Why is it not possible to open source a scientific project?

In the programming community, someone designs a new language and lots of people contribute to it. Most popular computer languages such as Python and Clojure are open source.

I’ve sketched the fundamentals of a new science I call densytics and I wish that people would work with it and contribute to its development.

I call it science because densytics has a unit of study (density) and a rule (Kepler’s Rule). Densytics is physics without Newtonian branding.

People can contribute by adapting standard physics calculations using only Kepler’s Rule without using Newtonian units or Newtonian ideological branding such as “Newton’s constant of universal gravity”.

I computed Lagrange point L1 by using Kepler’s Rule only. And there is a “tutorial” about how to use proportionality instead of equations to compute orbits. Newton worked strictly with proportions.

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:

The Cult of Newton exposed

This is the equivalence of densytics and physics:

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

Cancelling Newtonian ideological terms F and m, expanding the placeholder a and rearranging we get

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

But GM is a single term! GM is one of the masterpieces of scholastic sophistry that doctors of philosophy doing business as physicists have ever invented.

In astronomy G and M are never observed alone. Neither G nor M exist in nature. G is merely a symbol that physicists added to the definition of the occult force to make the units to conform to existing physics.

* * *

Physicists always insert a mass term M in any physics equation to assert their atomic materialist faith and then they either cancel the mass term by writing it on both sides or as in the case of M, they hide it by mathematical sophistry.

To hide M as a quantity, physicists fused it with G. What a perfect solution! Now, M is visible in the equation as a letter but it has no value as a quantity; M is merely an ideological term proving to the world that physics is the cult of Newton.

* * *

Who would include such a ghost term as M with no value to uphold the sacred authority of the prophet of their cult? Only priests of the Cult of Newton!

* * *

So, GM is the label physicists attached to the unit term in Kepler’s Rule in order to brand it as the unit of the Cult of Newton:

$\frac{R_{0}^{3}}{T_{0}^{2}} = GM$

This is how physicists branded Kepler’s Rule in order to hijack it for their Cult. They named a measurable quantity which is a ratio of two geometric quantities, radius R and period T, with the logo of their Cult.

Only priests of a cult would define an occult quality that does not exist in nature as the unit of their cult and name a constant for it after their prophet Newton as “Newton’s Universal Constant of Gravitation”. To hide their fraud these priests of the Cult of Newton then fused the symbol of their faith M with the logo of their cult to form a new artifact of their cult, GM. This way physicists corrupted not only physics but astronomy as well with their atomic materialist faith.

* * *

What is important to note is that Newton knew what he was doing. Newton indeed made the historical discovery that Kepler’s Rule was the definition of density. Newton knew that nature is not matterful but densytic.

To establish an academic cult Newton hid his discovery from his disciples the physicists and told them to believe in the faith of atomic materialism that god revealed to Newton. And physicists who disdain history and know nothing about history still blindly repeat Newton’s orders as total fools and keep finding supernatural and absolutely indivisible particles in ever expensive machines that they build to pray to their prophet Newton.

* * *

It does not bother these charlatans who call themselves physicists that all absolutely indivisible “fundamental building blocks of nature” that they have found so far turned out to be absolutely indivisible only until they build their next generation of colliders. Then the same physicists who marketed those absolutely indivisible fundamental building blocks take all the credit for breaking up those once absolutely indivisible particles.

Let’s free the old science of physics from the grips of these charlatans and priests of the Cult of Newton.

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.

* * *

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.

# # #

Kepler’s Rule is the definition of density

Newton defined density as

Quantity of matter is a measure of matter that arises from its density and volume jointly.

(Definition 1, Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, 1687, Isaac Newton; referred to hereinafter as the “Book”.)

Newton’s definition of density is a statement of Kepler’s Rule which is written in its fundamental (proportional) form, as

$\frac{R_{0}^{3}}{T_{0}^{2}}=\frac{R^{3}}{T^{2}}$

which is equivalent to “Quantity of matter is density times volume” (by “density” Newton means “square of frequency”):

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

This is a discovery of historic proportions that forces us to question the Newtonian occult world view which defines nature as

• atomic
• material
• forceful.

Why did Newton chose to hide his greatest discovery as a secret code and did not reveal it to the world?

Probably because this discovery is at odds with Newton’s religious beliefs as expressed in Newton’s Zeroth Law that

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

(Isaac Newton, Optics, 1704, Book III, page: 375)

Newton’s realization that  Kepler’s Rule is the definition of density refutes the dynamic system of the world Newton defined in his Book. This dynamic and occult Newtonian world view based on Newton’s Zeroth Law has become the standard and generally accepted and allegedly self-evident official world view of humanity.

Now, we see that Newton’s own true discovery refutes the system of the world Newton defined in his Book.

To understand why, let’s start by writing some undisputed facts:

Undisputed fact 1:

Kepler’s Rule describes orbits with only 2 terms, R and T. R is the radius of the orbit and T is the period of the orbit.

Undisputed fact 2:

By undisputed fact 1, orbits are not forceful, but geometric; no force term is needed or used to compute orbits.

Observation 1:

Newton claimed that the world is atomic, material and forceful because he allegedly computed orbits by using force and mass. Now we know that Newton used only Kepler’s Rule to compute orbits. He did not use force to compute orbits.

Question 1:

Is the world Newtonian, i.e., atomic, material and forceful as Newton claimed?

No. If, following Newton as example, we base our definition of the world on the calculation of orbits; we must conclude that the world is not atomic, material and forceful. We must conclude that

the fundamental unit of nature is not matter but density.

The world is matterless as proved by Kepler’s Rule. The system of the world defined by Newton is no longer supported by any observational or experimental evidence.

And it was Newton who discovered that we are living in a matterless world! I find this ironic and amazing.

A discovery of historic proportions

Why you should care?

Because this is a discovery of historic proportions.

Who discovered it?

Isaac Newton discovered it.

What is the discovery?

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

You never heard about this discovery because Newton hid it as a secret code in definition 1 of his Principia.

Who discovered Kepler’s Rule?

Johannes Kepler discovered Kepler’s Rule by studying Tycho Brahe’s tables for Mars.

Why didn’t Kepler tell anyone that the rule he discovered was the definition of density?

Kepler did not realize that what he discovered was fundamental and it was the definition of density.

How did Newton learn about Kepler’s Rule?

Why did Newton hide Kepler’s Rule in his definition 1?

Kepler’s Rule describes a geometric world; this contradicted the world god revealed to Newton (as Newton claimed) which was not geometric but occult, forceful and matterful.

What did I discover?

I discovered that Newton hid Kepler’s Rule in his Principia and branded Kepler’s Rule as Newton’s Laws; I reverse engineered 300 years of scholastic commentary written by Newton’s disciples on Kepler’s Rule to hide the fundamental nature of Kepler’s Rule and I recovered Kepler’s Rule.

Why is this important?

This discovery solves many riddles that physicists are still trying to solve because they will not give up their faith in Newtonian atomic materialism. A simple example: It took physicists about 200 years to formulate what they call the “conservation of energy” so that they could say it without offending their Newtonian faith. Conservation of energy is Kepler’s Rule.

When will post-Newtonian world view be accepted?

This is truly a new science; there is still so much to be discovered. All you have to do is to ignore Newtonist branding of Kepler’s Rule and take Kepler’s Rule as the fundamental rule of nature.

Why do you still ignore this historic discovery?

Because you are looking for authority, not for evidence. There is enough evidence here for you to get excited about this historic discovery; but there is no authority. If a physics professor writes a press release with this material and sends it to the New York Times and the New York Times publishes it as news citing other physicists for and against, you would be the first to get excited about this new discovery. Otherwise, with the lack of authority, you ignore. You have been educated to defer to the authority of the professional; instead of thinking for yourself. There is nothing I can do about this.

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.

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:

$R^{3} \propto T^{2}$

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:

$\frac{R_{0}^{3}}{T_{0}^{2}}=\frac{R^{3}}{T^{2}}$

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

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

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:

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

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?

The New Revolution: A Scopes Trial Against Newtonism

I am planning to stage a Scopes-type trial against Newtonism which is taught in public schools in the United States as science under the name of “physics”.

The goal of the trial is to

1. expose Newtonism as a British cult that impersonates science;
2. remove Newtonism from the curriculum.

The first order of business is to find a trial lawyer who would take an interest in this case. (Or alternatively, to find supporters who would fund the project, including hiring a lawyer.)

This lawyer will

– translate the claim that Newtonism is a cult into the legal language understood by the US legal system;

– help choose the venue, the plaintiff and the defendant;

– help develop the marketing strategy;

– file the case with the court and see it through.

***

The following are my own thoughts as a layman about how such a trial may progress and why as an individual we must all take part in questioning Newtonism as a patriotic duty to our nation.

***

I have no experience with jury trials but I believe that in the US-type jury trials, the judge presiding over the case is responsible to apply the law and the jury is responsible to find the facts and discharge a decision.

I assume that in a case like this where the plaintiff claims that the defendent has been indoctrinating US pupils with unverified and unverifiable occult doctrines of a British cult; the judge will ask the parties to call expert witnesses to present their case to the jury.

***

The plaintiff claims that the fundamental doctrine of what is taught as physics in public schools is based on the religious doctrines of a British cult whose founder was a British subject called Isaac Newton.

The defendent rejects the plaintiff’s representation of physics as a British cult and conflates technology, engineering and practical astronomy with occult foundations of physics and claims that all of science is nothing but physics and the defendent is justified to teach physics as science in the United States. The defendent insists that the teachers of physics are licensed by the state to teach physics and no laws are broken by teaching physics.

***

I am not sure where the burden of proof lies in this case; but it appears that the plaintiff has the burden of proof and must prove that Newtonism doing business as physics is a British cult that crossed the Atlantic somehow and infected the scientific institutions of the new nation from the beginning. The Founding Fathers denied the authority of the tax-imposing British King; but they were fooled into accepting The System of the World of the British King of the Occult as the true science of the nation they formed.

***

In any case, it is obvious that the defendent will call an eminent professor of physics practicing in a brand-name “prestigious” university famous for its football team so that such a high-learning center will be recognizable to the jury as the cradle of science in the United States.

To the jury, the famous professor in the witness stand will appear to be the personification of science in the United States. In reality, such universities are the academic breeding grounds of Newtonism; universities endow the cult of Newtonism with its academic authority. There is perfect synergy between Big Education, Big Physics, Big Media, Big Finance and Big Government; they are the conspiracy against the little man.

***

Calling a professor of physics to defend physics in a trial against physics is like calling the Pope as an expert witness in the trial of Galileo. In fact, the proposed trial can be marketed as the “Revenge of Galileo”.

Would the judge allow such a biased witness to testify against the claim that physics is a cult?

Questions like this may best be answered by a trial lawyer (or tested by the actual trial).

***

And what kind of standard of evidence will the court enforce on the parties to prove their case?

Physics has no standard of evidence; in academic physics anything goes. Physics is an unregulated and corrupt-to-the-core professional industry where the practitioners have absolute authority over their professional legal code which they call –surprise! surprise!– “Newton’s Laws”.

Physicists can disprove any attack against their Newtonian doctrine by defining a new term and by inserting it into the existing legal physics equations. The physics equation which is sanctified by physicists as the only true representation of nature is in fact the most crooked timber in the collection of physical crooked timber called physics.

***

So, let’s get the trial going and let’s say Doctor A is a physicist called in to testify as an expert witness. Doctor A takes the stand and easily proves to the jury by using legal physics equations that Newton’s force is an experimentally proved fact of Nature; this is a well-known textbook fact, Doctor A says, and it is taught even in grade school (physicists are fond of circular reasoning). “Yes, Newtons force exists in nature” Doctor A testifies.

Next in the witness stand is another physicist, Doctor B, who has comparable rank and seniority and therefore the same level of academic authority as Doctor A. But Doctor B is hired by the plaintiff and has no difficulty proving by using equally legal and well-established physics equations that Newton’s force does not exist in nature; Newton’s force has long been superseeded by spacetime, Doctor B proves; or quantum gravity; or graviton or something or other; or all of the above. Doctor B testifies for the record that “No, Newton’s force does not exist in nature.”

To settle the issue the court calls its own witness, Doctor of physics C, who is yet another authority in matters of physics and equally endowed with academic credentials as Doctors A and B. Doctor C proves to the jury with unequivally certain physics equations that “there are no forces in nature because according to the M-Theory [sic] nature is made of strings”. This opens the can of worms called the String Theory on which no two physicists are in agreement; there is even a faction within the string theory community proving mathematically that the string theory is a special case of Newton’s Laws!

***

The judge is getting impatient now and he calls the great Doctor D who is a professor emeritus of physics at the University of Chicago; if Doctor D is not (yet) a Nobel laureate, it is not for his lack of lobbying the Swedish Academy through his agent who handles the contracts for his popular physics books written for the laymen; Doctor D is a living legend in physics establishment and has academic credentials dwarfing the credentials of Doctors A, B and C combined.

The eminent Doctor D wastes no time to impress the jury by filling the chalkboard installed in the courthouse just for this historic moment with precise physical equations revealing what the Lord God was having for breakfast 3 minutes before the Big Bang (2 eggs, hard boiled, with bacon and toast and orange juice). The great Doctor D then computes the density of an egg before the Big Bang and how long it took to hard boil an egg before the Big Bang, all in the plain language that the jury could understand.

The jury is awed by Doctor D’s magical talent not only to read the mind of god but his revelation of God’s culinary habits as far back as before the Big Bang just by writing a couple of physical equations on a blackboard.

The plaintiff counsel observes the excitement Doctor D’s revelations caused on the jury and considers this to be the breaking point of the case against his client’s claim that physics is a shamanistic personality cult where practitioners achieve impossible feasts by just rearranging some symbols in an equation; so he immediately objects:

Objection your honor! Doctor D has his signs mixed up! According to the Kerr Spacetime metric that he is using to extrapolate to the Big Bang his cosmological constant lambda must have a negative sign in front of it, otherwise it will lead to the Big Crunch not to the Big Bang; I have Doctor D’s monumental textbook Introduction to General Relativity in front of me; and I can prove that he is wrong. I am looking at page 2895 paragraph 705(a)(i)(A)(x) and equation number 2,987,551 where Doctor D writes this exact same equation he just wrote on the blackboard but with a positive sign in front of it! He is confusing Big Bang with the Big Crunch.

The great Doctor of physics D, is used to such amateurish objections to his physical authority and calmly instructs the jury that he is using a “pseudo-Kerr spacetime, not a regular Kerr-spacetime” as the plaintiff counsel claims and that his paper revealing the correspondence of pseudo and regular Kerr spacetimes will appear in the next issue of Physical Review Letters D; so his results are correct.

Plaintiff counsel tries again: “Objection! He just made pseudo-Kerr stuff up!”

“Overruled”, says the judge, who has no intention of going into the subtleties of a theory that requires over 3 million equations to calculate… what? Not sure, but it is not worth meddling with a physics professor who has the authority to define on the spot any pseudo anything to counter your argument. If you argue the letter of the law the eminent prof will argue the spirit; if you argue the spirit he will argue the letter; and given his immense authority supported by his fame gained through his popular books making loads of money for the publisher, he will win any physical argument.

The jury is in a scientific (physical?) trance induced by the academic authority of Doctor D who brings first hand news to the jury from the Bing Bang and their Lord God; the jury starts to applaud Doctor D’s great achievement; the judge is not amused and orders the jury to show no outside sign of emotion favoring one side or the other.

***

The physical authority of Doctor D and the magic of his physical equations succeeds in swaying the jury to a decision in favor of the defendant.

***

But the veteran judge who is presidening over our trial is used to the courthouse showmanship performed by trial lawyers more colorful than Doctor D and he is not fooled by Doctor D’s performance to demonstrate the authority of physics over the Lord God. On the contrary, the judge now realizes that the doctors of physics who came to his court as expert witnesses make it clear that physicists are expert in one thing and one thing only:

Physicists are experts in corrupting the ancient science of physics to save the authority of their master Newton.

The judge is fed up with these professional enemies of science and decides to enforce new rules of standard of evidence to be obeyed by everyone who takes the stand in his court.

After all, what kind of standard of evidence exists in physics that allows the revelation of what our Lord God was eating before he created the Big Bang that modern physicists discovered by reading the mind of God? Nil. There exists no such standard of evidence; in physics anything goes.

***

Would an academic physicist accept the authority of a legal court in matters of legal physics? Would a judge have the courage to impose legal standards of evidence on corrupt physicists who believe that they are the judge and the jury when it comes to matters of physics?

These are the questions that this case is aiming to test.

***

I realize that teaching Newtonism as true science is a well-established habit of society; social habits are very difficult to change; in this case it may take over a decade to expose Newtonism as a British cult colonizing US minds.

Consider your own immediate reaction when you read the claim that Newtonism is a British cult designed to colonize the minds of US citizens.

You instinctively thought

What nonsense! If Newtonism were wrong satellites would fall to earth; chaos would reign in the solar system; the cosmos as we know it would cease to exist; academic physics would collapse under its own weight as Peripatetic philosphy did; observations prove that Newton is nature and nature is physical therefore how can physics be wrong? This guy is wasting his time taking Newtonism to court; it is impossible to prove Newtonism wrong; Newton’s authority is infinite; Newton is the mortal closest to gods etc., etc.

***

But when you cool down, and reconsider your reaction as described in the above paragraph you will see that your reaction is not based on any scientific evidence that you systematically evaluated by using your own reasoning powers; no! you are just channelling the authority of Newtonian priests who indoctrinated you with the doctrine that Newton is a British demi-god who discovered the laws of nature in an orchard.

When you first heard the apple myth as applied to Newton, you were in grade school and you assumed that since it was such a well-known myth that explained both the ultimate human sin and the ultimate human discovery it must be correct; at the time you did not have the intellectual capacity to question the Newtonian cult and its myths; but now you can and you must question the doctrines of the Newtonian cult.

***

You might for instance start by questioning Newton’s Zeroth Law:

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

then you may concede that you did not read and understand Newton’s original writings; you did not study the original writings of Newton’s famous disciples such as Cavendish, Lagrange, Laplace, Gauss, Hamilton and many others who successfully branded Kepler’s Rule as Newtonian mechanics over the course of two centuries after Newton founded his cult.

But worst, you may have taken a few physics course during your university adventure and still failed to figure out that the teachers who teach physics are Newtonian priests; this is how stealth Newtonian cult is at this point.

***

You can offer no evidence for your defense of Newtonism except the authority of Newtonian priests who wrote all the books that you may have read to form your opinion of the Newtonian cult.

If you take the time to study some fundamental physics experiments you will see that the same most respected Newtonian priests have been faking experiments to prove that Newton’s occult force exists in nature (occult force does not exist in nature); and faking physics equations to prove that orbits obey Newton’s laws (orbits do not obey Newton’s laws).

***

There is nothing new about the realization that the state teaches you and everyone else sanctified conventions as the only truth. Newtonism is one of many such sanctified conventions taught by the state.

The state knows nothing about Newtonism. The state outsources academic knowledge to the Doctors of Philosophy, also known as physicists, and they teach the cult of Newtonism as true science.

***

This is the standard method used by the state to teach citizens its own legal values. The state indoctrinates its citizens with its official doctrines presented to the citizens as the only truth. We all know this.

Another example of sanctified convention taught by the state as the only truth is the base-10 number system. The state teaches the base-10 number system as if it were the only true number system. Think about the moment when you realized that other number systems such as binary and hexadecimal systems were equally valid number systems and none of them were privileged or sacred.

Why was it that when the state taught you the base-10 system it was not made clear to you that base-10 system was just one of infinitely many number systems possible? The reason is that the state, more specifically its agents, the teachers, do not want you to know that there alternatives to what they are teaching and then question their authority.

The state, and its agents the physicists, do not want you think for yourself and find out that Newtonism is a cult.

Were you excited to learn that there were non-Euclidean geometries? Why was it that teachers taught Euclidean geometry as the true geometry for thousands of years?

***

The realization that Newtonism is a sanctified unit system served to you as the only true “system of the world” is the same kind of wonderful realization that will open up new intellecutal horizons for you.

***

We must expose and get rid of this last remnant of the British colonialism in the United States.

###

Notes for the curious:

• Physical semantics: Physicists corrupted the good word “physical” to map any natural word into physics. The result is that whenever we use the word “physical” we are proving Newtonism as the only truth.
• Five ideological physics experiments physicists corrupted to save their Master Newton’s sacred authority. It is a disgrace to call these polemics with a gadget “experiments.”