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:

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:

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

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

First solve for periods at L1:

Take their ratio

Since at L1 TL = tL, and grouping constant terms

In our units


The conventional value is

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.

* * *

By using Newtonian and Keplerian values of y, I compute

The operational expression used in the computations

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

After approximations the same equation reduces to

And taking cube root of each side

(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.

* * *

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.

* * *


The Cult of Newton exposed

This is the equivalence of densytics and physics:

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

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:

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

and labels both sides “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

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

Quantity of Matter Density Volume
Mass (Frequency)2 Volume


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?

Answer 1:

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.

So, please adjust your world view accordingly.

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.

Why you did not know about this discovery up to now?

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?

Newton read about Kepler’s Rule in Thomas Streete’s textbook of astronomy.

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.