# Matter and force in physics

The two most important “cultures” in the field of quantum gravity are the relativists and the particle physicists.

The assumption is that the relativists consider the Einsteinian tradition of classical general relativistic theories to be more important and want to add the quantum features as a detail while the particle physicists build on quantum field theory –that’s been very useful to describe particle physics– and want to properly add gravity to it.

Maybe professional physicists will eventually realize that there is no need to add gravity to anything. Force was invented by Newton to justify his religious belief in atomic materialism. Two hundred years after Newton’s invention of force it was still not observed or measured in a properly designed experiment. Instead of dropping force and accept that nature is not forceful physicists defined the Cavendish experiment conducted a century earlier to compute the mean density of the earth to be the first official measurement of the Newtonian occult force. This must count as one of the greatest scientific frauds perpetuated by physicists to save Newton’s authority.

About a century later physicists finally, as the result of the efforts of a semi-outsider, Einstein, conceded that force was occult, unphysical and most of all unnecessary.

At this point any scientist would have eliminated force from physics. But physicists are not scientists. Physicists are slaves of the profession. Physicists are powerless to change any physics dogma. Any professional physicists doubting a Newtonian tenet will be called a crackpot and his career will end.

So what physicists do? They keep force with the excuse that it is pedagogical only. But no. In truth physicists still believe by faith to Newtonian atomic materialism and Newtonian force.

So Lubos Motl’s observation is correct. Take a look at this talk by Nobelist Frank Wilczek. He is a particle physicist. For him nature is made of indivisible atomic matter. This dogma, invented by Newton, because, he said he got word from God that he created an atomic materialist word, still persists in physics because physicists, even Nobelists like Wilczek, fail to question it. The physics indoctrination called physics education does not allow them to question the most sacred of all sacred Newtonian dogma. A physicist who will dare to question the atomic materialist dogma of Newtonism will be no different than a Catholic priest who dares to question transsubstantition.

Physics is based on Newton’s religious preferences. Physicists as Newton’s disciples are indoctrinated in Newtonian temples called physics departments. They get to brag that they are not Newtonians because they also believe in General Relativity. Even General Relativity is a Newtonian theory. General Relativty is a Newtonian theory that physicists use to speculate about space, time and spacetime and cosmos in the unreacheable past and future and inherently unmeasurable and unobservable. When they need to compute actual orbits they revert to Newtonian mechanics. What they call Newtonian mechanics is Kepler’s rule branded as Newton’s laws.

All these prove that physics is a religious and political brotherhood who owns brands such as space, time, spacetime, Newtonian mechanics, General Relativity. This Newtonian monopoly on human reason has had devastating effects on our understanding of nature. We are bound by physicists’ Newtonian doctrines leftover from the 18th century. Physicists still study a celestial mechanics last designed by Lagrange or Laplace. The celestial mechanics used by NASA is different.

So if as an independent researcher trying to investigate concepts owned by physics we have no luck. Physicists built a \$6 billion machine to verify once again their Newtonian doctrine that of atomic materialism. It doesn’t even occur to them that matter and force do not exist. They are Newton’s religious inventions. Physics experiments have been telling physicists as such. Experiments are telling, are yelling, at physicists, “MATTER DOES NOT EXIST!” What do physicists do? You would expect that they would hear nature’s cries and say maybe nature knows better, let us ask “Does matter exist?” Let’s design an experiment to test if matter exists?”

No. Instead, physicists do the same thing they did with force. They keep the established Newtonian dogma at whatever cost, and invent a notion of “matterless matter.” They won’t drop the concept of matter. Physicists will define instead a new type of matter: Matterless matter.

So if you are an independent researcher investigating matter what would you do?

# Computation of Lagrange point L1 by using Kepler’s Rule only – 2

I’ve been looking at the standard Newtonian computation and I noticed that they start by introducing Newtonian ideological terms such as force F, the unit of force G, and mass of the satellite msc but they eliminate all these terms, when it comes time to actually compute. The final operational expression they use in the computations does not contain any Newtonian terms:

$\frac{1}{(r-R)^3}- \frac{y}{R^2(r-R)}= \frac{1}{r^3}$

This expression does have a ratio of masses as y=M/m, the ratio of the masses M of the Sun and m of the Earth, but this is not the Newtonian dynamical “mass” which is supposed to be the source of force that powers the orbit.

They simply call the unit in Kepler’s Rule “mass”. This goes back to Newton, of course, who defined the constant term in Kepler’s Rule as “mass.”

I call the same term “density constant” in Kepler’s Rule, because it is the defining characteristic of a density continuum. This is the term we keep constant to compute other values in the same continuum. In the case of the Sun and the Earth, we know the distance and Earth’s period and if we want to compute the density in L1 point we write Kepler’s Rule like this:

$\frac{R_0^3}{T_0^2}=\frac{R_L^3}{T_L^2}$

Similarly, we can write Kepler’s Rule for the Earth and the Moon and we can write density at L1:

$\frac{r_0^3}{t_0^2}=\frac{r_L^3}{t_L^2}$

From these I cannot compute the distance to L1, but I can compute the ratio

$\frac{R_L}{r_L} \equiv \frac{\textup{Sun-L1 distance}}{\textup{Earth-L1 distance}}$

First solve for periods at L1:

$\\T_L^2 = \frac{T_0^2}{R_0^3}\: R_L^3\\ \\ \\ t_L^2 = \frac{t_0^2}{r_0^3}\: r_L^3$

Take their ratio

$\frac{T_L^2}{t_L^2}=\frac{T_0^2}{R_0^3}\: R_L^3\: \frac{r_0^3}{t_0^2}\: \frac{1}{r_0^3}$

Since at L1 TL = tL, and grouping constant terms

$\frac{R_0^3}{T_0^2} \: \frac{t_0^2}{r_0^3}= \frac{R_L^3}{r_L^3}$

$\frac{R_0^3}{T_0^2}=1$

so,

$\sqrt[3]{\frac{t_0^2}{r_0^3}}=\frac{R_L}{r_L} = \frac{\textup{Sun-L1 distance}}{\textup{Earth-L1 distance}} = 0.01447$

The conventional value is

$\textup{Conventional value}=\frac{\textup{Sun-L1 distance}}{\textup{Earth-L1 distance}} = 0.01014$

The difference is 0.00434.

* * *

I also compute Earth-L1 distance by using Newtonian ratio of masses and Keplerian ratio of masses, and I get the same result.

$\\y_{Newtonian} = \frac{M}{m} = 3.00245\times 10^{-6} \\ \\y_{Keplerian}= \frac{M}{m}= \frac{T_0^2}{R_0^3}\: \frac{r_0^3}{t_0^2}=3.03386\times 10^{-6}$

* * *

By using Newtonian and Keplerian values of y, I compute

$\frac{\textup{Earth-L1 distance}}{AU}=\frac{R}{r}$

The operational expression used in the computations

$\frac{1}{(r-R)^3}- \frac{y}{R^2(r-R)}= \frac{1}{r^3}$

reduces,  with the introduction of the new variable z = R/r, to

$\frac{1}{(1-z)^3}-\frac{y}{z^2(1-z)}=1$

After approximations the same equation reduces to

$3z^3 \approx y$

And taking cube root of each side

$z \approx \sqrt[3]{\frac{y}{3}} \approx \frac{R}{r}$

(For details see the original computations in NASA page.)

I then compute Earth-L1 distance by using the standard value of yNewtonian and yKeplerian, the difference is only about 5,000 kilometers.

$\\L1_{\textup{Newtonian}} = 1,496,408\: \textup{km}\\ \\ L1_{\textup{Keplerian}} = 1,506,607\: \textup{km}\\$

* * *

I conclude that Lagrange points are a natural consequence of density continuum. No Newtonian ideological terms such as Newtonian occult force F and Newtonian dynamical mass as the source of force and the supposedly universal unit of force G that does not even enter the computations are needed to explain Lagrange points.

* * *

Related:

# Physics defines our perception of nature

Do you agree with this statement?

Physics defines our perception of nature

Or more generally,

Physics defines our perception

If it is true that physics defines our perception, it follows that

1. our perception is learned, not innate
2. there is no one true perception
3. there is no true nature

therefore,

nature appears to us the way we define it or, nature is an illusion

Who teaches us how to perceive nature?

We learn to perceive nature as material; materialism is the doctrine of physics.

Who teaches us this doctrine of materialism? First our parents then our teachers when we are sent to school.

School teachers indoctrinate students with Newtonian materialism.

School teaches us that Isaac Newton discovered the true laws of the true nature and the true nature is  made of matter and obeys Newton’s laws. In short, school teaches us that

nature = matter

and matter is set into motion by an occult force discovered by Newton.

School teaches us the Newtonian doctrine of atomic materialism as the unquestionable true description of nature; we learn that nature is material and forceful and obeys Newton’s laws. Teachers do not tell us that this is just one of the infinite number of possible world views.

The occult doctrines of this British Doctor of Philosophy (a scholastic Learned Doctor) who died over 300 years ago still define our perception of nature not because it describes the true nature (which does not exist) but because Newton’s disciples who nowadays call themselves physicists perpetuate Newton’s doctrine of atomic materialism as the true nature.

Do you see anything wrong with this picture?

# Occult force in physics

An occult force would simply be something that refuses explanation. You will see a lot of this in homeopathy where the catch-cry is often “we don’t know how it works, it just does. Stop asking questions.”

This is exactly what physicists say about Newtonian gravity.

Physicists say Newtonian mechanics works therefore shut up have faith and stop questioning Newton’s sacred authority. This is how physicists reason. They accept Newton’s authority without asking questions.

I say this is wrong. Why? Physics is defined as the science that denies the explanation of natural phenomena with supernatural. If you compromise this fundamental rule of physics, no matter how small, you are no longer doing physics, you are practicing shamanism. Unlike physicists, I am not bound by Newton’s authority and I question Newton’s authority.

Newton’s force is an occult quality invented by Newton. Newton claimed that by using this occult quality he correctly computed orbits. But occult does not exist, therefore, Newton is lying. Simple as that.

It takes courage to defend the axiom of physics against Newton’s sacred authority. No physicists can dare question Newton’s authority and hope to remain a practicing physicist.

All you have to do is to uphold the axiom of physics (occult is supernatural) over Newton’s authority (supernatural is natural). Then you’ll know that Newton could not and did not use an occult force in his computations.

Your reasoning is the official physics party line and it goes like this:

Newton’s authority cannot be questioned, if Newton says he computed by using an occult force, then, Newton is right, we can only admit that Newton used an occult force to compute orbits correctly but we don’t know how this occult force works. We cannot question any further than what Newton told us.

This type of scholastic argument by authority is not surprising to me because physicists are the modern continuation of the academic scholasticism. They are direct professional descendents of scholastic doctors who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope.

How did Newton compute orbits if not by using force? Now you know the answer. Newton did not use occult force in his computations because force is occult and it does not exist.

# Is paradox a physical quantity?

Newtonian mechanics is defined as:

Absolutely irresistible occult force meets absolutely immovable absurd matter.

The result is:

Physics: the great chain of the absurd.

If you try to explain nature with supernatural and occult forces acting between infinitely hard and absolutely indivisible particles that does not exist in nature you would end up with the absurd theories of modern physics.

# Orbits are not forceful

How could Newton compute orbits with this occult quality he called force?

Nature is not occult.

But the occult has always been a part of scholasticism in the form of occult causes and dormitive virtues the doctors of philosophy used to explain their doctrines. Scientific tradition that started with Galileo discredited these scholastic occult causes and we no longer accept the occult as a motion causing agent.

If we believe as scientists that occult does not exist in nature we must conclude that Newton could not have used the occult force in his operational formulas to compute orbits.

If we look at Newton’s computations we see that indeed there are no force terms in his computations. Newton used a sophisticated deceit weaved around Kepler’s Rule to establish himself as the new master of European Scholastic tradition.

There are no force terms in operational formulas used to compute orbits. This proves that orbits are not physical, forceful or matterful but geometric and densytic.

# Mathematical proof that physicists are priests of the Cult of Newton

This is the equivalence of densytics and physics:

$\left \{ \frac{R_{0}^{3}}{T_{0}^{2}} = \frac{R^3}{T^2} \right \}\equiv \left \{F =\frac{GMm}{R^2}=ma=F \right \}$

Physics is densytics with Newtonian branding.

The equivalence of densytics and physics proves that physics is the Cult of Newton.

Why?

Only priests of the Cult of Newton would write a term on both sides of a mathematical expression to save Newton’s authority. A term written on both sides of a mathematical expression is not a part of that expression.

So, the expression

$F =\frac{GMm}{R^2}=ma=F$

does not contain the terms m and F.

Physicists write m and F on both sides of a mathematical expression to save Newton’s sacred authority and to assert their sacred dogma of atomic materialism. Atomic materialism is the revealed dogma of physics and it is a hidden assumption, in other words, atomic materialism is the faith of the Cult of Newton.

* * *

The symbol F in the above expression is a placeholder for the Newtonian ideological word “Force” and has no mathematical or quantitative existence because it is on both sides of the expression. I can replace F with any value without changing the expression. Let’s choose

$S = \textrm{Newton's Soul}$

and the expression becomes

$S =\frac{GMm}{R^2}=ma=S$

With this improvement “Newtonian mechanics” will work exactly as before because

$\left \{ S =\frac{GMm}{R^2}=ma=S\right \} \equiv\left \{ F =\frac{GMm}{R^2}=ma=F\right \}$

The only difference is that now M and m and all other “matter” in the universe will be set in motion by Newton’s Soul instead of Newton’s Force.

Of course, only the priests of the Cult of Newton believe that “matter” is set in motion by Newton’s Force or Newton’s Soul because neither S nor F enter into any operational formulas; they are written on both sides of the expression, they cancel, they don’t exist.

* * *

This is my homage to a true scientist, Christiaan Huygens, who correctly identified that Newton intended Newton’s Force to be Newton’s Soul that permeated the universe.

* * *

If I want to I can define

$P = \textrm{Newton's Wig Powder}$

and the expression will be

$P =\frac{GMm}{R^2}=ma=P$

and the entire world will be set in motion by Newton’s Wig Powder.

As a bonus, the physical quantity “Newton’s Wig Powder” nicely unifies Newtonian Mechanics and General Relativity and now physicists can publish papers investigating “dust solutions” of General Relativity by defining the physical pun

$\textrm{Powder} = \textrm{Dust}$

* * *

The possibilities are infinite and I suggest that the Priests of the Cult of Newton should publish many papers proving how the world is so Newtonian that it is set in motion by any term they plug into Newton’s great equation. Just make sure that your term has the word “Newton” in it; otherwise these great physical equations will not work.

* * *

Only priests of the Cult of Newton would make fools of themselves by writing the same ideological and decorative term on both sides of  a mathematical expression in order to save the sacred authority of their prophet Newton.