Force: contact and occult
Published by admin April 12th, 2008 in Physics, Force, OccultWhen I use the word force I mean the occult1 action-at-a-distance force invented by Newton. The table below lists the two kinds of forces:
| Mechanics | Occultics |
|---|---|
| Fcontact = mweight a | Foccult = moccult a |
| Contact force | Action-at-a-distance Occult force |
| Interactions by contact | Interactions by occult between intelligent mass |
| Force and weight are relevant | Force and mass are decorative and cancel |
Like most concepts in physics F=ma too is a pun. In this case it is a pun between the old force of mechanics Fcontact and Newton’s occult force Foccult
Fcontact has existed long before Newton. It’s the weights and pulleys force of the science of mechanics. Fcontact is a contact force. Newton overlaid his occult force on top of the contact force and exploited the resulting pun.
Foccult does not enter astronomical computations and it is not needed in the weights and pulleys mechanics. In mechanics the strings connect the weights or weights collide and there is no need to assume an occult relationship between objects. Interactions happen on contact. It’s the Newtonian occult force that I’m questioning. Not the force of classical mechanics.
It maybe said that, as suggested here, F=ma is really a pun between
F=ma = Fcontact and F=GMm/RR = Foccult
and therefore
Fcontact = Foccult
No. Because there is no force. If a term cancels it cancels. You cannot cancel a term unless it is a meaningless placeholder. All definitions of force in physics may be puns and placeholder but it’s not true that
Fcontact = Foccult.
You cannot replace the contact force with the occult force. If you could do that you must include astrology in physics. The assumed occult influx between celestial bodies and humans is the basis of astrology. You cannot replace the occult influx of astrology with observed contact force and launder the occult into a physical quantity. This is what Newton has done, he’s laundered his dirty occult concepts by associating them with the contact force of mechanics.
Newton’s rebranding of the old science of mechanics as Newtonian mechanics with the addition of his occult force is obvious. Newton’s branding of Kepler’s rule is not as obvious but Newton used the same methods of clever definitions presented as laws of nature to brand Kepler’s rule as well.
In fact, Newton took Jeremiah Horrock’s trigonometric Lunar theory and branded it as Newton’s dynamical lunar theory and published it under his own name. Newton took Christiaan Huygens and Christopher Wren’s theory of collisions and branded it as Newton’s laws.2
The list of stolen items found in Newton’s possession is a little too long to give Newton the benefit of the doubt anymore. It’s not relevant that Newton stole someone else’s work. That’s an academic issue. What is relevant is that Newton’s efforts to cover up his intellectual thievery resulted in an occult world that we are still forced to live in.
- Newtonian force is occult on two accounts: 1. By assumption. Force is defined as action-at-a-distance. 2. By theory. Force is written and then cancelled. So the formulas are independent of force. But even though force does not exist in formulas physicists nevertheless claim that it governs the orbits. Something nonexisting governing orbits as decreed by the authority of the physicists is occult. [↩]
- Newton organized a competition as head of the Royal Society with the subject of elastic collisions and when unsuspecting Huygens and Wren contributed original research Newton stole it and rebranded it Newton’s laws. [↩]