Browsing in Borders yesterday I saw this little book called Li: Dynamic Form in Nature1 by David Wade.

Li reflect the order and pattern in Nature … but it is not pattern thought of as something dead, like a mosaic: it is dynamic pattern as embodied in all things living, and in human relationships, and in the highest human values.2

This is a beautifully designed book that is a pleasure to read. Each Li is explained briefly and illustrated with nice black and white drawings.

Li can be seen as a manifestation of gestalt, the inherent pattern of things.

This relates Li to science since pattern recognition is the foundation of science. The best example of this is Kepler’s recognition of a pattern hidden in Tycho’s database.

Li are essentially dynamic formations, and as such can give the impression of a frozen moment, of a process caught at a particular instant of time, or, in a more abstract sense, of the principle of energy engaging with that of form.

Indeed looking at the pictures we see just that, some kind of flow interacting with form. Li is the history of this interaction. That’s why these patterns are so fascinating to look at.

What is the Li of physics? After trying a few forms I came up with the post-Newtonian3 Li of Physics.

As expected Newton’s authority is the power that flows through physics. The entire physics is either a reaction or an assent to Newton’s authority.4 What we know today as physics most resembles Brancha or branching patterns that I will write about in a future post.

It is not surprising that physics is shaped by Newton’s authority and his occult force. The agent of change in physics are the physicists and they are bound by Newton’s authority. Their job is to mold physics into Newton’s authority.

Newton’s force is the faith that holds physics together. Physicists’ irrational refusal to accept Kepler’s rule as is without force as the fundamental rule of orbits has turned physics into a complex structure based on labels and placeholders invented to cover up Newton’s original crime.

Newton called Kepler’s Rule Newton’s laws. Physicists continue to call Kepler’s Rule Newton’s Laws. This blind obedience to Newton’s authority forced physicists to invent three grotesque scholastic structures to explain a singularity that does not exist in Nature.

Physicists still refuse to accept that there is only one database and there is only one rule derived from that database.

The Li of physics shows the tragicomical history of post-Newtonian physics. This is what happens if human knowledge is controlled by professional doctors. Like all other professionals Doctors of philosophy too advance their careers by leveraging authority. Once we eliminate blind obedience to Newton’s authority and deny Newton’s occult soul as the final cause of everything we recover science.

It all starts with Tycho Brahe’s database for planetary positions.

    

Kepler discovers a pattern in this database that relates the radius and the period of orbits: R^3::T^2. This is Kepler’s Rule. Newton stumbles upon this rule in Thomas Streete’s Astronomia Carolina. Newton chops Kepler’s rule into two and writes it as F=1/R^2 and F=R/T^2 as if force were a new quantity he discovered. There is no such quantity in Nature. Such scholastic dormitive virtues and occult souls had been banished from science by Galileo and other rational researchers.

When Newton wanted to compute orbits he eliminated force and recovered what he had chopped into two. Newton used Kepler’s rule to compute planetary motions and claimed that he used Newton’s force. Physicists still perpetuate this scientific fraud.

Newton’s disciples discovered that they could make nice careers by re-branding each permutation of Kepler’s Rule with suggestive marketing labels. Lagrange, Laplace, Euler, Gauss, Hamilton and many others split Kepler’s Rule in finer and finer definitions and added new notation to them. This is how Kepler’s Rule written as R^2/T^2=1/R came to be known as energy conservation.

Einstein too made good use of Kepler’s Rule. Einstein started by questioning Newton’s occult force. Good start. But unfortunately as a physicist indoctrinated with the standard Newtonian doctrine Einstein failed to recognize that force is a placeholder invented by Newton. Force has no other meaning. It is a placeholder that must be cancelled when it comes time to compute.

Like all physicists Einstein believed that scholastic commentary Newton distributed in between his geometric looking theorems was part of Newton’s “rational mechanics.” So Einstein got into a posthumous discussion with Newton about absolute versus relative time, the oldest scholastic rumination in the book.

Instead of removing force as a placeholder Einstein accepted Newton’s definition of force as the fundamental cause in nature. Einstein accepted Newton’s argument that the mechanism of the force may be occult but force somehow worked, therefore, it must exist. Newton’s polemics fooled Einstein who honestly wanted to remove Newtonian occult from science.

It is not that force is occult and that it has an occult mechanism that needs to be fixed. No. Force does not exist. It does not exist because force is not used to compute orbits.

Instead of removing force as a placeholder Einstein listened to Newton and wanted to find a new mechanism that was not occult. The foundation upon which Einstein built his speculations is also Kepler’s Rule. This is so, because physicists call Kepler’s Rule Newton’s laws. Einstein took Kepler’s Rule (Newton’s laws) and added to it an ad hoc term to save Mercury’s anomaly. As usual for a physicist he wrote Kepler’s Rule as Newton’s Laws with standard Newtonian looking labels. When physicists say General Relativity reduces to Newtonian mechanics this is what they mean. It is all Kepler’s Rule written in different notation.

Once Newton’s force is recognized as what it really is, a mere placeholder that does not enter the effective formulas used to compute orbits, it can safely be eliminated. We don’t need to keep the force to save Newton’s authority. We don’t need to find a new non-occult mechanism. We just dump Newton’s branding placeholder.

Force does not enter into calculations. It does not matter how it propagates.

Physicists refuse to eliminate the force and they mistake F=1/R^2 to be a proportionality and see a singularity at R=0. Their unwillingness to give up Newton’s authority has made physicists the laughing stock of posterity. Rather than saying No to Newton’s authority physicists invented Quantum Mechanics and String Theory to save Newton’s authority. Both theories are grotesque scholastic polemics full of principles, absurdities and legalese all invented in the name of Newton.5 Once force is removed as a placeholder General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and String Theory will lose the reason for their existence and will become redundant.

Physicists still refuse to give up Newton’s authority and continue to add new links to their great chain of the absurd.

The Li of physics shows that physicists continually add new labels on chopped up parts of Kepler’s Rule and discuss these labels as if they were magnitudes. Physicists scholasticize with labels and compute with Kepler’s Rule.

The working part of all calculations is Kepler’s Rule. This cannot be otherwise: There is only one database and there is only one rule. Kepler discovered the rule. Newton re-branded the same rule. Newton did not discover anything new. Newton, and Newtonian physicists have been using Kepler’s Rule under their own branding labels.

Physicists cannot remove Newton’s force from physics. Newtonism is a school. A scholastic school is a corporation. All practitioners belonging to this corporation are accepted into the corporation with the condition that they will uphold Newton’s authority throughout their careers. There can be no exception to this rule. All physicists pledge allegiance to their founder before being accepted into the brotherhood. Only such religious priests worshipping Newton as a deity could create a unit of the occult and call it Newton to celebrate the Grand Master of their cult.

A video by echomedia – Li: The Patterns of Nature

  1. See also. []
  2. Joseph Needham, Science and Civilisation in China. []
  3. It is redundant to call physics “Post-Newtonian physics” because “physics” is short for “Newtonian physics.” []
  4. Compare with “all pre-Newtonian science is commentary on Aristotle.” []
  5. See this comment. These theories may or may not agree with observations. I am questioning the reason why they were created. []

11 Responses to “Li of Physics”  

  1. 1 Kea

    Both theories are grotesque scholastic polemics full of principles, absurdities and legalese all invented in the name of Newton.

    You cannot dismiss all of 20th century physics in this way, because it succeeds in correctly quantifying a wide range of phenomenon. Now, I happen to think you’re right that a lot of our present confusion arose from too little respect for Kepler, and that Einstein might have made further progress with Mach’s principle if he had thought more about Kepler and less about Newton, but all ideas have their time in the end, and I’m not sure that it helps to dismiss all post-Keplerian physics outright! After all, it is still a requirement of a more Keplerian Quantum Gravity that it recover both General Relativity and quantum physics, simply because these are established and well-tested theories, whether or not they are elegant.

  2. 2 Pioneer1

    You cannot dismiss all of 20th century physics in this way, because it succeeds in correctly quantifying a wide range of phenomenon.

    Thanks for the comment. Now that you highlighted it this sounds as if it needs some more justification. How come General Relativity and quantum mechanics can be dismissed as scholastic polemics while they are well-tested theories? Their only fault appears to be not being too elegant.

    I put a footnote to clarify. The point I would like to emphasize is not how well these theories agree with observations. They may or may not. An ephemeredes agrees with observations to extreme accuracy but it is simply a numerical integration of observations. There is nothing surprising or mysterious when observations agree with observations when they are integrated.

    In physics what is rule based theory and what is trigonometric simulation or integration of observations is not clear. Physicists do not have a good track record in their dealings with experiments, laws and theories. Coulomb’s three sloppy measurements entered physics as a law of nature. Physicists declared that Cavendish measured G while he was dead when G was invented. Physicists use engineering equations in experiments then associate them with the theory and claim they proved the theory. The urban legend that GPS will fail if General Relativistic corrections were not used is based on the authority of one physicists who bases his claim on the classified work he did for the government. This claim cannot be verified or refuted but physicists happily repeat it. The issue is a very complicated one.

    So, staying clear of this confusion in physics, I would say that the reason these theories exist is because physicists refuse to question Newton’s definition of force. If what Ed Witten writes here is true, Quantum Mechanics and String Theory were developed to explain away the singularity physicists thought existed at R=0 of F=1/R^2. Since the true proportionality is R^3=T^2 there is no singularity at R=0. From this point of view, there is no reason to invent the quantum mechanics or the string theory.

    If we deny Newton’s authority and accept Kepler’s Rule as is the singularity disappears.

    Thanks again.

  3. 3 John

    Here’s a film I made that is inspired by Li. This film is appearing at the Ann Arbor Film Festival on March 27th 2008 at 9:30pm in the historic Michigan Theater on East Liberty Street.

  4. 4 John

    Click on my name to link to a film I made that is inspired by Li. This film is appearing at the Ann Arbor Film Festival on March 27th 2008 at 9:30pm in the historic Michigan Theater on East Liberty Street.

  5. 5 Pioneer1

    John,

    Thanks for the link, very nice film. I added to the article.

  1. 1 Scholastic PageRank at Freedom of Science
  2. 2 Elixier E8 at Freedom of Science
  3. 3 A proposal to Mike Lazaridis’ Perimeter Institute at Freedom of Science
  4. 4 The roots of the physics hierarchy at Freedom of Science
  5. 5 An existence test for Newton’s force at Freedom of Science
  6. 6 Is Newtonian physics secretly Keplerian? at Freedom of Science





Close
Powered by ShareThis