‎

Isaac Newton (Isaacus Newtonus)

Isaac Newton (Isaacus Newtonus)

Who is Newton

Isaacus Newtonus is the author of the Principia.
Newton is an occultist.
Newton is a magician.
Newton is a supernaturalist.
Newton is a theologian and a religious bigot
Newton’s natural philosophy is his occult and esoteric work
Newton’s Principia is an esoteric and occult book.

Newton’s many attributes

Newton has many fantastic attributes:
1. Newton is our Hermes Tetramegistus. One of the magisterial subjects Newton is the master of is rhetorical sophistry. Newton employs a novel technique of sophistry he invented himself called “in-your-face sophistry”. Newton does not need to hide from you that he is deceiving you with his sophistry. This is how great a sophist Newton is.
2. Newton is the great appropriator. Newton never encountered a concept he could not steal by renaming it. He stole Descartes’ laws simply by renaming Descartes’ first law of motion as Newton’s first law of motion. What a genius this Newton was! He stole Kepler’s Third Law and rearranged its terms and called it Newton’s Laws.
3. Newton is the great euphemist and grand master of circumlocution.
4. Newton is an occultist, supernaturalist and hermeticist.

Note: I know that any criticism of Newton will only strengthen the Newton myth.

Mythological Newton

There is the mythological Newton, the God of Mechanics or our own Hermes Tetramagistus.
The great man who singlehandedly overthrew millennia of Aristotelian scholasticisms spearheading the Scientific Revolution. According to this view, the entire history of science was a preparation for the genius that is Newton. For instance, Newton claimed that Galileo used Newton’s laws to discover his free fall law.
Newton discovered the laws of nature and explained the whole nature with his universal force of gravity.
This is the image of Newton we all learn at school.
Newton also wrote the greatest scientific book ever written, the Principia. This book is hyped as much as the Newton myth. Newton’s disciples the physicists do not read this and they have no idea what is in it but they still call it the greatest science book ever written.
It is strange that the person who is defined as the greatest scientist ever lived was turned into a pagan god, the god of mechanics.
Even this is strange because the god of mechanics is really the god of supernatural because Newton’s force of gravity is just a name for a supernatural cause Newton defined.
Newton’s force of gravity is not a mechanical force by definition.

Newton’s Principia

The greatest science book ever written. (According to Newtonian propaganda.)
Newton’s Principia: The greatest science book never read by Newton’s disciples the physicists.

[this part should go to Principia file]

Axioms, or Laws of motion (so-called)

Law 1

Every body continues in its state of resting or of moving uniformly in a straight line, except insofar as it is driven by impressed forces to alter its state.
Projectiles continue in their motions except insofar as they are slowed by the resistance of the air. and in so far as they are driven downward by the force of gravity.
A top, whose parts, by cohering, perpetually draw themselves back from rectilinear motions, does not stop rotating, except insofar as it is slowed by the air.
And the greater bodies of the planets and comets preserve their motions, both progressive and circular, carried out in spaces of less resistance, for a longer time.

Comments

Obviously, this so-called law can be a law only in Newton’s Wonderland, not in our world.
First of all rest is not a state.
We don’t observe any resting object in this world. Again, I don’t know if rest exists in Newton’s Wonderland but it does not exist in this world.
In the Scholium after the Definitions Newton goes deep into a scholastic discussion of absolute and relative stuff.
Newton is a master of red herring and arguing with a straw man. Newton is a master of every rhetorical and polemical deception techniques in the handbook of scholastic philosophy.
I don’t even understand why we are taking Newton seriously in philosophical matters. This guy has no qualms about explaining natural phenomena as the work of gods.
Newton is a scholastic doctor who shows all of the ugliest properties of being a scholastic doctors.
Newton has an agenda and he is writing to enforce that agenda.
Newton’s writing to justify his use of rest a state do not concern us a bit.
We know that rest is not a state therefore this cannot be a law of motion let alone a law of nature.
There’s no rest, all is motion.
And what is measured is change of motion. As was said thousands of years ago all is change.
This includes motion too, motion must change. Change in motion is acceleration. This is our axiom and rule and law.
This guy, who is a certified megalomaniac, claims to have discovered the laws of motion but the first thing he says is to claim that lack of motion is a state. This is absolutely wrong.
And his second claim that every body continues in its state of moving uniformly in a straight line is just absurd.
We never observe bodies moving on a straight line, all observed motion in space is curved. For some reason all bodies moving in Newton’s straight line are no longer around. Apparently they all became curved motions in the early universe.
What kind of law is this? This is a law, so-called, is valid only in Newton’s Wonderland.
And Newton’s impressed force is a lie too.
Newton’s impressed force may be and is in the case of gravity a non-contact force. Non-contact forces do not exist in this world.
Newton’s so-called first law of motion is wrong in every claim that it makes.
This law so-called makes three claims and all three claims are absurd and wrong.
This cannot be a law it cannot even be an axiom.

What did Newton do?

Tables vs. rules

What does Newton’s fame rest on?
Newton’s fame rests on his computations of planetary orbits supposedly by using his laws of motion and his supernatural cause he calls “force”.
Prior to Newton planetary orbits were computed by using astronomical tables such as Kepler’s Rudolphine tables (1627).
Astronomers including Galileo, Descartes and Kepler sought a general formula or a rule that governed the motion planets.
They all failed.
More correctly, Kepler found such a rule but he did not realize its importance.
I’m talking about what is known as Kepler’s Third Law. Following Newton’s usage, I call this rule “Kepler’s Rule” to distinguish it from other two Kepler’s “laws”.
Newton used Kepler’s Rule to compute orbits. We see this fact when we look at Newton’s orbit computations in the Principia.
Like Descartes before him, Newton’s ambition, was to build a world system that obeyed a single universal rule.
If Newton applied a rule that someone else discovered to compute orbits this would not be Newton’s system of the world.
Newton wanted to build Newton’s System of the World, not Kepler’s System of the World.
So Newton appropriated Kepler’s Rule and rearranged its terms and branded it as “Newton’s Laws” by adding Newton’s force terms.
In the relevant propositions in the Principia Newton tells his readers that he will be calculating a planetary orbit by using his force that varies with the inverse square of the distance. But when we look at Newton’s actual calculations we see that he is using Kepler’s Rule plain and simple. No force terms enter his calculations.
This is the great Newtonian hoax.
What is fundamental is Kepler’s Rule. And Kepler’s Rule defines kinematic orbits, not dynamical orbits.
The idea is that astronomers were looking for a general rule that can be used to compute planetary orbits.
Descartes’ theory of vortices was a general rule but vortices could not be used to compute planetary orbits.
To explain his rule Kepler speculated about some kind of scheme of forces in analogy to magnetism but he failed to make quantitative calculations with his model. Kepler could not find the underlying cause of his laws. (I’m not sure if there is a need for an underlying cause.)
What we call Kepler’s Rule was actually the general rule that astronomers were searching for. No one before Newton, including Kepler who discovered it, did not realize the importance of this rule. With Kepler’s other two laws we cannot compute orbits, they are descriptive laws, only with Kepler’s Rule we can compute orbits.
Newton saw Kepler’s Rule in an astronomy textbook and immediately recognized its importance. Newton recognized that Kepler’s Rule was the general principle he was looking for.
But the problem for Newton was that the universal rule that he found was discovered by someone else, by Kepler, a German! Newton, who saw himself as a world-builder in the grand tradition of Descartes, refused to tarnish his British pride or surrender his near-mythical image by adopting a rule discovered by a lowly German astronomer to construct Newton’s System of the World. To go around this problem Newton decided to appropriate Kepler’s Rule by branding it as Newton’s Laws
Newton chose to appropriate Kepler’s Rule by sophistry and branded it with decorative force terms.
The truth is that we can use Kepler’s Rule to compute planetary orbits without Newton’s branded units like GM.
Kepler’s Rule is kinematical. We can compute orbits only with \(R\) and \(T\).
We don’t need to use Newton’s supernatural cause called “force” to compute orbits.
But what about Newton’s claim that gravity is an inverse square force? This is Newton’s one of the most brilliant sophistries.

Newton’s rectilinear inertia

I don’t agree with Newton’s rectilinear inertia because we never observe rectilinear motion in space where all motion is curved. Newton is projecting Galileo’s concept of inertia to space and orbital motion. But Galileo assumed an idealized condition on earth with gravity. He was considering the motion of an object on a flat and horizontal surface if all friction is removed. Then he concludes that the object will move on a straight line on that horizontal surface. Maybe. But this is not the case in space. In space objects do not move on “horizontal” and “flat” surfaces. Newton’s assumption of rectilinear inertia is bogus.
In this case, Newton’s followers blindly accept Newton’s authority against contrary observation evidence. Newton says inertial motion is rectilinear. Observations say inertial motion in not rectilinear. Newton’s followers dismiss observations and blindly accept Newton’s authority. This is not surprising because physicists are scholastic doctors of philosophy. They must obey and repeat the official dogma of their profession.

Newton’s orbital calculations in the Principia

Newton’s reversal of centrifugal acceleration to centripetal acceleration

This seems totally arbitrary
Newton thought that it suits his materialist dogma based on his occult force if this acceleration is center seeking instead of going away from center, so he changed its direction.

Evil genius

Definition 5

Centripetal force is that by which bodies are pulled, pushed, or in any way tend, towards some point from all sides, as to a center.

So a body can be pushed by a centripetal force to a center? How can this happen?
Let’s not forget that Newton is the greatest equivocator the world has ever seen. He is a master sophist. He is not to be taken seriously. But his authority is such that he we are wasting time trying to analyze his absurd statements.
This definition is very vague. It is too general.
Here we see that the play on words and equivocations on the word “force” started with Newton. We have no idea what Newton means by force. Force can mean anything and everything.
So, we have a center.
And the center has a force acting on all sides.
A circle satisfies this definition.
The phrasing is weird.
Is it the centripetal force that’s pulling the body?
Newton doesn’t say. He wants to be vague. His statements can be pulled in every possible direction.
Obviously, we have a circular motion here. We’ll look at the examples he gives.
There is a center and there is a force. This is all we know.
This force may be a pushing force or a pulling force or it can be any motion. Since in physics everything is force I don’t understand why Newton bothers to define force at all.
But if the force is located at the center how this force located in the center “push” the body toward the center. Maybe Halley was waiting around to take these manuscripts to the printer and Newton was rushing so that he was not careful about his sentences.
Newton states a definition so vague that it appears to cover all angles without saying much. This is the art of sophistry.
Well, we are descending into the bottomless pit called the Newtonian rabbit hole. There is no reward at the end because Newton always wins.

Of this kind is gravity, by which bodies tend to the center of the earth…

In this case the body must describe a circle so that we can talk about a center.
It doesn’t look like Newton pays attention to this constraint. We are talking about the center of an orbit not any center. But Newton sees a center even in magnetic motion
He is Newton. He is the human closest to Gods. He can impose his supernatural vision into nature.
Newton wants to justify his occult force of gravity by jumping through hoops of sophistry.
So gravity is a centripetal force
Why? Because gravity is a centripetal force [by which] it attracts bodies to the center of the earth.
How come Newton does not state this fact clearly but uses passive voice?
Maybe he has something to hide.
He doesn’t want to say that this force is located at the center of the earth.
And this supposed force is not centripetal or center seeking but it is already located at the center of the earth. It’s the body on which this hypothetical occult force acts from a distance that is seeking the center. You see, this hopeless, Newton is such a masterful sophists that whatever we say his disciples will protect their master’s sophistry as unquestionable truth.
Newton does not want us to question his absurd and vague statements. This guy is in another league when it comes to sophistry.
Next Newton says that motion due to magnetic action is also centripetal.

\(\ldots\) magnetic force, by which iron seeks a magnet \(\ldots\)

So where is the center in the case of iron seeking a magnet? There is no center.
There must be a center defined by rotation otherwise “center seeking” makes no sense.
Newton makes the motion of the magnet a center seeking force, or the cause of magnetic attraction is a center seeking force.
In this definition Newton is absolutely non-committal.
The center seeking force can be any force, gravity (which is a force only in Newton’s fairy tale world), magnetism, or any thing, any way and any how moving towards a location called a “center”. Newton’s authority can turn any old point into a center.
Newton is saying nothing useful here.

\(\ldots\) and that force, whatever it might be, by which the planets are perpetually drawn back from rectilinear motion and are driven to revolve in curved lines.

Yes “that force, whatever it might be\(\ldots\)”
Newton pretends not to know what “that force” is. I wonder, as a wild guess, can be gravity? Nah, if Newton does not know how can we know?
Newton says that force can be anything and he doesn’t know what it is, who am I to claim to know what Newton does not know. But it can be any force, whatever. Newton is writing with the precise language of a scientist.
Now Newton explains his wonderful fairy tale for grown ups about how orbits are formed
Newton’s orbits are analogous to to spin motion or rotational motion that we observe on earth.
Newton is saying that orbits are exactly like the sling motion.
The planet is the stone attached to the sling, the hand that drives the sling is the sun and Newton’s occult gravity takes the place of the string.
According to Newton the mechanism that drives a sling and orbital motion is the exact same mechanism.
But this is not true. Between rotational and revolutionary motions there are serious and crucial differences.
In the sling motion the acceleration is imparted to the sling by the whirling motion of the hand and arm. Newton writes, “the arm that drives the sling \(\ldots\)
The center is defined by the rotating stone.
The stone is not moving in a rectilinear inertial path and then getting captured by a center seeking attractive force located at the center.
If the string is cut the stone flies off along the tangent.
But in the orbital case, Newton assumes that the planet in orbit now was once traveling on its rectilinear inertial path and was captured by Newton’s occult force.
So the planet going peacefully and inertially with no motive power on its own merry way encounters this evil Newtonian force emanating from the sun and it becomes a planet orbiting the sun.
Is this possible? Consider that this force must know instantly the mass of the future planet and use Newtonian mechanics and calculate the exact force necessary to capture this inertial body and make its slave.
This means that, by definition, Newton’s force not only occult but also intelligent and supernaturally intelligent and a good mathematician. It’s not easy to compute the exact force to apple instantly.
No wonder Huygens criticized Newton for bringing back scholastic “souls” into physics. Yes, for Newton, gravity was Newton’s soul. So, for Newton imagined that his soul permeated the entire universe and acted according to Newton’s laws. In the case of Newton, megalomania has no bounds.
So Newton’s occult force is occult, absurd, intelligent, supernatural, acts without time passing, it exists solely to make Newton’s laws to work. Wonderful. And Newton’s followers see no problem with this picture!
But this is not the end of Newton’s orbital fairy tale.
We must also look at the future planet initially moving peacefully with inertia.
Newton says that the planet is “perpetually drawn back from rectilinear motions \(\ldots\)
We note with awe once again that Newton is the human closest to gods and apparently in this case Newton reached out to his Godly buddies and requested an exception to the conservation laws that drives this world of ours regarding Newtonian orbits and he got the exception he wanted.
Because, the earth, according to Newton before it was captured by the sun, was moving on straight line with inertial motion. Inertial motion has no motive force. No force was acting on the earth before it became a planet.
So Newton’s Soul in this case residing inside the sun reaches instantly to the earth and acts on it. This is absurd but let’s suspend our disbelief and humor Newton’s fairy tale.
Now for the earth to switch from Newtonian inertial motion to Newtonian orbital motion must have an infinite supply of inertial motive force. The earth must contain an inexhaustible amount of motive force so that it can react to Newton’s Soul acting on it trying to change its path. Because without such inertial motive force the earth will quickly fall into the sun. As we speak the earth has been resisting the force emanating from the sun and never steers away from its path. That’s infinite amount of energy. So gods granted Newton the right to break the most sacred law of physics, namely the conservation of energy. Here’s a body that possesses an inexhaustible amount of energy and that energy is supplied by gods through Newton’s Soul.
Furthermore, no one, no physicist ever questions that such an orbit even it were possible would be extremely unstable. Try to place a piece of iron into an orbit around a magnet. You cannot because this inverse square law is such that the orbit by definition will be unstable, it will fall back to the center almost instantly.
So the occult force emanating from the sun pulls the body from its rectilinear line and tho body perseveres to continue in its straight line and its energy is perpetual and is never exhausted. In our world this is a violation of energy conservation laws. Once pulled from its inertial path the body will have no energy to resist the attracting force and will fall toward the center. Once the body is captured inverse square law will never let go of the linear motion of the inertial body. No orbit will be created in this world. But this scenario is possible in the Newtonian fairy tale world so much loved by Newton’s disciples.
Even if we assume that an orbit is created by capturing it will extremely unstable.
If this is the way orbits are created how come we never observe such orbits being created. We never observe a body moving on straight and we never observe that straight line being curved into orbit.
And the laws of probability says that some of these orbit that we fail to observe would be failed orbits because the centripetal force must be exact as Newton later says in his definition.
Now Newton gives the sling example
From this example we understand that Newton thinks orbital motion and sling motion are analogous. Replace the whirling stone with a planet and replace the string with Newton’s Soul and Voila! you get an orbit. This is ridiculously absurd \(\ldots\)
Newton is a superb liar. Like all scholastic doctors of the time he is a master of rhetorical sophistry and equivocation.

A stone whirled around in a sling, attempts to depart from the hand that drives it around, and by its attempt stretches out the sling doing so more strongly as it revolves more swiftly, and as soon as it is released, it flies away.

So the hand drives the sling.

The force contrary to that attempt, by which the sling perpetually draws the stone back to the hand and retains it in its orbit, I call “centripetal”, because it is directed towards the hand as the to the center of the orbit.
And the account of all bodies that are driven in a gyre[?] is the same.

Why “gyre” do they mean orbit?
- Cohen clarifies: And the same applies to all bodies [b] that are made to move in orbits[b]
- It looks like there was a problem in translating Newton’s use of passive voice in Latin.

They all attempt to recede from the centers of the orbits, and in the absence of some force contrary to that attempt by which they are pulled together and kept in their orbit and which I therefore all “centripetal”, they will go off in straight lines with uniform motion.
If a projectile were deprived of the force of gravity, it would not be deflected towards the earth, but could go off in a straight line toward the heavens, doing so with a uniform motion, provided the resistance of the air be removed.
It is drawn back by its gravity from the rectilinear path and is perpetually bent towards the earth, more or less according to its gravity and the velocity of motion.
When its gravity is less in proportion to the quantity of matter, or where the velocity with which it propelled greater, it will deviate correspondingly less from the rectilinear path, and will travel farther.
If a lead ball, propelled by gunpowder from the summit of some mountain in a horizontal line with a given velocity, were to travel in a curved line for the distance of two miles before it fell to earth, it would travel about twice as far with double the velocity, and about ten times as far with ten times the velocity, provided that the resistance of the air be removed.
And by increasing the velocity, the distance to which it is propelled may be increased at will, and the curvature of the line which it describes may be diminished, so that it would finally fall at a distance of ten or thirty or ninety degrees, or it might even go around the whole earth, or, at last, go off towards the leavens, continuing on /in infinitum with the motion with which it departed./
And by the same account, by which a projectile may be deflected into an orbit by the force of gravity and may go around the whole earth, the moon too, whether by the force of gravity (provided it be heavy) or by another force of whatever kind, by which it is urged towards the earth, can be always pulled back towards the earth from its rectilinear path, and deflected into its orbit; and without such a force the moon cannot be held back in its orbit.

No need to hold planets in orbit with a force.
Newton is still thinking in terms of crystalline spheres and the necessity of holding celestial objects in place with “something”. In the case of Newton that something is not crystalline spheres but Newton’s Soul that permeates the whole universe.

This force, if it were less than required, would not sufficiently deflect the moon from the rectilinear path; and if greater than required, would deflect it more than sufficiently and would lead it down from its orbit towards the earth.
It is indeed required that it be of exactly the right magnitude, and it is for the Mathematicians to find the force by which a body can be accurately kept back in any given orbit you please with a given velocity, and in turn to find the curvilinear line into which a body departing from any given plane you please with a given velocity would be deflected by a given force.

Newton is trying to obfuscate the real problem by throwing the responsibility of finding orbits to mathematicians. But in the Newtonian fair tale world it is the intelligent centripetal force that computes the right quantity of force to apply to a given mass.
And this force must always be right because we never observe failing to achieve orbits. Something similar is done with artificial satellites but I don’t of any natural body in inertial motion transforming itself into an orbital path or failing the orbit to flying off on a new rectilinear path.

Further, the quantity of the centripetal force is of three kinds: absolute, accelerative, and motive.

Newton’s method of in your face sophistry

People who use sophistry usually try to hide their sophistry because the purpose of sophistry is to deceive and you don’t want your readers to realize that you are trying to deceive them.
But Newton is so confident in his authority that instead of hiding he highlights his rhetorical sophistry. He wants you to know that he will be deceiving you with his sophistry and equivocations and that he’ll make you believe his every lie by his authority.
Here’s an example: Newton explicitly states in several places in the Principia that he will be calling the supernatural cause he is using to explain natural phenomena like orbits with various euphemisms like “attractive forces”, “centripetal forces”, “gravitational forces” etc, etc. The locations of these supernatural causes are unknown. Newton never makes clear if he believes this “force” exists or not. Centripetal force maybe located at the center or not, it may or may not even exist, Newton may even invoke God’s hand as the cause of any force he wishes. Newton is considered to be the greatest scientist ever lived! Irony aside, I don’t see why we should take this master sophist seriously…
Generations of Newton’s followers accepted Newton’s blatant deceptions as the whims of the great man. Who can argue against the human closest to Gods.
Newton takes the classical tradition of scholastic sophistry to new heights.
What is sophistry?
We have a good definition. Sophistry is a rhetorical tool wildly used to deceive.
Deception ought not to be seen as bad.
Deception is the fundamental process of nature. In order to survive you need to deceive. Humans deceive by using language and the technique used is sophistry.

Newton tries to sell his supernatural cause as a natural cause

The Principia is a book written to establish Newton’s occult and hermetic doctrines as the true nature.
Newton also tries to sell his initial assumption presented as his axioms OR laws of motion as Laws of Nature. This is called deception. But since Newton’s authority is sacred we must accept everything Newton states as absolute truth without question. In the extreme cases, as in the case of Newton’s supernatural cause called force, we must rationalize it and incorporate it into physics by sophistry.

Axioms or Laws of Motion

Why would somebody name one of the sections in his book “Axioms OR Laws of Motion”.
Are these Axioms? Or Laws? They cannot be both.
Of course, Newton’s followers always read these axioms or laws of motion as “laws of nature.”
Newton is a master of sophistry, his slick and slippery titling of this most important section in the Principia proves this fact.
Why are we tolerating this type of slippery sophistry in a serious science book? Do we tolerate this blatant sophistry because we take Newton’s authority to be sacred?
Yes. In physics Newton’s authority is sacred. You cannot question the doctrines of the founder of the field whose name is given to a unit?
Can we imagine a similar sophistry in Euclid? Would Euclid have written “Definitions OR Common Notions”? No.
Would Galileo have written the law of free fall as proportional to time squared OR time cubed? No.
So, how come we tolerate this sophistry in Newton? We would have expected that the greatest scientist ever lived would know the difference between an axiom and law.

Questions

What is the difference between axioms and laws?
What is a law of motion?
What is a law of nature?
Is nature legal? Are there laws in nature?
There are rules in nature but are there laws?
What do we mean by the word “law”.
And most importantly what is motion?
1. This must be hardest to define.
2. Here, in this context, we are talking about orbital motion.

Newton’s propaganda that he was studying his supernatural cause only mathematically

The Newtonian propaganda that in Book 1 and Book 2 he was studying the force of attraction only mathematically and not considering its physical causes is readily accepted by Newton’s apologists. For instance, Cohen on page 155, criticizing “mechanical philosophers” such as Huygens and Leibniz not understanding that Newton was studying force only mathematically: Some contemporaries among them Huygens and Leibniz, found the very notion of attraction so abhorrent, even on a mathematical level, that they simply rejected the Newtonian natural philosophy in which they found it embedded. They simply ignored Newton’s statements about mathematics and physics and about levels of discourse or refused to accept the Newtonian distinctions.“
But Newton never studies his supernatural cause he calls with various euphemisms such as gravity. In none of the geometric figures in the Principia this supernatural cause is represented as a line. It cannot be. Because, by definition Newton’s “gravity” or “force” is a supernatural cause, it is not a quantity that exists in this world.

This same Newtoniam propaganda repeated by chatgpt and Gemini

[chatgpt]

I read this quote about Huygens’ rejection of Newton’s force: “Newton’s idea that gravity is an attractive force, Huygens could not accept. Considering gravity as a universal force, which operates over empty space, inevitably led to the problem how any force could act at a distance. But for a mechanical philosopher like Huygens, nothing could act at a distance. Talking of gravity this way is talking of occult causes.” In this case, I agree with Huygens (and also with Liebniz who criticized Newton on the same basis) that Newton’s force is supernatural and could not be used to explain natural phenomena. Why do you think Huygens was ignored and Newton’s force istill used in physics?

Newton’s theory ultimately prevailed not because Huygens’s objections lacked merit philosophically, but because Newton’s formulation was spectacularly successful in predicting and unifying a wide range of phenomena. Here are some key reasons:

Empirical Success: Newton’s law of universal gravitation accurately explained planetary orbits, tides, and many other phenomena. Its predictive power made it indispensable, even if the notion of “action at a distance” was philosophically troubling.
Mathematical Rigor: Newton’s mathematical framework, as presented in the Principia, provided a clear, quantitative description of gravitational effects. This precision allowed scientists to test and verify the theory against observations, strengthening its acceptance.
Pragmatic Focus: By the time these debates were raging, the scientific community was increasingly valuing empirical adequacy over strict adherence to a mechanical philosophy. Even though Huygens and Leibniz criticized the idea of forces acting across empty space as “occult,” the practical success of Newton’s equations outweighed these philosophical concerns.
Evolution of Scientific Thought: Later developments in physics, like Einstein’s general relativity, provided deeper insights into gravity by reinterpreting it as the curvature of spacetime rather than a mysterious force acting at a distance. This evolution shows that while early mechanical models were limited, the predictive framework of Newton’s theory was a crucial stepping stone.

In summary, while Huygens’s philosophical stance was influential, the overwhelming empirical success and mathematical elegance of Newton’s theory made it the cornerstone of physics, a status that persists as a useful approximation in many contexts even today.

—

Gemini

Huygens’s and Leibniz’s objections to Newton’s theory of gravity were rooted in their philosophical commitments to mechanism. They believed that all physical phenomena should be explainable in terms of direct contact between objects, and they found the idea of a force acting at a distance, without any intervening medium, to be unintelligible.
Newton, on the other hand, was not concerned with providing a mechanical explanation for gravity. He was primarily interested in developing a mathematical theory that could accurately predict the motions of the planets. His law of universal gravitation, which states that any two objects with mass attract each other with a force proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them, was able to do just that.
Despite the lack of a mechanical explanation, Newton’s theory was widely accepted by scientists because it was so successful in explaining and predicting a wide range of phenomena, from the orbits of the planets to the tides on Earth. Over time, the concept of a force acting at a distance became more accepted as well, as physicists developed new theories and mathematical tools to describe it.
Today, Newton’s theory of gravity is still used in many applications, such as calculating the trajectories of spacecraft. However, it has been superseded by Einstein’s theory of general relativity, which provides a more complete and accurate description of gravity. General relativity explains gravity not as a force, but as a curvature of spacetime caused by the presence of mass and energy.
In conclusion, Huygens’s and Leibniz’s objections to Newton’s theory of gravity were based on their philosophical preferences for mechanism. However, Newton’s theory was ultimately accepted because it was so successful in explaining and predicting a wide range of phenomena. Over time, the concept of a force acting at a distance became more accepted, and Newton’s theory was eventually superseded by Einstein’s theory of general relativity.

Newton the occultist

Newton was an occultist through and through.
Newton lived his life hiding his heretical religious beliefs and hiding his occultism under his “natural philosophy”.
The usual interpretation of this situation is the greatest scientist ever lived in his leisure dabbled in alchemy and obviously Newton’s alchemical and theological and hermetic interests never ever interfered with the great man’s scientific work as proved by his great oeuvre, the Principia.
This is Newtonian propaganda.
Newton was not a natural philosopher. Newton was a supernatural philosopher. For Newton nature is supernatural, natura est supernaturalis.

Newton’s translation of Emerald Tablet

Newton did not consider his natural philosophy and his work into supernatural as two separate endeavors.
We have Newton’s translation of the Emerald Tablet:

Tis true without lying, certain and most true.
That which is below is like that which is above
and that which is above is like that which is below
to do the miracle of one only thing

For Newton the following is also true:

That which is beyond is like that which is within
that which is within is like that which is beyond

For Newton that which is natural is that which is supernatural

For Newton, natural (within) and supernatural (beyond) is the same thing.

This is why Newton does not hesitate to explain natural phenomena with a supernatural cause like his God.
This is why Newton has no scruples explaining natural phenomena like orbits with a supernatural cause he calls “force”.

Explaining natural phenomena with supernatural causes is not an exception in Newton, on the contrary, this is Newton’s main method. Newton should never be compared to rational and true scientists such as Huygens and Leibniz but to John Dee. Newton is an occultist like John Dee. The only difference is that Newton is a better mathematician than Dee.

Newton: A man with many fantastical attributes

Newton has many fantastical qualities:
1. Newton is the thrice-great sophist, our Hermes Trimegistus of sophistry. Newton employs a technique of sophistry he invented himself called “in-your-face sophistry”. Newton does not need to hide from you that he is deceiving you with his sophistry. This is how great a sophist he is. [Examples to come]
2. Newton is the great appropriator. Newton never encountered a concept he could not steal by renaming it. He stole from Descartes by renaming Descartes’ first law of motion as Newton’s first law of motion. What a genius this Newton was! He stole Kepler’s Third Law and rearranged its terms and called it Newton’s Laws.
3. Newton is the Moses of Mechanics because Newton claims to have received the essence of the world from God when we said “God in the beginning formed matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable, movable particles.” God revealed to Newton how He created the world according to Newton’s Laws. Moses got only some social rules from Gods, but God revealed to Newton how he created the world.
4. Newton is the great euphemist and grandmaster of circumlocution.
5. Newton is an occultist and supernaturalist.
6. A genius of marketing

Newton is an esoteric supernaturalist

Newton is an esoteric occultist who explains natural phenomena with supernatural causes.
If this is true how can Newton still be called literally “the greatest scientist ever lived.” Under these considerations, Newton’s status as the greatest scientist ever lived must be downgraded to “greatest anti-science ever lived” or at least “the greatest pre-scientific revolution scholastic doctor who is a professional sophist.”

Newton and the scientific revolution

Newton is usually associated with the imaginary revolution known as “scientific revolution.”
Newton is credited as the scientist who spearheaded the scientific revolution with his book the Principia and his laws.
But Newton is somebody who explains natural phenomena with supernatural causes, how can he be the scientist who triggered the scientific revolution with his great scientific work. But we know since the scientific revolution that natural phenomena cannot be explained by supernatural causes.
Newton is scientific fraud who sells his supernatural, occult and esoteric suppositions as natural, physical phenomena by using the methods of scholastic sophistry.

Newton and doubletalk

Newton is a master in everything he did. He was a master of doubletalk too. But to accuse Newton of doubletalk would be anachronism so I asked chatgpt to give some alternatives:

“Doubletalk” as a concept always existed even though the word was invented by Orwell in the 20th century. To avoid anachronism, what word should we use for the same concept but for a historical figure? For instance, to say “Newton is using doubletalk” would be an anachronism. Can you suggest other words with older provenance to be used for doubletalk?

Certainly! While “doubletalk” is a modern term associated with Orwellian language, historical equivalents can convey similar ideas without anachronism. For describing a historical figure like Newton, consider these alternatives:

Equivocation – A term with a long history (dating back to at least the Middle Ages), meaning the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or avoid commitment.
- Example: “Newton is engaging in equivocation.”
Ambiguity – A classical term often used to describe unclear or double-meaning language, originating from Latin ambiguitas.
- Example: “Newton’s arguments are laden with ambiguity.”
Sophistry – A term from ancient Greece, referring to the use of clever but misleading reasoning.
- Example: “Newton’s reasoning could be seen as sophistry.”
Duplicity – Dating back to the 14th century, this word conveys deceitful behavior or double-dealing.
- Example: “Newton’s statements reveal duplicity.”
Obfuscation – A term with roots in Latin, meaning the act of making something unclear or unintelligible.
- Example: “Newton employs obfuscation in his arguments.”
Prevarication – This term, derived from Latin, refers to evasion of the truth.
- Example: “Newton resorts to prevarication.”

Each of these terms avoids the anachronism of “doubletalk” while remaining accurate to the historical context. The choice depends on the specific nuance you wish to convey about Newton’s language or reasoning.

This is a great answer! Indeed, Newton is a master of sophistry and he practices all of these rhetorical deceptions in his writings.
But why does Newton need to use deception? Because Newton is trying to sell a supernatural cause he pretends he discovered as a physical cause of natural phenomena. Newton is the greatest scientific fraud ever lived.

Newton is a scoundrel and a fraud

We expose Newton as a scoundrel and an occultist who established his religious dogma of atomic materialism on humanity as the only true nature.
But the world we live in is not atomic and it is not material.
Furthermore, motion is not rectilinear.
Newton’s force is supernatural.
I don’t understand how an occultist anti-science is celebrated as the greatest scientist ever lived.
Newton is not the greatest scientist ever lived.
Newton is an occultist who habitually explains natural phenomena with supernatural causes such as “God” or his “force”. This occultist and anti-science cannot be the greatest scientist ever lived. Just the opposite.
Newton who reversed what is known as the Scientific Revolution by introducing supernatural causes into physics.
But mainstream physics never ignores this fact. Instead of objecting to this absurd situation physicists chose to rationalize this fact by sophistry. As if Newton never explained natural phenomena by supernatural causes. Newton brought science back to pre-scientific areas.

Is Newton a law giver?

[chatgpt]

In history, can you give some examples of prominent figures known as law giver?

Yes! Throughout history, several rulers and philosophers have earned the title of “lawgiver” due to their contributions to legal systems. Here are some notable examples:

Ancient Lawgivers:

Hammurabi (c. 1810–1750 BCE) – The Babylonian king who created the famous Code of Hammurabi, one of the earliest known legal codes, based on the principle of “an eye for an eye.”
Moses (circa 13th–15th century BCE, traditional date) – According to religious tradition, Moses received the Ten Commandments from God, forming the foundation of Jewish law (Halakha).
Solon (c. 630–560 BCE) – An Athenian statesman and poet credited with major reforms that laid the groundwork for Athenian democracy.
Lycurgus of Sparta (possibly mythical, c. 9th–7th century BCE) – The legendary lawgiver of Sparta, known for establishing its militaristic and communal society through the Great Rhetra.

Classical and Medieval Lawgivers:

Justinian I (482–565 CE) – The Byzantine emperor who commissioned the Corpus Juris Civilis (Justinian Code), which influenced modern legal traditions.
Muhammad (570–632 CE) – The founder of Islam, whose teachings in the Quran and Hadith form the basis of Islamic law (Sharia).
Alfred the Great (849–899 CE) – The Anglo-Saxon king of England who compiled laws and is regarded as the father of English law.

Early Modern and Modern Lawgivers:

Napoleon Bonaparte (1769–1821) – Created the Napoleonic Code, which modernized French law and influenced many legal systems worldwide.
Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826) – A principal author of the U.S. Declaration of Independence and a key figure in shaping American constitutional law.
Gandhi (1869–1948) – Though not a ruler, he helped shape India’s independence movement, influencing its legal and constitutional development.

These individuals shaped legal traditions that continue to influence societies today. Do you have a specific era or civilization in mind?

Great! Can we include Isaac Newton to this list since he defined laws too, even though he defined laws of nature. Also, can we say that nature is legal and works with laws?

That’s an interesting perspective! While historical “lawgivers” usually refer to those who established human legal systems, Isaac Newton could indeed be considered a kind of lawgiver—but for the natural world. His laws of motion and universal gravitation provided a systematic framework that governs how physical objects interact, much like legal codes govern human behavior.

As for nature being “legal,” that depends on how we define “law.” If we take law to mean a set of enforced rules with consequences for violation (as in human legal systems), then nature isn’t exactly “legal” because it doesn’t enforce laws through conscious judgment. However, if we define laws more broadly as consistent principles that govern how things operate, then yes—nature follows laws.

Newton himself seemed to view natural laws as divinely established rules, not just descriptive patterns. He believed God created a universe that operates in an orderly, predictable manner, governed by mathematical principles. This perspective aligns with the idea that nature has laws in a structured, rule-based sense, much like human legal systems—but without courts, judges, or punishments.

Would you like to explore Newton’s own words on this idea? He often described nature as a system designed by God with inherent laws.

No. But I’d like to ask about the difference between a law and a rule. For instance, Kepler’s Third Law is a rule, that is, a proportionality. But we call it a law. Are there any laws of nature that are not expressed as a proportionality?

Good question! The distinction between a law and a rule can be subtle, especially in science. Generally:

A law describes a fundamental and consistent relationship in nature, often mathematically formulated, and observed to hold universally.
A rule can be a heuristic, an approximation, or a guiding principle that may not be as fundamental as a law.

Laws vs. Proportionalities

Many physical laws involve proportionalities (like Kepler’s Rule, Ohm’s Law, and Boyle’s Law), but not all laws are proportionalities. Some describe limits, conservation principles, or constraints.

Examples of Laws That Are Not Simply Proportionalities:

The Pauli Exclusion Principle (Quantum Mechanics)
- States that no two identical fermions (e.g., electrons) can occupy the same quantum state simultaneously. This is a strict rule rather than a proportionality.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics
- States that entropy in an isolated system never decreases. This law sets a directional constraint on processes rather than a numerical proportionality.
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
- Places a limit on the simultaneous precision of certain pairs of measurements (e.g., position and momentum). This is an inequality rather than a direct proportionality.
The Principle of Relativity (Einstein’s Theory)
- The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames, implying symmetry rather than proportionality.
Newton’s First Law (Law of Inertia)
- Describes the tendency of objects to remain in uniform motion or rest unless acted upon by a force—this is more of a definitional statement than a proportionality.

So while many laws are expressed as proportionalities, others define limits, symmetries, or exclusion rules that govern nature. Would you like to discuss any of these laws further?

Table of Contents