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 branded with Newtonian ideology.

Both densytics and Newtonian branded version of it describes orbits equally well; one would choose Newtonian version only if one is a priest of the cult of Newton. For some occult reason, priests of the cult of Newton call themselves “physicists”.

Kepler’s rule is the definition of density.

I learned this from Newton who had encoded it as Definition 1 in the Principia as a secret message to posterity.

From this realization I postulated the density continuum defined by Kepler’s rule as

$\frac{R_0^3}{T_0^2}=\frac{R^3}{T^2}$

I like the density continuum because starting from Kepler’s rule instead of deriving it from Newtonian ideology eliminates Newtonian

• force
• mass
• gravity
• attraction
• linear inertia
• forceful orbits

and the dogma of atomic materialism Newton assumed to make his force work. In short when we assume that Kepler’s rule is fundamental and start from density continuum every ideological label invented by Newton in order to hide the fact that he was using Kepler’s rule to make astronomical computations are eliminated and we end up with a simplified picture of the world.

Density continuum eliminates the superflous terminology Newton invented in order to design a System of the World branded as Newtonian. We don’t need them.

Density continuum saves and explains astronomy and physics as well as the consistent system of units called Newtonian mechanics.

Computations are greatly simplified and density continuum (density mechanics?) saves every phenomenon as well as Newtonian mechanics full of superfluous terms such as force that physicists write first and eliminate on the next line to recover Kepler’s rule.

This is not surprising at all when we understand what Newtonian mechanics is.

What is Newtonian mechanics?

Newtonian mechanics is a consistent system of units and labels that use Kepler’s rule as its engine.

Newtonian mechanics is what today physicists call phenomenology. In earlier times this was called “saving the phenomena.”

Newtonian mechanics is a consistent system of units and labels developed to save the phenomena.

Just like any mechanics or phenomenology Newtonian mechanics contains as many free parameters as it is necessary to save the phenomena.

Newtonian mechanics differ from other mechanics in its treatment of mathematical objects. In Newtonian mechanics all mathematical objects, such as units and coefficients, are labeled with ideological names to make the framework look Newtonian.

Newtonian mechanics also contains as many ideological and decorative labels that do not have mathematical or physical referents. They exist purely to save Newton’s authority. For example, the force.

How come?

Ideological and decorative labels and terms exist because they are written to save the ideology and then cancelled by ritualized mathematical sophistry such as writing the same term on both sides of an equation.

This is why this mechanics is called “Newtonian” mechanics.

Newtonian mechanics is like the Ptolemaic mechanics. Both save the phenomena with an open ended mathematical framework. Open ended because new phenomena can always be saved by adding new terms.

The difference with these two mechanics is that Ptolemaic mechanics is purely geometrical while Newtonian mechanics is based on a rule. This rule is Kepler’s rule. Newtonian mechanics use Kepler’s rule to save phenomena but claims to have used Newton’s universal gravitation.

Therefore, Newtonian mechanics is scientific fraud.

So, let’s start from the Principia.

In the Principia Newton did something that was never done before in astronomy. Newton used what he claimed to be the law of the universe to compute astronomical quantities. It’s difficult for us to imagine what this meant to Newton’s contemporaries.

Imagine you are an astronomer in Newton’s time. In order to predict the motions of a planet you must build tables. You take whatever observations you can find and list them as a table. Then you use mathematical methods to extrapolate the missing data between rows in your table.

You have no idea why planets move the way they do because you don’t have a rule that explains the motions modeled by your table.

Enter Newton.

Newton claims to have discovered the underlying law of the universe. He calls this universal law the force of gravity or the universal gravity and he says he can prove it.

He offers his book known as Principia as evidence. He starts with definitions, then states laws of motion then states mathematical looking theorems, supposedly proves them and then lists astronomical phenomena and finally in the third book he claims to compute astronomical quantities by using universal gravitation that he discovered.

If this were anything more than propaganda it would have been a truly great achievement: A scholastic doctor of philosophy practicing in Cambridge, England, discovers the true law of the universe by divine revelation and proves it by making astronomical computations such as computing the surface gravity of Jupiter.

Yet, Newton never discovered any new quantity in nature by revelation or otherwise. Newton discovered Kepler’s rule.

Newton’s astronomical computations looked magical to his contemporaries. To them computing the surface gravity of a planet by purely mathematical methods was nothing short of magic. The whole world was impressed and Newton managed to convert all Aristotelian scholastic doctors to his own school he called Natural philosophy.

As Newtonian school spread to Europe and then to the world as natural philosophy Newtonism became synonymous with science.

In fact Newtonism should have been synonymous with marketing.

But, Newton, no matter how good he was in self-promotion, could not have deified himself successfully if his astronomical calculations did not work.

Newton succeeded in replacing the Cartesian system with his own because astronomers could not make predictions with vortices but they could with the Newtonian system.

Newton’s marketing genius manifested itself in the way he branded Kepler’s rule as Newton’s universal gravitation.

Before he learned about Kepler’s rule Newton could not make astronomical predictions. Newton wrote his treatise on motion in Latin and set it aside for two decades because it was as useless to make astronomical predictions as the Cartesian model.

Then Newton learned about Kepler’s rule in an astronomy textbook.

You and I or any mortal lacking Newton’s marketing genius would have used Kepler’s rule as is, as an astronomical rule, to make planetary computations.

Not the marketing genius closest to Gods.

Newton copied Thomas Streete’s computations with Kepler’s rule from Astronomia Carolina into his Principia but he cleverly obscured the fact that he was using nothing but Kepler’s rule in his computations.

In order to brand Kepler’s rule as Newton’s universal gravitation Newton invented new labels and branded parts of Kepler’s rule with his own labels. Typical marketing technique used by all packagers of consumer goods.

This is great marketing. Newton branded Kepler’s rule as Newton’s universal gravity by defining its parts as force and mass. He then designed the Newtonian System of the World to conform to and confirm his universal gravity.

But Newton did not design or develop the Newtonian mechanics. Newton did not know what is called the Newtonian mechanics today.

Newton used Kepler’s rule in its proportional form, not in its equational form written with named units of physics. Newton did not use equations or named or standard units.

In Principia Newton’s astronomical computations amount to algebraic transformations of  the proportionality

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

that Newton first saw in Astronomia Carolina. Newton writes

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

as

$\frac{1}{R^2}&space;=&space;\frac{R}{T^2}$

and then as

$\frac{1}{R^2}&space;=&space;\textrm{Force}\&space;\&space;\&space;\textrm{and}\&space;\&space;\&space;\frac{R}{T^2}&space;=&space;\textrm{Force}$

and combines what he split and recovers Kepler’s rule. But as you can see here Newton’s method is cumbersome. He doesn’t have standard units and equations that can be used over and over again as canonical algorithms.

So after Newton people like Laplace, Euler, Gauss and Lagrange and many many others wove a mechanics around Kepler’s rule and called it Newtonian mechanics.

It’s difficult to imagine today that Newtonian mechanics thought at schools was once the cutting edge of physics research and that the greatest mathematicians of their times worked on it.

Newtonian mechanics did not happen overnight, it took about two centuries to develop it to perfection.

So in Newtonian mechanics Kepler’s rule written as

$\frac{1}{R}&space;=&space;\frac{R^2}{T^2}$

is read as “potential energy equals kinetic energy,” the famous law of conservation of energy.

The designers and developers of the Newtonian mechanics gradually defined and established units and constants to use with Kepler’s rule and in about two centuries they transformed the humble but true proportionality

$\frac{1}{R^2}&space;=&space;\frac{R}{T^2}$

into

$\textrm{F}=\frac{GMm}{R^2}&space;=&space;ma&space;=&space;\textrm{F}$

Note how physicists write the same term on both sides as mathematical sophistry to save Newton’s authority.

Kepler’s rule written in equation form with Newtonian terminology is equivalent to Kepler’s rule written simply in its proportional form.

Comparing Kepler’s rule in proportional form

$\frac{1}{R^2}&space;=&space;\frac{R}{T^2}$

with its Newtonian equational form

$\textrm{F}=\frac{GMm}{R^2}&space;=&space;ma&space;=&space;\textrm{F}$

we see that Newtonian mechanics is nothing more than Kepler’s rule written in named units, named coefficients called constants all branded with ideological names to make Kepler’s rule Newton’s own.

What drives a race car is the engine under the hood not colorful advertisements painted on the hood.

True, a streamlined body makes the car go faster. And Newtonian mechanics is Kepler’s rule streamlined.

It’s still Kepler’s rule that computes astronomical quantities, not labels Newton attached on it.

Kepler’s rule is the only rule known to humanity that describes astronomical motion. There is no other rule.

You can brand Kepler’s rule as many ways as you want but you can never find a new rule.

I eliminated Newtonian branding and recovered the true rule.

Density continuum is Kepler’s rule without Newtonian paraphernalia.

* * *

Nature is operational not matterful.

Life is contractual not existential.

Therefore life is lovely not legal.

Thank you for visiting!

Write to me at: azeynel1@gmail.com

1. Daniel says:

This sounds to me similar to an argument for eliminating the 360 degree system in favor of using radians.
Maybe we should give Keplar credit and reexamine Newtonian physics for inherited bias, but in terms of functionality it seems more useful. And Newton didn’t necessarily plagiarize Keplar on purpose, if he did.

2. “This sounds to me similar to an argument for eliminating the 360 degree system in favor of using radians.”

What does your “this” refer to? Can you be more specific?

3. Daniel says:

While I don’t know enough about physics or its history to have an opinion about whether densytics is a valid alternative to Newtonian physics, I do think scientific adoption should be based upon relevance to praxis.

I’ve heard the argument before that we should eliminate the ’360 degree’ system of looking at circles because it is obviously a human invention, a sort of shorthand, and radians tell us something more truly about the nature of a circle. The reason degrees aren’t dropped in favor of radians is that they’re useful successfully for certain kinds of communication and calculation.
So I’m not saying that Keplar’s system is equivalent to the role of radians, since if your claims are true it hasn’t been fully researched, but I would say that it should be proven both to be more elegant AND more practical before it was adopted for general use, just as certain equations are more difficult to solve when you simplify them.

4. Daniel says:

*I will specify that I think densytics should be required to be more relevant than Newtonian because relevance to experimental data is the only real criteria we have for judging subatomic phenomena. If Newtonian physics is wrong, densytics might also be wrong to a lesser or greater degree, so why swap them unless it help us understand and manipulate the world better?

5. Hi Daniel:

While I don’t know enough about physics or its history to have an opinion about whether densytics is a valid alternative to Newtonian physics,

I don’t think it is. What is called Newtonian physics or Newtonian mechanics was developed over three centuries as a consistent system of units. Newton’s dynamical doctrines are not used in computations. Terms such as F and M in physics equations used to compute orbits are eliminated or enter only as branded units.

My claim is that the rule Newtonian physics uses to compute orbits is Kepler’s Rule with branded units of Newtonian physics. If we eliminate the units and labels we recover the original rule.

I do think scientific adoption should be based upon relevance to praxis.

If by praxis you mean practical applications like computation of orbits, both Newtonian mechanics and Kepler’s Rule applied in its original form compute orbits equally well. But there is another issue with this view of praxis as the standard of truth. Consider that orbits are best computed to highest precision with numerical integration without using any physics theory. Orbits can also be computed with trigonometric simulation or by using Kepler’s Rule. How do we decide which one is the true praxis? Physics teaches that Newtonian method is the only true method. Using your analogy, this would be like claiming that 360 degree unit system is the only true system to measure circles.

If Newtonian physics is wrong, densytics might also be wrong to a lesser or greater degree,

Descriptive titles such as “Newtonian physics” or “General Relativity” have no meaning to me. Because computations are not done with these titles. Computations are done with specific practical formulas. Physicists use a unit, such as G, that they labeled ideologically after Newton and claim to have proved Newtonian doctrines.

so why swap them unless it help us understand and manipulate the world better?

If we can compute orbits with Kepler’s Rule without using force and mass invented by Newton then I conclude that orbits are not forceful or dynamical. I don’t want to replace Newtonian mechanics which is used only in the academia, but free our perception of nature from Newtonian materialism.

6. Daniel says:

Ah! Now I think I understand a little better. Thanks for that explanation.
I’m still not convinced, but that’s mostly because I don’t have enough background to fully explore the implications.
I’m not a huge fan of Newton either. It seems his economic policies, while greatly enrichening the English monarch, may have inevitably lead us to this economically atrocious present we live in.

7. P Dorrell says:

Dear Densytics, your equations look a bit fuzzy. Have you considered MathJax?

8. They look fine to me. Can you send me a screen shot?

9. This is obviously your passion and studied it well by the look of it – that alone is impressive. Hook accused Newton of an ” illegal conversion” ( i use this term because i cant spell plagerism ) which was famous at the time. Newton once said I can see further because i stood on the shoulder of giants. Then Einstein used the same quote – which was then attributed to Einstein and Newton’s origination of it forgotten. Einstein himself said something like – In order to be seen to be original you have to hide your sources of information” Actually, i don’t know it it matters whether Newton did the same to Kepler as he ‘may’ have done to Hook. At the end of the day the community of mankind is enriched by it’s understanding of the physical world. Done by tiny steps of validated rules – an evolution of comprehension. Newton is long dead and his self marketing can serve him no benefit now. A man’s contribution I think is greater than the man who was the conduit for a Great Idea. The idea remains long after he has gone and who’s name is attached to is of only historic interest. You may well be correct and its an interesting idea.

10. “Daniel
September 18, 2012 at 2:32 am

“I’m not a huge fan of Newton either. It seems his economic policies, while greatly enrichening the English monarch, may have inevitably lead us to this economically atrocious present we live in”

Actually it was ‘William and Mary’ from Holland who imported the concept of capitalism. Like road speed cameras this is a Dutch invention! The English just good at exploiting the idea – in the same way as they exploited the Roman concept of Empire – which was historically fashionable.