Science is legal physics
Published by admin March 31st, 2008 in Physics, Doctors of Philosophy, Alphysics, ForceAs professional bureaucrats physicists believe that science is some sacred rule that they must obey. They even go further and protect this sacred rule of their profession against “bad science.” In physics lingo bad science refers to the territory outside of legal physics. What is not legal physics is illegal therefore it is not science, according to physicists.1
One such physicist took the time to read this blog and wrote an article full of good ideas that is worth discussing. I thank him for this effort. I would like to hear from other physicists as well.
Physics and alchemy
This physicist starts by noting that I attempt . . . “to discredit physics by equating it . . . with alchemy.”
I think that academic physics is stuck in a pre-scientific state and it remains well below alchemy in the scientific scale. For instance, Paracelsus, according to this site, “generalized chemical reactions instead of considering every process as an individual treatment.”
This is good science.
Newton did something similar. He generalized causes.
Now, that’s bad science.
Newton said that all phenomena have one and only one cause: Newton’s Soul. Newton’s disciples the physicists must believe as their professional faith that everything is caused by Newton’s Soul. The way religion unified multitude of pagan gods under monotheism, Newton’s disciples unified natural phenomena under monocausism. Alchemy was more experimental science than academic physics based on the affirmation of the occult will ever be.
Force: Right? Wrong? Or legal?
Now I am a physicist and I’d be the first to tell you Newton’s laws are wrong.
I don’t know how to argue against this kind of physics sophistry. But I noticed by reading the rest of his article that he is using “Newton’s laws” and “force” as a pun. He is using wrong as a pun as well.
So the statement “Newton’s laws are wrong” when uttered by a physicist can have an infinity of legal meanings. This is typical scholastic sophistry. Scientific method, on the other hand, requires questioning of force:
Does force exist?
This is the relevant question.
Force is neither right nor wrong. In physics force is legal; in nature force is occult.
All of the reasons this physicist offer to support the wrongness of force2 assume that force exists but that it has different properties in various scales and academic domains defined by physicists.
But he does not agree that force is occult and therefore it does not exist.
But they’re not wrong because Occult does not exist therefore Cavendish did not measure the Newtonian force. . . . This is especially vexing, since he says on the same page: If we look at the Newtonian force closer we see that force is not really occult.
There is nothing vexing or contradictory in saying that force does not even exist. I think the paragraph he cites explains it well: Force is a decorative label and it cancels out of effective formulas.
As usual physicists took a decorative label and reified it and gave it the status of a quantity. In this sense force is occult because force is a quantity which is not a quantity. To claim that a placeholder is a quantity is practicing occultism.
Force is faith
[Force] is a placeholder because it cancels. We cannot cancel radius R and Period T from R3 = T2. But if we write it as Newton did as Force = R/T^2 = 1/R^2 = Force we can cancel the superfluous terms of force. We can also write Newton’s soul = R/T^2 = 1/R^2 = Newton’s soul. Or Newton’s wig powder = R/T^2 = 1/R^2 = Newton’s wig powder. So planets may be powered equivalently by Newton’s force, Newton’s soul or Newton’s wig powder. The last two are as good as force. Well done for proving we can give a quantity a different name . . .
This physicist reads
Force = R/T^2 = 1/R^2 = Force
and thinks that I labeled the quantity force with another label when I replaced “force” with “wig powder.”
His implicit assumption is that force exists already in Kepler’s rule and it does not matter what you call it. For him it goes without saying that force is a quantity. This proves my point that as a physicist force is his faith. He cannot even perceive that force is not a quantity but a decorative label.
In general a physicist can be defined as someone who sees an F in RRR/TT.
Freedom of Science thinks that Newton’s Laws are just made up, and that the actual fundamental law at work here is Kepler’s Third Law, which he calls “Kepler’s Rule”.
Again he is punning Newton’s laws and force. Newton’s laws is not force. This method of arguing with puns is the fundamental way physicists prove their doctrines. Not surprising, since it is basically argument by authority.
Kepler’s rule is geometric
This is, you may remember, much the same idea that Mark McCutcheon utterly failed to defend when I emailed him.
As far as I can understand from glancing at this free chapter the author also believes that Kepler’s rule is geometric and not occult as physicists claim. I agree with that view.
Slightly occult
Force is a slightly redundant concept when discussing gravity . . .
Slightly redundant must be a concept just like slightly pregnant. Only in academic physics duality is a continuum.
But besides that here he is again using a pun to make a point. Force/gravity pun has been very useful to physicists ever since Newton wrote that he would use force and gravity interchangeably in his book. Newton’s disciples conveniently turned the force/gravity pair into a pun by pretending that they refer to two different quantities.
Physicist proves materialism
Presumably, therefore, he would be happy to play my game: he drops a 4g mass on my head from a height of one metre. Then, I drop a 2-tonne mass on his head from the same height. Then, assuming he survives, I give him £50. See how strong his faith in a massless universe is.
This is the oldest one in the book to prove Newtonian materialism. What does this physicist prove with this example besides his blind faith in the Newtonian label of mass?
He proves that there are different densities.
If you take the density of human body as the unit (this is standard since human body is 80 percent water) then in his example 1 ton “mass” will be a million times denser than his 1 g “mass.”
So you see how Newtonian propaganda works. Kepler’s rule is the definition of density. Newton appropriated Kepler’s rule and stated it as Definition 1 of his Principia and used the label mass as the Newtonian density. Newton’s disciples still repeat this Newtonian propaganda without questioning it.
This physicist too is just affirming that Newtonian atomic materialism is an immutable truth. He has it installed in his mind as “nature” during years of education.
Like all physicists he sees the world through Newtonian labels.
Constants are tools of branding
Essentially, he’s angry with Newton because he’s replaced k² with GM . . .
Newton did not replace K2 with GM. He did not know about K or G. Newton’s disciples developed Newtonism by branding Kepler’s rule by attaching to it Newtonian sounding labels.
. . . and arbitrarily defined another quantity as “force”.
There is no “quantity” defined as force. Force is a placeholder not a quantity. When physicists will finally understand that placeholders are not quantities then they will be taking a huge step toward becoming scientists.
Kepler unifies Newton divides
He seems to consider this a pointless (and indeed politically motivated, although what the politic in question might be is unclear) obfuscation of Kepler’s elegant theory, which indeed it is, as long as you never want to discuss anything but planetary motion. The moment you want to discuss apples, Kepler’s Laws, brilliant as they are, just don’t apply.
This physicist does not know that a falling apple is in orbit and its motion is explained by Kepler’s Rule. And Kepler’s rule is not an “elegant theory.” Kepler’s rule is a proportionality Kepler discovered in Tycho’s database of observations. Elegance has nothing to do with it.
Moses of Mechanics
One of Newton’s greatest achievements was thinking in terms of general theories . . .
Newton was a world builder. He designed the Newtonian world. Newton is the Moses of Mechanics. The divine genius Newton does not theorize. He reveals to us lowly humans the laws of the Universe.
Generations of humans have been indoctrinated with the Newtonian propaganda of atomic materialism. Today Newtonism is the official religion of humanity.
. . rather than having one theory for planets and a separate Theory of Apples.
Newtonian mechanics divides what is unified by Kepler’s rule. That’s why there is terrestrial mechanics applied to falling apples and then there is celestial mechanics applied to astronomy. But physicists keep repeating the official mythology that Newton’s laws united the two realms.
Summary
- This physicist, true to type, argues by enforcing his hidden assumptions as absolute truths.
- His hidden assumptions are Newtonian labels legalized in the legal code of physics. He does not even know that he is repeating Newtonian propaganda.
- His statements consists of puns that allow an infinity of interpretations. He then offers his own interpretation and enforces it as the absolute true interpretation certified by legal physics code.
- He denies that force is occult and does not exist. Like all physicists he is a practicing occultist.
- He deeply believes in the Newtonian atomic materialism by faith and denies the possibility of a world without mass.
I thank again this physicist for taking the time to read Freedom of Science. And I welcome your comments on these fundamental issues.
Of course there is: the product of mass and acceleration.
Feel free to argue that the quantity isn’t fundamental enough to be labelled, or isn’t directly physically manifest, but you can’t argue that “there is no “quantity” defined as force” because there palpably is: I just defined it for you.
We can name anything we want anything we want. The product of mass and change in velocity is named “impulse”. The fifth spatial derivative of position is named “crackle”. Perhaps I shall choose to name the produce of crackle and mass “Newton’s Wig Powder” in honour of your blog and its wingnut ideas. Something doesn’t have to literally exist in order for naming it to be useful. Naming “crackle” wasn’t very useful, and so nobody uses the name much. Lots of people use “impulse”, but I don’t think they consider that it’s a genuine thing that directly exists. It’s just a useful number with a name. I doubt anyone has a use for naming the product of mass and crackle, so Newton’s Wig Powder alas will probably not catch on as a name.
Generally, something is named if it can be directly measured (like speed or position), or if it’s conserved (like momentum, mass, or energy) or if it balances (like moments, impulse, or force). These latter two categories have a pleasing habit of turning out to be real, physically manifest things, although we’re some way off having a solid theory that proves it. Other things are named (like jerk and snap) which just come up a lot in their field — you give them a short name to save typing. It’s just good sense.
If I recall correctly, of which there is no guarantee, quantum theory predicts a virtual force carrier particle. If that’s true, then force actually is physically manifest.
Andrew, thanks for the comment.
You write:
We can name anything we want anything we want.
I agree. But the situation is more complicated than just naming things. Let me explain what I mean and see if you agree.
First, I say that a definition is a definition. A definition is a statement saying that we are creating a placeholder that we can use for some other symbol. When we define we create a new placeholder.
So let’s use different symbols for proportionality and definition.
Let’s say == is the symbol for definition and :: is the symbol for proportionality.
I claim that a definition is never a proportionality.
Do you agree with this claim?
I also claim that what is called an “equation” in physics (symbolized by the equality sign =) is a pun for definition and proportionality.
Equation = definition-proportionality pun
So in physics the equality sign is a pun for == and ::
Therefore, to me, F=ma is a definition where F is a placeholder that must be cancelled to recover the period T and radius R hidden in acceleration.
But for physicists F=ma is both a definition and a proportionality. To me this is absurd.
Let me know what you think. Thanks again for the comment.
More here.
I think you’re talking total nonsense.
First of all, I think you have no conception of what the word “proportionality” means, in a mathematical (or indeed, any other) context.
If there is a proportionality between two quantities, then they vary linearly with one another. For example, we can write
This is exactly the same as saying
If we say that force is DEFINED to be the product of mass and acceleration, which of course we are perfectly free to do…
…then it is by definition also true that
(since this is very much the whole point of defining it that way) and therefore
since
Therefore, your claim “that a definition is never a proportionality” is as wrong as it is possible to easily be. A definition is necessarily a proportionality.
If you choose to disagree with any of this then I’m afraid your beef is not with physics, or indeed with any aspect of science, alchemy, religion, occult or anything else that you have even a theoretically finite chance of finding the slightest shred of evidence for. This is nothing more uncertain or less fundamental than elementary mathematics. I’ve seen people argue with mathematics before, usually wittering on about how 0.9 recurring is the largest number less than 1 as if that made the slightest bit of sense. They always end up very, very angry and looking very, very foolish. Take my advice, save yourself the headache, and accept that just perhaps the combined intellect of everyone who has ever lived since ancient times is greater than your backwards crayon scratchings.
Okay. As far as I understand your F is not a label or a placeholder. It is a magnitude.
By a placeholder I mean a symbol which does not change when a quantity in the proportionality varies. So, if I have an ugly equation and I don’t want to carry all those terms I might say, “let’s call this ugly thing A” and from then on I would write A. This A is a placeholder for the original ugly expression that I did not want to carry. Do you agree?
A quantity on the other hand has magnitude and it varies as other magnitudes in the proportionality vary. So a placeholder is never a quantity.
I am saying that F is a placeholder. You are saying that F is a magnitude. Is this a good representation of what you are saying?
Now let me make a new definition so that K=ma. I just defined a new label K which is a placeholder for ma so that I can write F = K.
Do you think K is a placeholder or is it a magnitude?
To me K is a placeholder, it is not a quantity. It is a placeholder because we cannot use K to make computations.
We must eliminate it to recover ma and then, expand a to recover R and T. Nature does not recognize the placeholder K.
Do you agree with this or do you think K is a magnitude, not merely a placeholder for ma? Thanks again for your comments.
I think you’ve missed a fairly important part of maths class. For one thing, there is no such thing as a “placeholder” in maths. It’s not a word that has any meaning in that context.
Of course you can write K=ma. Let’s do that. Let’s call the product of mass and acceleration K. So if an object has a mass of 2kg and is accelerating at 4m/s/s, then K equals 8kgm/s/s (which we write as 8N, eight Newtons, to save writing kgm/s/s every time). Clearly, K does vary as the other values in the equation change, and since it’s a number, we clearly can do calculations with it. Of course, we can skip it completely, and write out all of the fundamental force equations with an ma term instead of F. It doesn’t change the result in the slightest. But if we define a quantity called force then we can write F=EQ, for example, to show how electric fields affect charged objects. We could write ma=EQ, but that’s only true if there are no other forces nearby. We’d have to write F=EQ mg … to incorporate every force we can think of, every time we wanted to do a calculation.
Far easier to sum the relevant forces.
Andrew thanks for the comment. You are saying that K does vary as other values in the equation change. This adds to my confusion. K=ma is then both an equation and a definition that labels ma K. Let me explain it this way:
Can Ms. ma and Mr. K ever meet? I say No. Because K does not exist, it is just the name of Ms. ma.
When I name something I don’t create a replica of it. I will write a post about this to ask help from other readers as well.
I’m decreasingly convinced that you are not an elaborate parody.
Andrew, your opinions and comments have been helpful, please feel free to comment any time.
Okay, try this.
I presume that your given name is not “Pioneer1″. That would be a very unusual kind of a name. But it wouldn’t make sense for me to say “Pioneer1 doesn’t exist.” That would be nothing more than an exercise in wishful thinking. Clearly you do exist, and I call you “Pioneer1″.
Presumably, you have at least one friend. Maybe you have as many as three. They probably do not call you “Pioneer1″. I imagine they call you by your given name, or perhaps by a nickname they chose for you, such as “Thickie”. For example.
You exist. Pioneer1 exists. Thickie exists. But they’re all names for the same entity: you. My point here is that it makes no sense to claim “F doesn’t exist because it’s just a name for m times a.” The reality of an object or concept isn’t affected in the least by what we choose to call it — a rose by any other name would still exist.
But it wouldn’t make sense for me to say “Pioneer1 doesn’t exist.”
I see your point.
This is a database question. If there is a number in cell A1, you can label that number “age” or “time elapsed since birth” but the number will not change. There is only one number in A1.
As far as the database is concerned there is one number. Labels do not count.
I am trying to find out if there is a simple test to test if F in F=ma is a label for ma or if it exists as a magnitude.
If the census guy comes to the House of Physics does he count F and ma as two different magnitudes? I say no.
But there needs to be some kind of test to apply to symbols used in physics to test if they are magnitudes or if they are labels.
When the census guy goes to your house, does he count you, Pioneer1 and Thickie as three different people? I presume not, unless he is very drunk and has three eyes. Of course F and ma aren’t “two different magnitudes”. Firstly because they’re vectors, and not magnitudes, but mostly because if they were different magnitudes, F would not equal ma. They are necessarily the same magnitude. (This is slightly misleading really, since strictly ma equals the sum of all forces acting on a body. That’s what F really represents, but we tend to just say “force” to save time.)
I’d like to know why you’ve chosen F as the victim in all of this. F is quite an important factor: objects have momentum, and forces act upon them. The rate of change of an object’s momentum is equal to the sum of all forces acting upon it. The total momentum of the universe is a fixed quantity (which we usually take to be zero) and therefore at any given moment the sum of all forces is zero, hence the famous “equal and opposite reaction”. m and a don’t come into it — and momentum is a surprisingly fundamental property of things, since even massless entities can have it. It’s not just a name for mass times speed. And force is much the same:
Force is a real thing, although it’s obviously not something you can see or touch or isolate. Mass is also a real thing, although that’s proving tricky to isolate too. You don’t have the Higgs boson, do you? We’ve been looking all over for it. Acceleration is the rate at which velocity varies, and velocity is fairly easy to see. Knowing the rate of change of an object’s momentum is usually not useful: we usually want to know where the object will end up, and because we know F=ma, we can work that out. The effect of a force is to cause an acceleration equal to that force divided by the mass of the object. That’s useful information (and in physics, we don’t care if a model is an accurate representation of why the universe works the way it does — that’s non-falsifiable and unscientific — as long as it makes accurate predictions, so questions about placeholders, magnitudes and labels, even if they made sense, wouldn’t be at all relevant or meaningful).
Look at s=vt: distance = speed times time. Clearly we both agree that distance, speed and time are real things. But equally clearly, “vt” isn’t a Different Thing from distance. miles/hour times hours clearly gives you a distance. No, what this equation tells you, rather than creating a ridiculous new entity called “Mrs. VT”, is how to work out s, v or t if you know the other two. It’s how you know how long a journey of 15 miles will take at 30mph. F=ma is the same: it tells you how to work out F given m and a, or how to work out a given m and F.
When discussing gravity, as Kepler was, F is not a very useful idea: the force of gravity is proportional to mass, so it’s easier to say a=g than F=ma,F=mg=>ma=mg. In this equation, as in the derivation of your beloved Kepler’s Third Law from Newton’s Laws, both F and m cancel out — but that doesn’t mean they’re not real. Hence the 2-tonne challenge.
(I choose to derive Kepler’s from Newton’s rather than vice versa because although Kepler’s results preceded Newton’s chronocolgically, they follow Newton’s logically.)
look, if i write “ma” on one leg and “K” on the other then it becomes obvious that if i raise one of those legs that “somebody” is pulling somebody’s leg
…
#:-{D
the enemies of god,
Thanks for the comment. Ok, let’s go from the pictorial to geometrical:
Do you agree that there is only one line and it’s called either F or ma?
Andrew, thanks for your comments. Here are my replies:
Firstly because they’re vectors, and not magnitudes
Okay. Let’s say they have magnitudes instead of they are magnitudes.
and in physics, we don’t care if a model is an accurate representation of why the universe works the way it does . . . as long as it makes accurate predictions . . .
Yes, physicists subscribe to instrumentalism.
There is an important corollary to instrumentalism. You can only predict a term that is included in the model you use to make predictions.
If a term F is not included in your model (computeds) then you cannot predict a quantity F. To me this is the fundamental tenet that separates science from pseudo-science.
As you said above, in physics the meaning of terms is not important because what is important is to repeat what is legal derivations and obtain a good prediction. But I am asking a different question than physicists.
First I have nothing to do with the universe or cosmos. I am not trying to understand how the universe works or why it works the way it does.
I am asking a specific question: Does force exist? Even more specifically: does force exist in effective models used in predictions? Or does it cancel?
I make the assumption that nature is not supernatural. This is my only principle. Supernatural is the occult. Force is occult. Therefore, force does not exist in nature. [see the occult mantra] So my reasoning is simple. If you don’t agree that force is occult, then fine, I would ask why? But if you agree that nature is not supernatural and force is supernatural then how do you explain using a supernatural concept in physics?
Look at s=vt: distance = speed times time. Clearly we both agree that distance, speed and time are real things.
I’m not sure what a “real thing” is. Instead of reality of things it may be more helpful to ask if speed is of the same type as distance and time. To me speed is different because it is either a ratio or more probably the name of a ratio. To measure speed you need to measure distance and time. Thanks for this example, though, I think it is analogous to force situation.
. . . both F and m cancel out . . .
The question is Do F and m exist in the model you say you use to make predictions? To me if they are not in the model they don’t exist in the that realm of predictions. Does the effective model contain F and m?
I choose to derive Kepler’s from Newton’s rather than vice versa because although Kepler’s results preceded Newton’s chronocolgically, they follow Newton’s logically.
Good point but we don’t derive Newton from Kepler because we don’t use Newton’s terms in computations.
But if I am reading it correctly, you are assuming force, because to me this is what “Kepler follows Newton logically” means.
If so, you are assuming a quantity that does not enter the effective formulas but you are writing down that fictional quantity anyway in order to eliminate it. Why? What’s the point?
To answer my own question, simply because this is how things are done since Newton’s time. Force is a professional habit. Nothing more.
Thanks again. Let me know what you think.
This is becoming apparent.
How is that not trying to understand how the universe works?
This explains a great deal.
You may not, but physicists and engineers do, and that’s why we have aeroplanes and computers. I don’t play the harp but I believe it exists.
That’s as maybe, but that’s not what it actually means. We tend to discover science backwards. We see the real-world effects of a law before we discover the underlying principle. We discover that stuff falls down, and only much later does Einstein tell us why. Newton’s Laws are more general than Kepler’s, and so they logically precede Kepler’s. Kepler’s laws are one specific case of Newton’s, which are very handy for predicting planet motion without doing all the calculus.
Even if that were true, it wouldn’t make the equations wrong. In fact, force repeatedly does enter the “effective formulae”. Just not the ones you’re used to. You can construct Newton’s Laws such that any term you like vanishes. I could say F=dp/dt (where p is momentum — don’t ask why), and I could construct a full model without a mass or acceleration term appearing. What’s special about force?
That’s not so much an assumption as it is the definition of the word “supernatural”.
Setting aside the alarmingly obvious question-begging, why should I listen to that when you say “I’m not sure what a “real thing” is.”?
Oh, certainly speed is just the name we give to the temporal derivative of position. But do you really consider that speed is “occult”? That speed could be replaced by Lewis Hamilton’s Wig Powder (since clearly he has no other use for it)? That speed “does not exist in nature”? Only it seems like cheetahs and gazelle have invested a lot in getting good at it without any Newtonian dogma at all.
That depends what you mean by “the effective model”.
Classical physics, to be written neatly, requires an F term. You can crush all the equations into one big, ugly one and cancel all the Fs, but that would just obfuscate matters. Quantum theory now suggests that force is a real thing transmitted by things called “virtual particles” that you needn’t concern yourself with, so trying to make all the equations uglier to eliminate it would seem to involve a lot of work for no purpose other than to make life more difficult for yourself and move further from reality (not that you’ll care about that).
In physics, the neatest equation has a pleasing (although untrustworthy) habit of being the correct one.
PS. If you’re busily composing a response about how “d” cancels from my force equation then now would be a good time to enrol in night classes.
This is becoming apparent.
Physicists look for deep philosophico/religious ultimates hidden in the fabric of something they call the universe. I am only questioning the astronomical notion of force.
How is that not trying to understand how the universe works?
See above. Again I am not interested in scholastic philosophical discussions physicists love so much about ultimate reality of things.
. . . physicists and engineers do, and that’s why we have aeroplanes and computers.
This is an old physics mythology. I refer you to this article.
Newton’s Laws are more general than Kepler’s . . .
Just to keep this on topic, I am not discussing Newton’s laws. I am questioning the Newtonian force. Newton’s laws and Newton’s force are not the same thing.
Kepler’s laws are one specific case of Newton’s, which are very handy for predicting planet motion without doing all the calculus.
Newton’s force is not used in astronomical calculations. Therefore, it is not an astronomical quantity. It’s a theoretical scholastic label physicists write/cancel to save Newton’s authority.
force repeatedly does enter the “effective formulae”. Just not the ones you’re used to.
Please give an example of an effective formula which contains a term F used in astronomy. By effective formula I mean the formula you actually use to compute an astronomical quantity.
I notice that you are refusing to accept that force is occult. Before discussing this further I want to make sure that you agree to two fundamental principles of science:
Principle 1: Nature is not supernatural
Principle 2: Observed minus computeds equals error
I use Principle 1 to prove that force does not exist. Do you agree?
Principle 2 is the fundamental principle of science. Observed is a database of observations and we use the computeds to model the database. The error is the knowledge. Do you agree to this scientific method? I am asking because academic physicists usually don’t. They are more interested in saving Newton’s authority than doing science.
In order for this method to work observed and computeds must have the same terms in them. But physicists are burdened with Newton’s authority as required by their profession. So they miraculously see terms, such as force, in the computeds while such terms are not visible to scientists.
Unless you agree to these basic scientific rules your discussion of the Newtonian force will be a repetition of legal physics. In fact, defending the legality of force has been your position. Writing force in calculus notation does not change the fact that force does not enter computeds.
Let me know specific examples where astronomers compute orbits using force and the same orbit cannot be computed without using force. I claim that force does not enter orbit calculations on my belief that force is occult and does not exist and on my study of Newton’s computations in the Principia. So I would appreciate practical examples contradicting this fact if you know any.
I want to verify your claim, which is a standard one, that Kepler’s rule is not good enough for N-body problems because we must use Newton’s laws to resolve N-body problems. This sounds ironic to me since N-body problem is not solvable by Newtonian force. In fact, physicists’ insistence on using the occult force to resolve an astronomical question is the reason the unsolved N-body problem exists in the first place.
. . . now would be a good time to enrol in night classes.
I don’t think more physics education will help me answer questions that I’ve been asking. My experience with physics education is that students are not allowed to question stuff they are taught. You’re there to cram and pass exams. True, no one is forbidding you to question, but the fact is that, if you start questioning physics you’ll soon left behind. There is no time. And physics career is based on your grades. Questioners will get bad grades and go nowhere. Good crammers and conformers will move forward and get the top funding to verify more deeply the Newtonian doctrine.
no, pioneer1, a physics career is not based on your grades, it’s based on your success in the practical application of theory, and your grades while you were in school are meant only to indicate your knowledge of what has been practiced successfully by those who came before you
and if you are wont to extend or replace old theory with new analytic structures, such as Newton did, your contribution will be judged by its utility; that is, by the tenets of scientific method which demand new theory accomodate observations that the old theory does not, and that your experimental results are replicable by independent others
every practical application of a theory is another experiment; the multitude of applications that have used Newton’s conception of force supports the use of force in analyzing the world, and not solely Kepler’s because Newton’s name for his analytic construct, “force”, allows us to do things we couldn’t do prior to its use
as for ideas being named, and derived ideas having names also, and as to how and why our various systems of symbols behave the way they do, i think you need to look at formal languages and universal algebra. you should start with Boole’s 1853 article. check the external links on the wiki page
after you finish with that you can re-apply yourself to the physics and make your response here
“secondly, as a law of thought it is actually developed in a law of language, the product and the instrument of thought”, Boole, An Investigation of the Laws of Thought (on which are founded the mathematical theories of logic and probabilities), 1853
No we dont, and what do you mean “something they call the universe”? Are you questioning the existence of everything?
Force is not an “astronimical notion”. It’s a physical quantity which is of little use to astronomers.
That article is a moronic attempt at proof by repetition.
Perhaps, but given that Newton’s laws define force, you can’t accept or reject one and not the other. They’re linked.
Agreed. But it is used in electrostatics and magnetism, and it can be introduced into gravitational calculations to aid calculations that involve electrostatics or magnetism as well. Besides, your single active brain cell isn’t involved in astronomical calculations, and nobody’s questioning that that exists.
Why astronomy? Unless you subscribe to the common 16th century view that the Earth has one set of rules and the heavens have another, that’s like saying “please provide an example of an episode of King of Queens that includes Gene Hackman. oh, no, no? Well, then, he doesn’t exist!”.
Well spotted. We’ll have you reading at a third grade level in no time.
No, computed minus truth equals error. Observation also contains error.
No, you use principle 1 and the implicit but false assumption that force is supernatural to conclude that.
…and you got it wrong.
That depends how I choose to parse your ambiguous and ungrammatical attempts at English. I think I can see where you’re coming from, though.
Well I can’t say I blame them. Most agree that the scientific method doesn’t include “computeds” because it’s not a word.
You can put what you want in the model if it gets the right result. Doesn’t make it wrong.
There are none, because force cancels out of gravitational equations. It does not cancel out of electrostatics or magnetics. Einstein showed long ago that gravity is not, strictly, a force in the sense that the other three are. But for all practical purposes, it may be treated as one in the equations.
I certainly never said that. That said, applying Euler’s method rather than differential calculus (which clever old Newton invented) gives a fantastically good approximation (until chaos theory, which we fully understand, takes over, anyway). The fact that the maths is difficult doesn’t make the theory wrong.
In any case, I’m not sure I accept that N-body can’t be solved. I’ve never read up on it and don’t for a second trust your judgement on what is and isn’t known.
No. I agree.
Start with basic English, then do some maths, and then perhaps work up to basic physics.
This is usually because they’re good at science and the “Newtonian doctrine” is basically right.
the enemies of god wrote:
a physics career is not based on your grades. . .
Can you name a physicist who failed his grades and then had a physics career? As far as I know you cannot have a physics career unless you graduate. Best funded schools select physicists with best grades, best grades get the most funding, this is how the system works.
and your grades while you were in school are meant only to indicate your knowledge of what has been practiced successfully by those who came before you . . .
My experience with physics education has been that your grades only indicate your skill of getting good grades in standard tests. Students have only one goal: to get the best grades with minimum of work.
your experimental results are replicable by independent others.
Your claim that in physics experimental results are replicated independently by others is not true. This is professional propaganda. Physics is full of unduplicated and unduplicable experiments. The experimental standards in physics are so low that an experiment such as the Coulomb’s experiment is accepted as an experiment and entered physics canon as the experimental verification of a physics law. In no other profession such a fraud would be tolerated.
Furthermore, physicist do not know what experimental precision is. They call Cavendish experiment one of the most precise experiments in physics. If you are familiar with torsion pendulums you will know that they are very delicate instruments. An experiment where a pendulum was left on your backyard for a year to make 17 measurements without calibrating the instrument cannot be called a precise experiment.
And what about the other most famous physics experiment (more properly astronomical observation) by Eddington who also left the instruments in the field for a year then cherry picked the observations to prove what his handlers ordered him to prove? Therefore, lying, cheating, fudging and using instruments to prove Newton’s authority is the standard experimental methods in physics.
Do you know any experiment conducted by academic physicists to measure Newtonian constant G that was ever duplicated by independent hostile parties as you say it is required by the scientific method? There is none. Of course, you are free to believe the physics propaganda that all experiments are duplicated by independent parties but this is nothing more than propaganda and it is not supported by numbers.
the multitude of applications that have used Newton’s conception of force supports the use of force in analyzing the world.
Okay. I understand this. What are those applications? I’ve narrowed my investigations to orbit determination applications. In the Principia Newton’s force is used in astronomy only. In mechanics a concept of force has always existed. Galileo used it calling it in Italian as forza. This is the force of ropes and pulleys. Newton did not much contribute to this contact force used in mechanics since its beginning. In elastic collisions too Newton’s contribution was minimal. Newton stole Huygens and Wren’s theory of collisions and rephrased it in Principia as Newton’s laws. (Newton cleverly organized a competition within Royal Society with the subject of elastic collisions and then stole the results.)
So Newton’s force is the occult action-at-a-distance thing that Newton claimed existed in orbital motion. This is the force I am questioning. Physicists, following Newton, claim that orbits are caused by Newton’s occult force, but no force term enters orbit computations. My conclusion is that if Newtonian force does not enter orbit calculations then orbits are not Newtonian. Thanks for helping me clarify this distinction between contact force and occult force.
as for ideas being named, and derived ideas having names also, and as to how and why our various systems of symbols behave the way they do, i think you need to look at formal languages and universal algebra. you should start with Boole’s 1853 article. check the external links on the wiki page
Thanks for this reference. I think it will also help me with my project of classifying data types in physics. For instance, on page 27 (signs and their laws) Boole gives “=” as the sign of identity. But in physics the same sign is used for proportionality and equation and definition. Boole’s definition of a sign includes the property of “fixed interpretation.” In other words, one sign, one meaning. I believe this is the scientific way. If physics were held to this scientific principle there would be no physics left. The entire physics is a play on puns. Physics instead claims to be bound by something undefined, abstract and meaningless called “scientific method” supposedly discovered by Newton, but physics gladly violates real scientific principles.
Thanks again for your comments.
Andrew, thanks again for your contribution to the comments section of the Freedom of Science.
No [physicists] don’t [discuss philosophico/religious ultimates] . . .
For physicists’ ongoing discussions on philosophico/religious ultimates I refer you to Peter Woit’s Not Even Wrong blog. He is pretty good about exposing pseudo-science physics. Just an example post for you to read: Will physicists find God.
If finding God is not philosophico/religious scholastic nonsense what is?
and what do you mean “something they call the universe”? Are you questioning the existence of everything?
I am not discussing the metaphysical entity called by physicists the universe. If you use the word to mean something like nature, then, fine, no problem.
[force] is a physical quantity which is of little use to astronomers.
I am puzzled by this statement. I believe that all motion is astronomical. I don’t believe in the artificial distinction physicists make between “celestial mechanics” and “terrestrial mechanics.” It is all astronomical motion, since the Earth itself is an astronomical object. So if force is not used to describe astronomical motion then of what use is it?
Perhaps, but given that Newton’s laws define force, you can’t accept or reject one and not the other. They’re linked.
Okay, you’re right. I see what you mean. But, neither F=ma nor F=GMm/RR were stated in Newton’s Principia in this form as equations. Not Newton’s laws, not Newton himself but Newtonian physicists defined force in the precise form we know them today. I think, though, it is better to discuss a specific equation rather than general laws described in prose by Newton 300 years ago.
“Newton’s force is not used in astronomical calculations. Therefore, it is not an astronomical quantity.” Agreed.
I am glad that we agree on this point. But I am not sure that we agree on the interpretation. I am saying that force does not enter orbital calculations (you agree on this) therefore orbits are not governed by Newtonian force (I am not sure if you agree on this).
Why astronomy?
Because physicists claim that orbital motion is Newtonian. Exactly because there is only one set of rules that I want to know how force governs orbital motion if it does not enter orbital calculations.
I notice that you are refusing to accept that force is occult. Well spotted. We’ll have you reading at a third grade level in no time.
Newtonian force is action-at-a-distance. Action-at-a-distance is occult. How to explain that force which is action-at-a-distance is not occult?
No, computed minus truth equals error. Observation also contains error.
Yes, I agree, observations too contain error. I could have said residuals instead of error which to me is the same thing. But I don’t see your point about truth. We don’t have truth, we have a database of observations and the corresponding model.
No, you use principle 1 and the implicit but false assumption that force is supernatural to conclude that.
You don’t think that instantaneous action-at-a-distance is supernatural?
Principle 2 is the fundamental principle of science. . . . and you got it wrong.
Do you know any other kind of method to reduce observations?
. . . the scientific method doesn’t include “computeds” because it’s not a word.
Sorry, computeds is a JPL lingo, I don’t blame you for not being familiar with it. Use whatever word you like, say, “computed values” it’s fine with me.
There are none, because force cancels out of gravitational equations. It does not cancel out of electrostatics or magnetics.
I am talking about Newtonian force in F=ma. As you say this cancels out of orbital computations. Therefore, orbits are not governed by Newtonian force. Do you agree?
Orbits are not electrostatic or magnetic, I have nothing to say about that kind of force.
. . .the “Newtonian doctrine” is basically right.
How can Newtonian doctrine be right if the fundamental Newtonian doctrine of force does not even enter astronomical calculations and you cannot even compute an orbit with it?
Okay, some of them do some of the time. That’s not exactly what I meant.
Well, yeah, but you can’t be a chemist or a teacher or a doctor unless you graduate. Some jobs require training. To weed out the morons.
Nobody makes that distinction. But gravity is the only one of the four fundamental forces that affects things the size of planets significantly, and the mass term cancels, so it doesn’t really matter if you invoke force or not.
Er, what?
I cannot agree or disagree with nonsense.
Forces are (generally) a potential gradient multiplied by a property of the object. Electrostatics, for example, are electric gradient multiplied by charge. Gravity is a gravitational gradient multiplied by mass. Since F=ma, and F=mdV/ds, you can cancel m and say a=dV/ds. So you don’t need to consider the force directly, but that doesn’t mean it goes away.
With quantum entanglement? No, that’s real.
With gravity? It’s an approximation. Gravity waves, dontchaknow?
There’s always making shit up and calling anything that contradicts it “professional propaganda”.
No.
Of course you can. F=ma, F=MmG/r^2. The rest flows from there. Why can’t you compute an orbit with that?
Nobody makes that distinction.
Please take a look at a physics textbook where Galileo’s time squared law (which is merely an approximation) is still taught in the chapter for projectile motion then Newton’s laws are taught as orbital mechanics. To me this looks like a distinction.
gravity is the only one of the four fundamental forces that affects things the size of planets significantly . . .
You agree that force term cancels from orbital calculations. Therefore we cannot say that “gravity . . . affects [the orbit] of planets significantly.” Orbits are not governed by Newton’s force because force is awol in orbital formulas. This is the same as when we say, “the mass term cancels therefore orbit is independent of mass.” Force term cancels therefore orbit is independent of force.
I cannot agree or disagree with nonsense.
There is no nonsense here. The occult force is not used to describe orbits therefore orbital motion is independent of force.
You don’t need to consider the force directly, but that doesn’t mean it goes away.
These are all fine in theoretical metaphysical discussions involving terminology about how many ways you can write force in physics but since force does not enter the calculations any terminological property you ascribe to force will remain metaphysical speculations.
With gravity? It’s an approximation.
It’s not an approximation. You cannot approximate a term which is not included in the calculations. This is an either/or question. Force doesn’t exist in formulas therefore force does not exist in formulas. “It does not exist as an approximation” may be a good legal argument within physics but makes no sense if you apply it to orbits.
Why can’t you compute an orbit with that?
I see your point. As a Newtonian physicist for you force is a given, it is true, or more correctly, it is a legal concept, you don’t have to ascribe a meaning to it. It is part of the legal derivation, it’s like faith, it’s useless, it’s a ceremonial quantity and by tradition physicists believe that it exists. Okay, then I’d like to propose a test if you want to cooperate. Let’s compute an astronomical quantity, something simple like the period of the Moon’s orbit. You, as a physicist, go ahead and use your occult Newtonian force and legal derivations and find the result. And I will compute the period of the Moon’s orbit by using no Newtonian force terms whatsoever. I will only use the quantities that are necessary and sufficient to describe an orbit, namely, radius R and the period T. In other words I will apply directly Kepler’s rule, and I claim that both results, yours and mind, will be exactly the same.
These are the givens: Earth-Moon distance = 60 Earth radii and the radius of the Earth is taken as unity. Also, the period of a satellite on the surface of the Earth is given: 5054.78 seconds. So do you want to compute the period of the Moon’s orbit by using Newtonian methods so that we can compare the results?
Thanks again for your comments.
Sure, there are convenient equations that apply to orbits only and convenient equations that apply to projectiles only, but both can be derived from Newton’s laws. They’re not fundamental; they’re just shortcuts, so save us doing the derivation every time.
If someone turned off gravity right now, then all currently orbiting planets would just fly out at tangents. We can call gravity an acceleration instead of a force if that pleases you, but you can’t say it doesn’t affect orbits. You can’t even say it doesn’t effect orbits.
Now this I can disagree with.
Force does enter calculations. You have simply chosen to focus on some calculations it does not enter. That’s like saying “there are no cows in my house, therefore cows don’t exist”.
That’s a response to something I never said, and a poor one at that.
It has a clear meaning which I have explained several times. That you choose to ignore this is your prerogative.
I don’t really fancy converting the universal constants into those units. Why can’t you just work in the same units as everyone else?
In any case, your challenge proves nothing. I’m not disputing Kepler’s law. I can prove trivially that the result will always be the same. But I bet you can’t use Kepler’s Law to find the instantaneous acceleration experienced by an object with a known electrical charge surrounded by a selection of planets and stars with various known masses and various electrical charges, at various known positions, all of which would be very easy with Newton’s laws. Granted that doesn’t come up very often, but the aim of physics is to describe the whole universe, not just the usual parts of it.
That’s another convenience of Newton’s laws — the constants are all in standard form so we don’t need to change things if we want to, say, shove a spacecraft up there.
Thanks again for your comments. You make good points and I will post the first part of my answer on the blog as well.
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 humans and stars would not exist and human affairs would spin into chaos and human society would disintegrate. I don’t believe that the astrological occult influx exists so turning it off would have no effect on human society. Physical occult does not exist either so turning off the Newtonian occult force will have no effect on orbital motion of planets.
Same is true for the orbits of the artificial satellites. The satellites are put into orbit by NASA’s JPL. JPL uses their Orbit Determination Program to compute orbits. ODP has over one million lines of code. None of the Newtonian so-called laws exist in the ODP. To me, as a scientist, if a term does not enter the formulas then the phenomena described by the formula are independent of that term.
Physicists on the other hand believe in the occult on two levels: 1. Definitional: Occult force exists by definition. 2. Operational: Force governs the orbits even though it doesn’t exist in formulas. This is pre-scientific reasoning practiced by medieval Doctors of Philosophy. I am surprised that physicists are still using the same type of argument by authority. Physicists place the authority of Newton above observations and see occult forces where there is none.
The argument that “Newtonian mechanics works, therefore, the occult force must exist” is not true. Occult does not exist. If so, is Newtonian mechanics wrong? No. And there is no paradox here.
Newtonian mechanics is the physicists’ name for Kepler’s rule. Physicists believe that conventional units and constants associated with Kepler’s rule were invented by Newton and describe the universe. In reality, Newton appended a temporary variable “Force” to two different parts of Kepler’s rule. This temporary variable must always be eliminated to recover Kepler’s rule. Therefore, the temporary variable “Force” does not enter formulas used to compute orbits. But physicists are bound by Newton’s authority so they choose to believe in the occult and save Newton’s authority rather than reject Newton’s authority and be scientists.
What is amazing is that three centuries after Newton most physicists still believe in the Newtonian propaganda that rectilinear motion is the natural motion. It seems that physicists would believe any nonsense told to them as Newton’s laws. Newton invented this absurd notion to prove the existence of his force. Newton proved one of his lies with another one of his lies. He justified his definition of the occult force by defining natural motion to be straight line motion. No straight line motion was ever observed. The probability that Newton’s force would have turned all primordial straight line motion into orbits is nil. Newton’s disciples the physicists still believe blindly the Newtonian propaganda of dynamical orbits and even worse they enforce the Newtonian occult as the true nature.
Be assured that no planets will fly off at tangents if someone turned off the occult. The occult does not hold the planets because the occult does not exist.
We can call gravity an acceleration instead of a force . . .
You are still assuming that Newton’s occult force you call gravity powers orbits. You now labeled this occult assumption acceleration. If you could perceive Radius R over Period T squared without any occult and hidden terms attached to it then you’ll see that orbits are not powered by the physical occult. Acceleration does not have the same Newtonian occult qualities. And, Yes, if you admit that R/T2 is acceleration you would be making big progress towards being a rational scientist instead of remaining a dogmatic Newtonian physicist who upholds Newton’s authority at all cost, even if it requires believing in the occult. I welcome this development.
It has a clear meaning which I have explained several times.
In physics “meaning” comes from observations and measurement. In physics we don’t discuss metaphysical or self-serving personal definitions or notational decorations as meaning. If force cancels out of formulas then force has no physical meaning.
You previously agreed that force cancels out of orbital formulas. Now you are claiming that there’s another set of orbital formulas that include force. What are these formulas? Can you give an example?
I can prove trivially that the result will always be the same.
I welcome this proof if you want to share it.
That’s another convenience of Newton’s laws — the constants are all in standard form. . .
You are confusing Newton’s laws, Newtonian mechanics and also engineering. Constants have nothing to do with Newton’s laws or his occult force, the subject of this discussion. Newton did not use constants, he worked with natural units, like the ones in my example. Newton did not know Newton’s constant of gravitation.
Units and constants are independent of Newton’s laws or Newtonian mechanics. They are maintained by a government agency. You can attach the same constants and units to Kepler’s rule. In fact, this is what is done. It was Gauss who first created a unit associated with Kepler’s rule when he defined k, which is now known as Gaussian constant. Later other constants and units were added to Kepler’s rule in order to Newtonize it. You cannot prove that physical occult exists by showing as evidence a set of conventional units attached to Kepler’s rule. In fact, that’s right, Newtonian mechanics is nothing but a conventional set of units and constants attached to Kepler’s rule. In this consistent system called Newtonian mechanics force exists only as a ceremonial prayer to Saint Newton. Physicists say their prayers by writing and then canceling the Newtonian force terms.
If you want to study fundamentals you must eliminate or at least see through this system of units. Otherwise all you are doing is engineering. You are just applying standardized engineering formulas sold to you as the most true laws of nature. Newtonian mechanics is nothing more than mechanical engineering. Your mechanical system is the solar system.
The aim of that wasn’t a proof but a demonstration — I meant that even though we don’t actually need to mention gravity to calculate an orbit, the orbit couldn’t exist without it. Clearly something is causing planets to keep changing direction as they are observed to, and whatever it is, it doesn’t appear in Kepler’s law. The alternative is that you assume that planets naturally orbit stars and they do it because they just do. Which is not a very enlightening philosophy, and its what was widely believed before Newton, and what you seem to believe now:
We tend never to see objects with no forces on them. I doubt if such an object exists. This makes studying them hard, but we can, say, build a pseudo-2D environment where gravity is perpendicular and therefore doesn’t affect it, and fill it with little simulated planets and move them about to see what happens. This is called Playing Snooker, and it demonstrates quite neatly that linear motion is the norm.
The other advantage of assuming straight lines to be normal is that they’re easy to define. Saying “orbital motion is the norm” is problematic because you then have to specify what should be orbited and in what way. Also we know from sticking stuff up in space that you have to get the speed, direction and position just right to achieve orbit. If orbital motion were the norm, we would expect it to be very easy: just stick the satellite up there and let nature guide it gracefully round the planet. That never happens.
For simplicity, let’s discuss a circular orbit. The velocity of the planet is changing, this is obvious: it reverses its direction twice every year. We can find that acceleration by differentiating its position (using calculus, which Newton invented, but which is based on pure mathematics so you can trust it). Its position is (r cos wt) i (r sin wt) j (w=angular velocity) so its speed is (-rw sin wt) i (rw cos wt) j and its acceleration is (-rw^2 cos wt) i (-rw^2 sin wt) j. The magnitude of this (by Pythagoras) is rw^2. Newtonian physics says that gravitation acceleration is GM/r^2, so this will produce circular motion when rw^2=GM/r^2, which is when r^3/w^2=GM. w is 2pi/T, so r^3/T^2 is a constant (for any given star), equal to GM/4pi^2. Newton “predicts” Kepler there. This can be generalised to an elliptical orbit but that’s more difficult and doesn’t help much.
your comment system removed all the plusses from the formulae there. Don’t know why, but they go after the bold ‘i’s.
Clearly something is causing planets to keep changing direction as they are observed to, and whatever it is, it doesn’t appear in Kepler’s law.
You are assuming that gravity is the hidden cause of orbits. I don’t believe in hidden causes.
The alternative is that you assume that planets naturally orbit stars and they do it because they just do.
No. That’s not the only alternative. I look at Kepler’s rule and listen to what it says.
We tend never to see objects with no forces on them. I doubt if such an object exists.
A force-free object doesn’t exist in Newtonian physics because force permeates the totality. If force does not enter orbit formulas and cannot be observed how are the forces on the objects observed?
In the Newtonian framework orbital motion is dynamical and orbital motion as circular motion without a central body is inconvceivable. The sun-king governing the motion of its subjects the planets was how Netwon conceived his world. Newton projected the social structure of his time to the natural world. “The Sun sitting on his throne commands all things” one reads in the Principia.
. . . build a pseudo-2D environment where gravity is perpendicular and therefore doesn’t affect it . . .
In this example there is still a preferred direction common to all billiard balls. The balls are obstructed from freely falling by the horizontal surface of the table. In space where there is no preferred direction, the sphere (for a given volume the sphere has the smallest surface area of any solid) is the natural form. If you constrain motion in space as in the case of billiard table you would get circular (largest area for the given perimeter) motion. So in space circular and spherical motions are natural.
The other advantage of assuming straight lines to be normal is that they’re easy to define.
Only if you assume that natural motion is rectilinear. Rectilinear is simulated by the circular arc, i.e. the earth looks flat on small scales, orbits look like straight lines for, say, an arc of 100 meters. But straight line never can simulate circle without introducing discontinuities.
Saying “orbital motion is the norm” is problematic because you then have to specify what should be orbited and in what way.
This will be given by Kepler’s rule or the density continuum. This is engineering. To put a satellite into orbit you would still need to move from low density to higher density.
For simplicity, let’s discuss a circular orbit.
(Thanks for the derivation. More details below.)
The proof that I’m looking for is to show that the proportionality R3/T2 = k, where k is a constant dependent on units, is all that is needed to compute orbits. In other words, physicists say that Kepler’s laws are not good enough to compute orbits, we need to use Newtonian notation. And from this, they infer that Newton’s occult force and mass must exist because Newtonian notation “works.” I’m saying that, let’s strip all Newtonian notation to get R3/T2 = k then compare the result obtained by using Newtonian notation and by using R3/T2 = k notation. I claim that they will be identical.
In your derivation the result differs from R3/T2 = k only in the constant term k. I use natural units (like Newton) not conventional units (like physicists). You set k = GM and you claim a Newtonian pedigree for R3/T2. Can you show analytically that Newtonian notation is identical to R3/T2 = k?
Maybe this is inherently an issue about units. When R3/T2 = k is used in astronomy with conventional Newtonian units, it’s called Newton’s laws, if it is used with natural units then it is called Kepler’s third law.
NEWTON AND KEPLER
Regarding Newton’s derivation of Kepler’s laws: I doubt that Newton himself actually bothered to derive Kepler’s laws. Maybe he did, I don’t know, it’s been a while since I looked at the Principia. Do you know?
The way I understand it, Newton treated Kepler as a mere astronomer who discovered the third law. Of course, it wasn’t called “Kepler’s third law” then, Newton made it into a law by calling it a law in the Scholium to proposition 5, book 3.
Newton also gave Kepler a rare credit for “finding this proportion of 3/2 power” in book 3, phenomenon 4. Note how Newton condescends to Kepler by putting him under the Phenomena section of the Principia. Kepler is a mere astronomer, while the great Newton is the discoverer of the underlying law of the universal gravitation. What propaganda!
KEPLER’S RULE IS FOR THE ORBIT
Why is this propaganda? I look at the observations. To me the observation is the ultimate authority. Newton’s authority is no authority to me. If the observations say the rule is for the orbit, then, I believe that the rule is for the orbit. I don’t care if the occultist Doctor Newton says that the rule is not for the orbit but it is for Newton’s animistic occult mass moved by his occult force. No. The orbit is the thing, not the mass and not the force.
KEPLER’S RULE IS GEOMETRIC
Rule says orbit is geometric. Newton says orbit is occult. I’ll take the rule. Why? Because the rule is derived from observations and it is true without any doubt and it says that you need only the radius R and the period T to describe an orbit.
KEPLER’S RULE DESCRIBES A CIRCLE
Kepler’s rule is geometric and describes a circle in terms of motion. It relates straight line motion (radius R) and circular motion (w=angular velocity, the motion on the circle). The rule does not include force F and it does not include mass m.
NATURE IS NOT SUPERNATURAL; PHYSICS IS
In order to save Newton’s sacred authority physicists have been trying to insinuate these two occult terms, F and m, into Kepler’s geometric rule but without success. F and m always cancel. Nature has been telling physicists that she is not supernatural. So what do physicists do? They use their doctoral authority and corrupt the equations. So they write stuff like GM. What is GM? GM will remain as the most scholastically corrupt symbolism in the history of science. What you are looking at when you look at GM is not two symbols but one single conventional unit. In astronomy, G and M do not exist as individual quantities. Why? Because the Newtonian animistic mass M does not exist. Physicists write M to save Newton’s sacred authority.
FORCE AND MASS CANCEL
And what about the mass m of the satellite? Well we know that mass m of the satellite cancels but physicists write it anyway in order to cancel it.
CENTRIPETAL FORCE CANCELS ALONG WITH FORCE AND MASS
So when physicists mention “centripetal force” in their derivations they are repeating Newton’s 300 years old lie. Centripetal force is v2/r with the canceling mass m attached to it to save Newton’s authority. If mass m cancels how come it drives the orbits? It doesn’t.
ONLY SCHOLASTIC DOCTORS DISCUSS INVISIBLE HIDDEN TERMS
If a term is not in the formulas used to do computations then that term is not in the formulas used to do computations and therefore discussing invisible terms is the pastime of medieval Scholastic Doctors of Philosophy. Scientists do not discuss invisible dormitive virtues scholastic doctors mix into formulas to save their master’s authority.
ORBITS ARE INDEPENDENT OF FORCE AND MASS
Force F and mass m are not included in the formulas of orbits therefore force and mass do not enter orbit calculations therefore orbits are independent of force and mass.
DERIVATION OF KEPLER FROM NEWTON
So let’s look what you are doing in your derivation. First you write down circular motion in vector notation. I find this unnecessary for the present purpose. We are not going to calculate precise positions of planetary motions. We don’t need vectors. We are assuming circular orbits on the plane of the ecliptic. We don’t need to work on the Cartesian coordinates either. Circular motion is explained simply by the geometry of the circle. The relevant quantity is a=rw2 and obtaining that by vector notation is not relevant to this case. But that’s your choice.
ASSOCIATION OF NEWTONIAN CONSTANT WITH CIRCULAR MOTION
The first part of your derivation therefore is just vector statement of geometric circular motion. Then you say “Newtonian physics says that gravitation acceleration is GM/r^2.” This is the crucial point in your derivation. You are associating the Newtonian occult laws with the geometric motion on a circle. And how do you do this? You say that Newtonian physics says that acceleration is GM/r^2? And what is GM/r^2? GM/r^2 is half of Kepler’s law with the addition of a conventional unit named to suggest a Newtonian connection.
So you assert the authority of physics by claiming that we must use a conventional unit named after Newton to describe circular motion. If we use a conventional unit because it is named after Newton by fanatic Newtonian physicists in the 19th century then we are converting the geometric circular motion into occult Newtonian motion? Not really.
GM/r^2, without the conventional unit GM, (set GM=1, if you wish) is the geometric rule called the inverse square law. This is a geometric law and it is a general rule. It defines intensity in terms of surface. It has nothing to do with occult forces emanating from r=0 grabbing planets in orbits and setting them in motion. No. The law says that if you consider intensity on surfaces, the intensity will be proportional to 1/r^2.
KEPLER’S RULE IS THE LAW OF DENSITY
Kepler’s rule is simply the three dimensional version of this law applied to volume, i.e., R3/T2 is the law of density. It says that if you look at volume, R3, instead of surface, R2, then you would have the proportionality, 1/R3=1/T2. So in 3D the rule is R^-1.5 and not R^-2.
NEWTON’S AUTHORITY = NIL
Therefore, as I see it, unless you insert Newton’s occult force by fiat and enforce it by authority this occult force does not exist in formulas. And enforcing the authority of Aristotle or Newton should have been done with long time ago. Why would anyone today in the 21st century care about Newton’s authority? He was an occultist self-mythologizer who designed a world according to his specifications. He had a religious agenda. He believed in the occult virtues and in the old mystical doctrine of atomic materialism. Newton’s system of the world is based on these two religious doctrines. Newton marketed his religious doctrines as true science. How can this be? Well, Newton was the greatest marketing genius ever lived. He leveraged Kepler’s rule and branded it as Newton’s laws. All calculations are done with Kepler’s rule but narrated with Newton’s labels. Masterful. But it’s about time that we see the truth about Newton.
I think your derivation amounts to writing Kepler’s rule with a constant term which includes a conventional unit named after Newton. Does it prove that Kepler’s rule and Newton’s laws are identical? Maybe. But to me, it does not prove that Newton derived Kepler’s law or that he discovered the underlying fundamental cause in Kepler’s law. Unless that underlying fundamental cause is a conventional unit named after Newton.
I’d like to hear your comments about the above. Let me know where I am mistaken or where this can be improved. And as usual thanks again for taking the time to discuss this issue.
Holy hell, do you ever go on!
Kepler’s Rule is a description, not a cause. (The same is true of Newton’s Laws, but General Relativity provides a cause for gravity and Quantum Mechanics provides a cause for force — well, for impulse, anyway; force is just impulse flux in that model.) My point is that either SOMETHING or NOTHING causes orbits. You say you don’t believe in “hidden causes”, whatever those might be. If gravity doesn’t cause the acceleration in orbits, then either SOMETHING ELSE causes it or ORBITS JUST HAPPEN. The latter is unscientific and the former is incomplete.
Force causes acceleration. Measure that and divide by mass. Simple enough.
Please look up cyclotrons and get back to me.
I’m afraid that’s bullshit. What you call “the preferred direction” is what everyone else in the world calls “gravity”. In space, there is very little of it, and it generally points toward the nearest massive object such as a star.
I’m not even sure what “spherical motions” would be, aside from the result of eating marbles. You can’t move along a spherical path — you have to move along a line. You can only be in one place at once. You could have a spherical locus, but that’s not prescriptive.
You’re applying a double standard: allowing arc to approximate but demanding straight lines be exact. But more than that, you’re trying to argue your obtuse model of physics to defeat a purely mathematical statement. Straight lines are easy to define. If I tell you there’s a ball travelling in a straight line, and it’s presently at point R and has velocity V, you can tell me where it will be at any time. If I tell you it’s travelling in a circle, at position R and with velocity V, you also need to know its acceleration or the centre of the circle to know where it will end up next. Clearly, therefore, circles require more definition than straight lines. That was my point.
That’s a half-truth. Physicists acknowledge that Kepler’s law is accurate, although it doesn’t take into account the influence of other planets, which does lead to tiny errors which (in theory) Newtonian mechanics could correct. (That will lead to tiny errors with Relativistic mechanics could correct.) The simpler the model, the less accurate it is, but the trade-off is that it’s easier to use.
Those really aren’t “natural units”. “Natural units” would be where G=1. What you’re discussing are “convenient units”, and to be fair, KEPLER USED THE SAME UNITS AS NEWTON, YOU THUNDERING BUFFOON!
It may shock you to learn that ORBITS ARE NOT CIRCULAR. This is primary-school stuff. They’re elliptical, and an ellipse is the shape Kepler’s rule describes.
No.
a=GM/r^2 doesn’t (logically) come from Kepler’s work; it comes from the Principle of Least Action. (Look it up.) It doesn’t just describe circular motion; it describes every macroscopic particle in the universe regardless of what it might be doing at the time. That’s the beauty of it — Kepler never described anything other than planets. Now we can discuss planets, cars and muons AT THE SAME TIME.
I never so much as mentioned a unit.
I agree. I don’t know where you’ve got this absurd notion of “occult forces emanating from r=0 grabbing planets” from. I assure you it’s not come from physics.
Well, actually it isn’t, because if we’re discussing T rather than T squared, it’s proportional to R to the power of 1.5, which isn’t really anything. We could discuss T to the power of 2/3 and then it’s proportional to R. Or T to the power of 4/3 and then it’s proportional to R squared. Furthermore, Kepler never mentions volume (though he does mention area in a terribly elegant though not terribly useful theory about sweeping them out).
If you’re allowed to use arbitrary powers then it’s whatever geometric rule you want. Observe:
That’s the rule for T. The rule for a depends on R^2. Nobody knows why this should be the case, but it seems to work.
Newton’s Laws aren’t SUPPOSED to be a cause; they’re SUPPOSED to be a DESCRIPTION, just like Kepler’s laws. (I can’t speak for Newton’s intentions, but this is how they are used today.)
The point is that if you start from Newton’s Laws, you can, if you want, derive Kepler’s. Whether Newton did this or not I do not know, but you can — I just did for a special case. But you can also derive equations about other things: Newton’s Laws also make useful and accurate (the two are really the same thing) predictions about the motion of particles in cloud chambers, billiard balls, cars, planes, pulley systems, elevators, projectiles and spacecraft, none of which Kepler ever attempted to describe.
This means that Newton’s Laws, while no more or less TRUE than Kepler’s, are more USEFUL, more GENERAL and (in a manner of speaking) therefore more FUNDAMENTAL.
You focus on orbits, for which Kepler’s Laws are pretty complete, and this blinds you to the whole purpose of Newton’s work: to produce a framework that can describe planets AND OTHER THINGS. This meant introducing extra terms which, when discussing planets, aren’t needed, but force and mass are needed when discussing, say, electrostatics.
1. The alternative is that you assume that planets naturally orbit stars and they do it because they just do.
. . .
Kepler’s Rule is a description, not a cause.
I agree. And also, yes, it is a true statement that “planets naturally orbit stars.” Planets do orbit stars naturally. Nature is not supernatural, therefore