Freedom of Science

Why is there a Newtonian Mechanics?¹ Mechanics is an old science that existed since the dawn of history. What happened in the 18th century that a new discipline called Newtonian Mechanics had to be created?

An answer may be found in the titles of mechanics books.

Up to Newton’s time, every Peripatetic Doctor was required to write a treatise called De Motu. De Motu was written as a commentary to Aristotelian Mechanics. Galileo realized that he was just writing yet another scholastic treatise on the Impetus theory and dumped his De Motu and moved on to his independent study of motion without scholastic labels.

Newton also composed his De Motu as part of his Doctoral duties. This was a standard De Motu and it wasn’t even worth publishing. Newton sat on it for two decades.

So, before Newton, scholastic doctors who studied motion wrote treatises they called On Motion. They used legal labels they culled from vast literature and composed a commentary and embellished it by adding some new stuff of their own.

What changed the status quo in scholastic mechanics was Newton’s discovery of Kepler’s Rule.

Once he learned about Kepler’s Rule, Newton started to codify mechanics by labeling permutations and parts of Kepler’s rule with his own labels.

Newton and Kepler’s Rule

Newton knew that with R3T2 he had a game changing rule in his hands. So, Newton did not dump his De Motu or composed another De Motu, he wrote a book called Principles (Newtonian is understood) to establish his doctrines about how the world must be perceived. Newton codified the old science of mechanics by stating it with his axioms, laws and rules. This is what scholasticism required. After codification, mechanics became teachable under Newton’s name and Newton’s school (Natural Philosophy) was established. Newton set the standards for mechanics that physicists still teach today.

Principia is Newton’s De Motu with the addition of Kepler’s Rule.

Principia = De Motu + R3T2

Or

Principia = De Motu + Newtonian definitions + R3T2

We do not need Newton’s mash up of definitions and axioms (Newton’s Laws) and his scholastic De Motu and his cosmogonic speculations about space and time to study and understand motion.

Since we know R3T2 we can derive the rest of physics (supposedly the study of change and motion) from it. There is no other rule that we know connecting radius and period of an orbit, so any study of motion must be based on Kepler’s Rule.

Only if we reject Newton’s authority and his laws we can go back to studying motion. Otherwise we will always end up fitting nature and motion into Newton’s laws.

Like mechanics, physics too, can be divided into two parts:

1. Physics based on R3T2
2. Physics not based on R3T2

Part of physics is based on R3T2 but it is presented with Newtonian labels and it is called Newtonian mechanics. We can free this part of physics from Newtonian occult and recover R3T2.

Rectification of Physics

Why not simplify physics by removing legacy elements such as spurious labels and occult concepts still carried forward from the 18th century to save Newton’s authority?

An example of the benefits of elimination of Newtonian labels is seen in the history of the concept of conservation of energy.

Conservation of Energy

Once we eliminate Newton’s legacy we see that conservation of energy is nothing other than Kepler’s Rule written as R^2/T^2 = 1/R.

Note that it took physicists about a century of negotiations among themselves to label this permutation of Kepler’s Rule as “Conservation of Energy.” Physicists have been staring at Kepler’s Rule but could not see that it was Conservation of Energy. Or, more likely, they knew that Kepler’s Rule was a statement of conservation of energy, but in order to save Newton’s authority they had to invent a new label.

“The tragicomical history of thermodynamics” is a proof of how Newton’s sacred authority has been impeding scientific progress.

Once we eliminate Newton’s authority our perception of the world will change. This is what happened when Aristotelian Mechanics had been recognized as Authoritarian Mechanics. We once again ended up with an Authoritarian Mechanics, this time, under Newton’s brand.

1. This article was inspired by Kea’s comment. [↩]

ShareThis