is: A British cult of the occult. Newtonism doing business as physics is a cult because it is based on the claims of a false prophet who claimed his corrupt materialist doctrines was revealed to him by God.

Newton the Grand Master of the British cult of Newtonism was invented to extend British political colonialism to human mind and it has run its course. Newtonism is now exposed.

Question the occult doctrines that Newton’s fanatic priests are teaching your child.

Join the campaign to stop teaching the Cavendish experiment lab as the observation of the Newtonian occult.

# 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.

* * *

Densytics: physics without Newtonian branding

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

If my understanding of Kepler’s Rule is correct then 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 c 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 absurd paraphernalia 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.

I have been sending cease and desist letters to universities to stop teaching the Cavendish experiment. I have not heard from any of them yet.

* * *

I know that no physicist will give a fair hearing to my cause but 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.

* * *

# Stop teaching the occult doctrines of Newtonism in the classroom

In this interview Nancy Pearcey gives an example of how a children’s story that she wrote was changed by a television network to fit their “politically correct” worldview and concludes that children are bombarded by such distinct worldviews without their knowledge:

The example illustrates that even young children are bombarded with distinct worldviews. Ideas do not typically come neatly packaged with a warning label attached, so we know what we’re getting. Instead there is what we might call a “stealth” secularism that permeates society through images and stories that bypass our critical grid, override our logic, and hook us emotionally. We can be seduced into a set of ideas, a movement, or a worldview, sometimes without our even knowing it.

* * *

The same stealth programming of children happens in schools as well. Children entrusted to schools by their parents are indoctrinated from the earliest age with the Newtonian worldview. Parents are not aware that their children are being taught a distinct and particular way of perceiving nature; the state forbids teaching of “creationism” but the state itself teaches “Newtonism” as the only true knowledge.

The hidden assumption of Newtonism is the doctrine of atomic materialism. In no physics textbooks you will find what I call “Newton’s Zeroth Law”:

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

In this case Newton is wrong because God did not “form matter” the way Newton describes it. I don’t know where Newton got this idea that God created a discontinuous nature but the way I read it, in Genesis 1 God appears to define the world by naming what he wants to create. Indeed, we are living in a definitional world, not in a Newtonian matterful world. If we can free ourselves from the materialist doctrines of physics we will be more in harmony with nature and better appreciate the way the Bible says God created the world.

For instance, all surfaces are definitional; a surface exists only when you define it and name it. A surface is defined by its density and density is frequency squared, therefore, there cannot be absolute surfaces as Newton claims.

The most dense a surface can be is

$\textrm{Frequency} = \frac{1}{c}$

there cannot be a surface with infinite density because

$\textrm{Frequency} = \frac{1}{\infty}$

cannot exist, because according to the speed limit imposed by physicists there cannot be infinite frequency.

So there are no absolutely hard, absolutely solid and absolutely impenetrable surfaces as Newton claims.

* * *

It is a well-established tradition in physics to overrule experimental results to save Newton’s authority. In this case, physicists claim to discover absolutely hard elementary particles in collider experiments by using Einstein’s equations that do not allow absolutely hard surfaces because no frequency can be more than 1/c. Only charlatans can declare the impossibility of absolutely hard surfaces and then discover them in experiments.

Like all other absurdities littering physics this one too exists because physicists must uphold Newton’s sacred authority at all cost by “normalizing” and “re-normalizing” experiments and equations until Newton’s sacred authority is saved.

* * *

The version of “Newtonism” taught in schools does not necessarily reflect the worldview of the historical person who lived in the 18th century, just like Peripatetic philosophy taught in Cambridge when Newton was a student there did not reflect the personal views of Aristotle. Newton replaced Aristotle by himself as the new master of European scholasticism and ever since then the same Scholastic Doctors of Philosophy now doing business as “physicists” have been writing commentary on Newton instead of Aristotle. In the case of Newtonism, the body of canonized sacred commentary is called “Newtonian mechanics”.

Newton caused three radical changes in European education:

1. Doctors of Theology lost the control of education to their professional cousin Doctors of Philosophy;
2. Newton became the new Aristotle; and
3. Mathematics replaced Latin as the secret esoteric language taught in schools by scholastic doctors.

In other words, the mixture of scholastic Peripatetic philosophy and Christian learning taught in Latin by Doctors of Theology as true knowledge was changed to a mixture of scholastic Newtonian philosophy and mathematics taught in the language of mathematics by Doctors of Philosophy as true knowledge.

As the result of Newton’s coup shaking up the European scholasticism, Doctors of Philosophy updated the public name of their profession first to “Natural Philosophy” and then to “physics” because Newton effectively defined “scholasticism” as anti-science. What is called academic physics today is the old scholastic profession still practiced by the same Doctors of Philosophy doing business as physicists.

There are only two monetization options for scholastic doctors, teaching the canon to new comers and peddling supposedly secret knowledge revealed to them by their esoteric language. It is obvious that the profession remained the same, it is still the scholastic business in charge of education, but the control of education and the ownership of canon moved from Doctors of Theology to Doctors of Philosophy who named their new regime with ideological names such as “Enlightenment” and “Scientific Revolution.”

It is also obvious that Scientific Revolution was not a revolution that eliminated scholastic dogmatism from European science, but just a coup that eliminated Aristotle and replaced him with Newton. The scholastic profession merely changed its name to assert the authority of its new academic overlord.

* * *

There is what we might call a “stealth” secularism that permeates society through images and stories that bypass our critical grid, override our logic, and hook us emotionally. We can be seduced into a set of ideas, a movement, or a worldview, sometimes without our even knowing it.

Thank you for highlighting this process that also applies to education. Our perception of nature is instilled into us at the earliest age by this “stealth” secular state religion called Newtonism.

“Newton’s Apple” so innocently taught to us when we learn our alphabet is as powerful an image as any corporate logo or the flag we pledge allegiance to. Every children learns to pledge allegiance to the state as the protector and to Newton as the revealer of true knowledge.

Newtonism “overrides our logic” by presenting its occult miracles as scientific “experiments” such as the Cavendish experiment conducted in classrooms supposedly proving the existence of Newton’s occult force.

A well-polished Newtonian mythology describing Newton as the “mortal closest to gods” makes it impossible for us to even consider questioning the divine discoveries of this mortal branded as a demi-god whose name is synonymous with genius. Looking at the logs of my blog, every day there is someone searching for “Newton genius” and ends up reading my essay on the subject.

Education seduces us into believing that Newtonian atomic materialist and occult view of nature is the only true representation of nature. We do not even realize that we have been indoctrinated to perceive nature as Newtonian, material and occult. The secret mantra “Nature is Newton is Physics is Science” is instilled in us without our knowledge in every stage of our education. Physicists also corrupted our language making the word “physical” synonymous with “nature” so even if we tried we cannot conceive a world which is not material. The assumption of the materiality of nature is the source of matter/spirit duality. When we realize that nature is matterless and there are no absolute discontinuities in nature this old dilemma disappears.

We learn to perceive nature as a physical place where “Newton’s Soul” in the form of the occult force permeates the universe and acts between intelligent matter to set it in motion and to make nature the way it is.

Everyone believes that a stone falls because a force emanating from the center of the earth pulls it and that this force was discovered by Newton.

No scientific experiment ever proved the existence of such a force. That’s why physicists in the 19th century posthumously defined Cavendish experiment of 1798 as the first experimental verification of Newton’s occult force. When you look at Cavendish’s original paper it becomes clear that he did not measure force but computed the mean density of the earth from constants of the pendulum by using Kepler’s Rule.

Then, the question becomes, if there is no such occult force in nature how come Newton was able to compute planetary orbits correctly by using such an occult force?

It is very easy to prove that Newton did not use force to compute planetary orbits. There are only a few propositions in the Principia where Newton computes astronomical quantities and all of them are simple applications of Kepler’s Rule.

After Newton’s death his disciples developed a consistent system of units and procedures to facilitate computations that traditionally fell within physics and astronomy. They successfully hid Kepler’s Rule under calculus notation and branded units so successfully that it takes a while to see that the engine under the hood doing the work for the branded units and ideological labels displayed in mathematical looking symbolism that makes up Newtonian mechanics is Kepler’s Rule.

Once Newtonian ideology and branding is eliminated we recover Kepler’s Rule. This rule explains orbits with only two quantities, period and radius, and does not require mass or force or branded units of Newtonism.

I call this pristine version of physics without Newtonian branding “densytics” because density is definitional and it is the fundamental unit of nature. Absolutely indivisible matter and occult force are Newton’s inventions and do not exist in nature because they do not enter operational equations used in computations. Curiously enough, it was Newton who discovered that Kepler’s Rule was the definition of density and encoded this discovery in definition 1 of the Principia.

# Open letter to Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley

I got a boilerplate reply to my letter to Massachusetts Attorney General saying that

the office is not able to handle every matter that is brought to its attention; however, we do take note of every complaint received, and watch for a pattern of complaints related to a particular company, individual, or industry.

Below is an open letter to the Attorney General Martha Coakley. If you agree, please write to her as well.

* * *

Dear Ms. Attorney General Martha Coakley:

I am writing to draw your attention to the fact that a British cult of the occult impersonating science has infiltrated MIT’s physics department and is teaching occult miracles to Massachusetts citizens in Cavendish labs.

This cult have been indoctrinating Massachusetts citizens by forcing them to believe that the arms of the Cavendish pendulum was moved by their sacred occult force. This occult force is also known as “Newton’s Soul” and it is the strongest evidence of the existence of the Brotherhood of the Vis, the secret cult of Newton.

A student who dares to question this occult force will be admonished and unless he relents and accepts the occult Newtonian force the cult of Newton will not let this student continue his physics education.

You are now aware of this British cult teaching secretly the occult doctrines of their Holy Master Newton to Massachusetts citizens. One of the oldest and most prestigious scientific institutions in the United States has been infiltrated by a British cult and your response is one of callous indifference. Do you think a British cult operating inside a United States scientific institution is business as usual?

I am asking you once again to start an investigation to expose this British cult. I understand that the Attorney General’s office will not move on a complaint unless the complaint involves millions of dollars, it is politically sensitive and it will be on the evening news.

You can be sure that this is big news and it will be in the mainstream media and you will be celebrated nationally for exposing a secret cult. We are talking about a prominent U.S. scientific institution teaching the occult doctrines of an 18th century British cult to U.S. citizens. Millions of U.S. citizens have already been infected and indoctrinated by this British cult that I call with the descriptive name of “the Brotherhood of the Vis”. I don’t know what the secret name for their cult is or even if there is such a name.

Most of rank and file cult members are so well indoctrinated that they are not aware that they are in the service of the cult of Newton. These physicists earn their living by teaching the doctrines of the cult of Newton to new recruits.

Cavendish experiment as taught in the classroom is the highest miracle of this cult where new recruits are asked to believe without question that the motion of the pendulum was caused by Newton’s occult force.

Cavendish experiment as taught in physics classrooms is the experimental proof of the existence of the cult of Newton.

The first thing I urge you to do is to ask the physicist who teaches the Cavendish lab to admit or deny that the arm of the toy pendulum he or she uses in the Cavendish lab was moved by Newton’s occult force.

You will never get a legally valid answer in the form of denial or admittance; instead the cult member who conducted the experiment to indoctrinate students will show you as evidence that students measured the period of the pendulum arm, plugged the values into standard formulas and computed the standard value of G. This G is the logo of the cult of Newton and physicists named it with the most ideologically explicit of any quantity in any science: “Newton’s Universal Constant of Gravitation”.

Any sane person who does not belong to the cult of Newton will be suspicious of an alleged “quantity” with such an ideological name. Now you are in the murky waters of academic scholasticism perpetrated by the Brotherhood of the Vis.

In your investigation you must ask the cult member who “teaches” the Cavendish lab if he or she believes that the arm of the pendulum is moved by the occult force. Yes or No? It will be impossible for you to get a yes or no answer from this Doctor of Philosophy doing business as “physicist”.

A Doctor of Philosophy is the most anti-science strain of the virulent species of “Learned Doctors” and under no circumstances you will get a yes or no answer from this faithful professional doctor who serves the cult of Newton.

To get a scientific answer you must put together a team of honest experimental scientists who are not physicists to investigate if the Cavendish pendulum is moved by the occult Newtonian force.

You must start your investigations immediately. There is no occult in nature. Newton’s force is occult. Therefore, Cavendish experiment is the official miracle of the cult of the Brotherhood of the Vis.

Students are forced to believe in this miracle presented to them as a rigged experiment. Unless a physics student makes clear that he or she believes without question in this miracle, the cult of Newton controlling physics education will expel this student from physics.

You are now aware of the existence of this secret cult impersonating science and teaching the occult doctrines of Newtonism to Massachusetts citizens who pay MIT to learn science; instead they are forced to believe in some occult miracle in the guise of Cavendish “experiment” perpetrated by the cult of Newton.

You must act now:

1. Form a committee of independent scientists who are not physicists to investigate if the arm of the Cavendish pendulum is moved by Newtonian occult force.

2. Since occult does not exist in nature this committee of independent scientists who do not belong to the cult of Newton will find that Cavendish pendulum is not moved by Newton’s occult force.

3. Issue official cease and desist letters to schools teaching Cavendish lab.

4. Expose the Brotherhood of the Vis and free the old science of physics from the cult of Newton.

5. Help draft laws that will make the teaching of the occult in the classroom illegal.

# Columbia University: Cease and desist teaching Cavendish lab

This is the cease and desist letter I sent to Columbia University:

November 23, 2011

Columbia University
Lee C. Bollinger, President
Office of the President
116th Street
New York, NY 10027

Mr. President:

I am planning to sue Columbia University physics department in the name of citizens of the United States for teaching the occult doctrines of the British cult of Newtonism as scientific facts. More specifically, I am asking you to cease and desist teaching the Cavendish experiment in the classroom as the experimental proof of the Newtonian occult force.

Cease and desist teaching to students that they have observed and measured the occult Newtonian force allegedly setting the pendulum arm in motion.

It is a scientific fact that occult does not exist in nature, therefore, the pendulum is not set in motion by the Newtonian occult. Toy pendulums used in Cavendish labs cannot and do not prove the existence of the Newtonian occult force. By teaching the Cavendish lab you are teaching quack pseudo-science to your students in order to indoctrinate them with the British cult of Newtonism.

Therefore, to teach the Cavendish experiment as the experimental verification of the Newtonian occult force to United States citizens is a scientific fraud.

I need you to send me the following information at your earliest convenience:

1. The lab title, number and the name of the teacher of the Cavendish lab and most recent date such lab was taught.

2. The brand of the so-called “Cavendish pendulum” that you use in the said lab.

3. The average number of students in the lab.

4. The lab instructions and manual detailing what is taught to students.

5. How many years you have been teaching the Cavendish experiment lab.

Thank you for your cooperation with this matter.

Zeynel

cc: New York State Attorney General’s Office

* * *

And this is the letter to New York State Attorney General’s Office:

November 26, 2011

Office of the Attorney General

The Capitol
Albany, NY 12224-0341

Dear Mr. Attorney General:

I am writing to draw your attention to teaching of the quack pseudo-science in Columbia University’s physics department.

You have jurisdiction over Columbia University’s physics department because the perpetrators in this case are Doctors of Philosophy doing business as “physicists.”

Since it is well-established that you have jurisdiction over Medical Doctors doing business as “physicians”, mutatis mutandis, you have jurisdiction over “physicists” who are a related species of professionals known as “Learned Doctors”. If you become aware of any Medical Doctors practicing quack medicine you act for the sake of public good.

I am hereby making you aware that Doctors of Philosophy in Columbia University’s Physics Department are practicing quack pseudo-science by teaching to United States citizens who pay tuition to learn science, the occult doctrines of an 18th century British cult of the occult.

I urge you to take immediate action to protect New York State citizens from the harmful effects of the quack pseudo-science taught by physicists employed by Columbia University.

Please read at your earliest convenience the enclosed cease and desist letter that I sent to Columbia University.

Respectfully,

Zeynel

* * *

Also sent to:

• Massachusetts Institute of Technology
• California Institute of Technology

# Golden advice to Steven Weinberg

In a commencement talk you advised students to

learn something about the history of science, or at a minimum the history of your own branch of science. The least important reason for this is that the history may actually be of some use to you in your own scientific work.

Steven Weinberg: “Reading” history is a good start but it is not enough. You have to understand that you need to uphold the authority of history over the authority of physics in order to become a scientist. One historical fact overrules thousands of physics equations.

Coulomb’s experiment

Start by reading Coulomb’s experiment. Physics tells you Coulomb’s experiment is a great scientific experiment; history tells you Coulomb’s experiment is junk. As a faithful physicist you will never ever contradict physics and admit the historical truth. History does not lie; faithful physicists always lie to defend their Newtonian faith.

Coulomb’s experiment is ideological junk because Coulomb made just three (3) measurements and he was part of the experiment because he never bothered to ground himself.

Do you still think against the overwhelming historical evidence that Coulomb’s experiment is a good experiment? Yes, you do; because you are a faithful physicist, not a scientist bound by historical facts.

If you think Coulomb’s experiment is a good experiment you are a faithful physicist but you are not a scientist because you uphold physics mythology over historical truth.

A physicist is bound by the authority of legal physics no matter how absurd; a scientist is bound by data; historical data overrules polemical physics equations.

As a physicist you cannot ever admit that a physics experiment is junk; your colleagues will dub you a crackpot. So why are you advising poor physics students to read history? Any student who reads more history than offered to him in little snippets in sidebars of textbook pages as physics mythology mascarading as history will be expelled at no time.

Cavendish Experiment

Next read the Cavendish experiment of 1798. Will you advise your students to read Cavendish’s original paper and question the current physics mythology that Cavendish experiment was the first measurement of force? Will you?

What happens if a student with scientific curiosity who does not believe physics mythology and Newtonian occult doctrines that you are teaching him and starts reading original sources to expose your lies? This student tells you that according to historical evidence Cavendish never measured the Newtonian occult force; Cavendish assumed force and never measured it; Cavendish used Kepler’s Rule to compute the mean density of the earth.

Imagine such a student questioning the physics mythology and Newtonian occult doctrines that you and physicists like you have been teaching in physics classrooms. Will you give that student good grades for being an inquiring scientist or would you think he is too intelligent and curious to be a physicist and does not belong to the brotherhood of the cult of the vis. The latter; am I correct?

I advise you to read history and learn that physics is pre-scientific charlatanism; it is the cult of Newton; physics is an 18th century occult cult and you and physicists like you are corrupting young minds of the world with this British cult of the occult.

I advise you to read history. But reading history is not enough. You must put the authority of history above the authority of physics and the sacred authority of Newton. Can you do that? Can you advise your students to put the authority of history above the authority of Newton and physics?

One historical data overrules all of your physical polemics.

Can you advise your students to read the tragicomical history of G and question why physicists invented this unit and branded it as “Newton’s Constant of Universal Gravitation”?

Can you advise your students to uphold historical evidence over physics mythology “proved” by faithful physicists like yourself by your “crooked timber of physics”.

If so, I congratulate you. You have just become a scientist.

# 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.

# # #

# 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:

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?

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

# Is Newton’s constant a conventional unit?

I don’t understand this:

If Newton’s force has been proved to be unphysical and non-existent by physicists themselves why are we still bound by 18th century derivations involving force?

The only answer to this can be that Newton’s occult and non-existent force has pedagogical value because it is simpler to teach than General Relativity.

But does this justify experimental observation of the Newtonian occult and non-existent force in class with a Cavendish pendulum? If physicists proved Newtonian force to be unphysical how do they measure it in a physical experiment? Can you measure an unphysical force that exists only pedagogically in a physical experiment?

I say no. To me this suggests a bureaucratic habit. Schools continue to teach the Cavendish lab because they always have. This cannot be allowed to happen in an experimental science such as physics.

The other pedagogical advantage is, as physicists put it, “Newton’s laws and Newton’s mechanics work well in the solar system and in systems moving much slower than the speed of light.” In other words, Newton still works in its domain.

This claim is based on the assumption that

$GM&space;=&space;\frac{R^3}{T^2}$

is Newtons law or Newtonian mechanics or, when it’s written as a function of coordinates, Newton’s equation of motion.

I don’t see any terms that make

$GM&space;=&space;\frac{R^3}{T^2}$

a Newtonian expression.

As I’ve shown in my previous post

$GM&space;=&space;\frac{R^3}{T^2}$

is Kepler’s rule written with a conventional unit.

We know that even though G is called Newton’s constant it has no Newtonian content. G is Newtonian in name only.

G is a unit conversion factor that appears in various places in physics, for instance, in Einstein’s equations. The fact that G appears in Einstein’s equations does not make Einstein’s equations Newton’s equations. We don’t say Einstein’s equations are Newton’s laws or Newton’s equations because G appears in them.

I’ve shown here that G is what is now called the Gaussian constant of gravitation k2

$k^2&space;=&space;G$

This substitution was made in the late 19th century. Therefore G added nothing new to Kepler’s rule.

The substitution

$k^2&space;\rightarrow&space;G$

is a cosmetic and political substitution, a mere name change, effected by British physicists to claim ownership of astronomical constants by expressing k2 in British units and in a British/Newtonian name.

G is not a constant of nature without which physics will fail to work. On the contrary dropping G from equations or setting it to unity will have no effect in physics. It doesn’t matter if G is written or not because G is a political symbol not a constant of nature. Physics is independent of political symbols.

And mass M is defined as the constant term in Kepler’s rule

$\frac{R_0^3}{T_0^2}&space;=&space;\textrm{Mass}$

G and M always appear as a single constant in astronomy, so, one of them or even both must be decorative.

GM is physicists’ polemical solution to fix the unit term in Kepler’s rule cosmetically as a Newtonian constant of nature

$\frac{R_0^3}{T_0^2}&space;\equiv&space;\textrm{GM}$

Physicists defined the constant term in Kepler’s rule as GM and have been enforcing it as a true constant. This way of branding geometric elements or mathematical objects in order to own them has always been the method used by physicists.

In this case renaming k2 “G” and naming G “Newton’s constant of universal gravitation” did not make R03/T02 physical or Newtonian because

$\frac{R_0^3}{T_0^2}&space;\equiv&space;k^2&space;\equiv&space;\textrm{GM}$

The fundamental quantity is Keplerian constant R03/T02.

k2 and GM are specific unit conventions that physicists at various times asserted as true units.

k2 and GM are only conventional units because any astronomical quantity that can be computed with k2 and GM can also be computed without them by choosing any unit for R03/T02.

And this is what Newton did. Newton did not use  k2 or GM or any named unit but he used his own unit for R03/T02.

Unit means that a given distance is kept constant and other distances are counted with that distance which is kept constant as a unit.

G is a conventional defined unit created by converting k2 into British units which was then established by propaganda as a true constant of nature.

Physicists reject this historical evidence because they consider experimental evidence stronger than historical evidence. But historical habits can only be refuted by historical evidence. Historical habits cannot be refuted by physical experiments. And experiments physicists use to measure G are historical and professional habits and not true experiments.

All Cavendish type experiments apparently measuring the value of G are circular experiments.

How can the true nature of G be decided one way or the other?

To summarize:

I say that G is a conventional unit defined in the 19th century and I offer historical evidence.

G was not observed in an experiment first. It was not discovered. G was defined to replace k2 then used as the value of R03/T02.

Then I show that physicists’ claim that G was first measured by Cavendish in 1798 and later with ever increasing precision in countless Cavendish type experiments of many sizes and shapes is wrong.

Cavendish experiment and all Cavendish type experiments claiming to measure G are circular. Physicists already know the value of G and build an oscillator that will oscillate with a natural period to give the known value of G. The rest is error analysis.

So if I put 10 peanuts in a bag, shake it, and count the peanuts, there will be 10 peanuts. Nothing of value can be derived from a circular experiment. In Cavendish type experiments physicists find what they put into the experiment.

I also noticed that physicists always offer the consistency of physics as proof that the branded labels of physics such as G are true and physical and natural quantities.

I reject this type of argument by authority.

The most that physicists will concede is that in simple circular orbits Kepler’s rule may be good enough but when perturbations must be included then Newton’s force and mass must be used.

To this I reply that Newton used Kepler’s rule in proposition III.13 to compute perturbations of Saturn’s orbit by Jupiter.

This makes sense because physicists themselves recognise that force is unphysical and dismiss it. If force is unphysical it can no longer be used as an explanation. But physicists keep using force as an explanation because force remains a valid professional habit.

No force terms ever appear in the operational formula which is Kepler’s rule and Kepler’s rule does not contain force.

Instead of starting directly from Kepler’s rule physicists write force terms and eliminate them to obtain Kepler’s rule. Strange behavior that appears to be a ceremonial professional habit devoid of any scientific content.

My proposition is that Newton’s laws, Newtonian mechanics and Newton’s equation of motion, Newton’s constant, Newton’s force and Newton’s mass are not needed and are not used in astronomy in practice.

If so, why do they exist?

How can physicists claim to measure in experiments the occult force they themselves found to be unphysical?

Can we establish an independent committee to define clear standards of evidence to find out if G is a defined unit marketed as a true constant of nature to save Newton’s authority or if it is a true constant of nature measured in true experiments?

###

If G were a “constant of nature” not merely a conventional unit by physicists we could compute astronomical orbits without using G as is done here.

# The Cavendish experiment hoax 3

A true scientific experiment is a carefully designed test to compare two statements. A true scientific experiment is an answer to a yes or no question.

An academic physics experiment, on the other hand, is a circular experiment which tests nothing. Therefore an academic physics circular experiment is an academic exercise with no scientific value.

 Scientific experiment Academic physics experiment tests two statements tests nothing answers to a yes or no question always answers yes does not assume the result assumes the result result is independent of experimenter result confirms the opinion of the experimenter

An academic physics experiment is nothing more than an elaborate error analysis of an oscillator built to oscillate to confirm an opinion of the physicist who built the oscillator. These yes men oscillators are the favorite circular experiments of academic physicists.

The most famous yes man pendulum is known in the technical literature as the Cavendish experiment. The legendary yes man Cavendish pendulum is famous for being extremely reliable for confirming authoritatively any opinion held by the experimenting physicist.

Let’s illustrate what a reliable yes man experiment Cavendish experiment is with an example.

In Cavendish experiment if you remove the mass m attached to the pendulum but keep the mass M the experiment will still give the correct value of G.

In Cavendish experiment G is assumed to be the unit attraction between masses m and M, one attached to the pendulum the other moved about for effect, and you remove the mass m and the experiment still gives correctly the unit attraction between the masses m and M.

Only in academic physics such a scientific fraud will be taught to students as a true measurement of the Newtonian occult force.

Newton’s authority is so invincible that the pendulum gives the correct value of the non-existent attraction between masses m and M even when m is not there.

More than a circular academic exercise, the Cavendish experiment hoax is the official miracle of the religion called Newtonism.