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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First solve for periods at L1:

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

Take their ratio

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

Since at L1 TL = tL, and grouping constant terms

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

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

so,

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

The conventional value is

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

The difference is 0.00434.

* * *

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

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

* * *

By using Newtonian and Keplerian values of y, I compute

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

The operational expression used in the computations

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

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

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

After approximations the same equation reduces to

$3z^3 \approx y$

And taking cube root of each side

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

* * *

Related:

# Physics defines our perception of nature

Do you agree with this statement?

Physics defines our perception of nature

Or more generally,

Physics defines our perception

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

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

therefore,

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

Who teaches us how to perceive nature?

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

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

School teachers indoctrinate students with Newtonian materialism.

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

nature = matter

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

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

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

Do you see anything wrong with this picture?

# Occult force in physics

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

This is exactly what physicists say about Newtonian gravity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

# Is paradox a physical quantity?

Newtonian mechanics is defined as:

Absolutely irresistible occult force meets absolutely immovable absurd matter.

The result is:

Physics: the great chain of the absurd.

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

# Orbits are not forceful

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

Nature is not occult.

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

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

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

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

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

This is the equivalence of densytics and physics:

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

Physics is densytics with Newtonian branding.

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

Why?

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

So, the expression

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

does not contain the terms m and F.

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

* * *

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

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

and the expression becomes

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

* * *

If I want to I can define

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

and the expression will be

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

* * *

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

# Open letter to Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley

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

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

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

* * *

Dear Ms. Attorney General Martha Coakley:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You must act now:

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

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

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

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

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

# 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.

# An open letter to the French people

Dear friends:

Let me start by asking you a question:

Is France an intellectual colony of Britain?

No! Of course not. France is proud of her intellectual independence; France has the best educational system in the world; and French people like to think for themselves. France an intellectual colony of Britain? No way.

My answer is different than yours and I hope that you will give me the chance to explain.

***

My thesis is this:

As long as France teaches her pupils the Newtonian doctrines as true science; France will remain an intellectual colony of Britain.

To explains this thesis, let’s go back to the 18th century, just before Newtonism reached Continental Europe. Let’s observe that today Newtonism is the official state religion of practically all countries in the world, including France, but before Newtonism took over, it was the French-speaking scientists of the continental Europe who defined the scientific world view. Newton was a great admirer of Descartes so much so that he stole Descartes’ First Law of Motion and renamed it “Newton’s First Law of Motion”.

***

History is written by the victors; so Newtonians corrupted history of science to define Newton as the perfect scientist and Newtonian doctrines as the true science.

In truth, when the Newtonian doctrines reached the continent, French scientists and other continental scientists writing in French (which was the language of science along with Latin) rejected the Newtonian doctrines of occult force and animistic matter.

Why?

These continental researchers correctly identified Newton’s doctrines of occult forces and intelligent and animistic matter (now called “mass”) as the reincarnation of the old scholastic “hidden virtues”.

This is very important; let’s repeat:

True scientists, such as Clairaut, Huygens, Leibniz, d’Alembert [and others] rejected Newtonian force and mass as scholastic hidden virtues.

Huygens went even further and with great insight perceived that Newton meant his “force” to be “Newton’s Soul” which permeated the universe. Huygens clearly saw that the British cult of Newtonism was aiming to reestablish the rule of scholasticism in Europe.

But even though the continental scientists resisted Newtonism for over a century, they finally gave in and accepted Newtonism.

Why?

The reason why the continental scientists had to accept Newtonism was because Newton claimed to have computed astronomical quantities with his new dynamical system using force and mass.

If so, what is the problem?

If Newton computed astronomical quantities successfully by using his doctrines; then you may think that his doctrines must be correct. For instance, according to the Newtonian myth, Newton and Halley computed the return of the Halley’s comet by using Newton’s dynamical doctrines. . . correct? No. When you look at Newton’s original calculations in the Principia, you will see that Newton uses purely geometrical methods to predict the orbit of the comet.

***

Newton successfully fooled the greatest minds of his time into believing that he was using his own dynamical methods to compute orbits and astronomical quantities while he was using only geometrical methods.

***

How can we explain this Newtonian fraud, proved by Newton’s own writings, to the general public without getting too technical?

***

My goal is to ask the French government to establish an independent committee of experts to investigate the truth of what my research has revealed. This committee should include scientists, historians and lawyers but not fanatic Newtonian physicists.

***

But for now, let’s state without explaining that Newton did all his astronomical computations by using what I call “Kepler’s Rule”. This rule was discovered by Kepler and was appropriated by Newton and later by Newton’s disciples who now write it with Newtonian units to make it look like a Newtonian law. Kepler’s Rule is a geometric rule and explains orbits without Newtonian force and mass.

***

Please bear with me. I know that if you are not a specialist in the history of science or in physics, you may start losing interest in the subject when I start writing about the fine points of how Newton may have computed orbits; but this is a “political” issue of great national interest to the French people (in fact to the entire humanity) so please continue reading.

***

I wrote extensively about how Newton used Kepler’s Rule to compute astronomical quantities in this blog; if you are interested you can read them here; but for now I want to ask you to ignore the details and just go along with the story. In fact, I am asking your help and support so that I can collect all the evidence I have so far on this topic to show definitively how Newton fooled the world into believing his occult force and materialist faith.

***

What is important to understand is that French scientists mentioned above were right:

Newton was trying to reintroduce occult forces and hidden qualities to science in order to colonize and dominate European science with British standards.

***

British are the undisputed masters of colonization:

the British colonization is nothing more than the imposition of British standards on a non-British people.

You know how “political” colonization works; now understand how “intellectual” colonization works: the British have been colonizing your mind through the British cult of Newtonism presented to you as the true British standard of science.

A world view is also a standard. Newton, with the aid of the British institutions, was able to establish a British religious cult as standard of science in Europe.

As long as France teaches Newtonism as the true science; France will remain a British colony; whoever controls your mind becomes your master.

French speaking scientists of the 18th century lost their fight against Newtonism; the British won and they have been colonizing the mind of humanity with the Newtonian cult ever since.

***

Newton’s force is an occult hidden soul and it does not exist in nature. Now we know that Newton did not use force to compute orbits; he used Kepler’s Rule.

But Newton’s crime against science was not to compute orbits with a geometrical rule and then to claim to have computed orbits with his so-called laws.

No.

Newton indeed made a discovery of historical importance but he encoded this discovery as a hidden message in his Principia.

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

And this discovery leads to the post-Newtonian world without matter.

***

As a French citizen you have a duty to protect your heritage from British and American corruption. Of all nations, France is the most protective of her own culture. You protect your cinema against Hollywood; but you accept with open arms an American/British religious cult and teach it to your children as the true science!

Why?

Protect your heritage and clear the reputation of the French scientists of the 18th century who tried their best to defend the colonization of science by the British.

***

I am asking you to start questioning your irrational belief in the British cult of Newtonism. I am offering enough evidence here for you to question Newtonian doctrines that were taught to you as absolute truths. All I am asking you is to believe that French-speaking scientists of the 18th century were correct and that Newtonian force and mass are occult scholastic hidden qualities and do not exist in nature.

I understand that it is difficult for you to question Newtonian doctrines of force and mass because Newtonism was taught to you when you were a child as the only true representation of nature. You were indoctrinated to see nature as material and forceful; atomic materialism is the British religion believed by Newton and still believed as their faith by Newton’s disciples who call themselves “physicists”.

***

You are taught to perceive nature as material and Newtonian. Over the centuries the Newtonian faithful corrupted your language by defining the words “Nature” and “Newton” and “Physics” as synonyms so that when you say “physical” the word implies a material and Newtonian world.

***

You may be skeptical about what you have been reading here because you believe that I do not have academic credentials to project to you enough authority in this matter; you may think that I do not have enough authority to claim that we are not living in a materialist and Newtonian world but in a matterless world.

To convince you that nature is matterless may I mention a venerable French scientist called D’Espagnat? You may have heard of him, he believes that matter does not exist and we are living in a matterless world. He arrives at this conclusion through his studies of Quantum Mechanics; I believe that my argument is stronger and more fundamental but what matters is that we arrive at the same conclusion and he has more authority for you to respect the idea that nature is matterless.

Newton’s contemporary Leibniz also denied that nature was material and believed in the matterless world. Even some British thinkers such as Bishop Berkeley denied the materialist view of Newton. D’Alembert also questioned materialism.

There is a strong scientific tradition in France to reject the British materialism.

But as I said, history is written by the victors and in this case the British and the Newtonians were the victors and they deified Newton and established his materialist cult as true science. And this British cult infiltrated the education system in France (and around the world) and started to impersonate science.

***

Free thinking and questioning dogmas imposed on them by foreign forces are also strong traditions in France. It is time again to practice some scientific skepticism against this British cult of Newtonism colonizing your mind for over 300 years.

***

Let’s go back to the scientists who refused the Newtonian occult as scholastic hidden virtues. They were right in their identification of the Newtonian doctrine as a cult trying to overtake the continental science just recently freed from scholasticism. But they should never have given up their faith in their belief that nature is not occult.

I never did. And now I am asking you to do the same: uphold the principle that nature is not occult.

This principle is so important that I call it the Scientific Principle:

Nature is not occult.

If nature is not occult and if Newton’s force is occult (and Newton’s force is occult by definition); then Newton could never have computed orbits by using his occult force.

***

If nature is not occult then Newtonian force could not be used to compute orbits. Now I know how Newton computed orbits by using Kepler’s Rule. Newton never used force in his computations of orbits

***

I am asking your support to expose Newtonism as a British religious cult. I am asking you only to start being skeptical about Newtonian atomic materialism as taught to you as the absolute truth.

The idea is very simple:

• Newton’s force is occult;
• Nature is not occult;
• Newton used only Kepler’s Rule to compute orbits;
• Newtonian atomic materialism is a religious cult; and
• Newtonism must not be taught in the classroom as the absolute scientific truth.

Take action and show your support by commenting here or writing to me in person.

***

Let France lead the war to free humanity from the British colonization of the mind!

Sincerely,

Zeynel

###

# 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.