Freedom of Science

From Wikipedia:
Kepler’s laws challenged Aristotelian and Ptolemaic astronomy and physics.
Maybe. But that’s not our problem anymore. Newton replaced Aristotle long time ago as the head of the scholastic corporation. Our challenge and duty as scientists is to question the doctrine of a forceful Newtonian nature to be the legal and true doctrine of nature.
Related posts:

Aristotle/Newton
Scholastic […]

To me F=ma is an absurd statement which is equal to

Here’s the derivation: F is the Newtonian force. By definition the Newtonian force acts instantaneously from a distance. Therefore, for the Newtonian force all distances are zero. As far as F is concerned radius R of any orbit is zero because F traverses any […]

In their derivation of orbital motion physicists write down the mass m of the orbiting satellite and later cancel it and they conclude correctly that the orbit is not dependent on m, as stated on this NASA page:
There is an important concept evident in all three equations – the period, speed and the acceleration [i.e. […]

The ignorance or willing negligence of data types allows physicists to write absurd statements such as

Physicists are very proud of the logo of the House of Newton but what does it mean to multiply two masses?
It is

absurd

physical

Type Newton
In the multiplication

both M and m are type Newton. Yesterday we saw that little m, […]

This is adapted from comments:
If someone turned off gravity right now, then all currently orbiting planets would just fly out at tangents.
Interesting point. In pre-Newtonian times people proved the truth of astrology by the same type of circular reasoning. The believers said that astrology is true because if it weren’t the astrological influx between […]

A commenter yesterday wrote regarding Max Tegmark’s mathematical universe that
maybe our universe is a mathematical object . . . but can we understand this object? Can we solve the equations? I seriously doubt it, we are already having troubles with Navier-Stokes, let alone Dirac coupled with Maxwell, and even with classical mechanics. I rest my […]

In computer science the code is evaluated by the computer.1 Therefore, professionals have zero authority over the interpretation of the code. The computer does not care who wrote the code and there is no interpretation based on the rank or authority of the author of the code.
In mathematics code is evaluated by mathematicians themselves2 and […]

Physics is fundamentally wrong because physicists use the authority of mathematics as evidence to judge their theories. But mathematics will do as ordered by the axiom. Whatever the axiom is mathematics will conform to it.
Axioms are arbitrary definitions made by physicists. There can be any number of contradictory axioms and mathematics will conform to them all. This was understood long time ago when people realized […]

Physicist appears to refer to someone who studies nature. Because Doctors of Philosophy named nature physics and themselves physicists. When you use the word physicist you are referring whether you want it or not to a scientist who studies nature. A physicist does not study nature. A physicist is in the business of defining languages […]

Here Doug comments that Newton was a “mathematician and mechanical engineer.” I asked what justification he had for calling Newton an engineer but he did not reply. The only engineering genius manifested by Newton has been his declaration that his Proposition 34 in Book 2 “will be of some use for the construction of ships.”
As […]