[ Claude ]

We know that Newton force is occult. This means that we don’t know how it acts on distant objects. I’d like to compare Newton’s force with the voodoo magic force. In voodoo magic too, when the voodoo doll is pricked that “force” travels instantly and the subject feels that force. I think there are similarities and I’m sure there are differences as well. Going along with this idea can you give a comparison of Newtonian force and voodoo force. Would you agree if I call Newton’s force “voodoo force”?

The comparison between Newtonian gravity and voodoo magic is an interesting philosophical exploration of action at a distance. Let me analyze both concepts:

[ chatgpt ]

“Occult” means hidden. But it must mean more than hidden, right? For instance, in the context of Newtonian force, if I say “Newton’s force is occult, supernatural, mysterious and hidden”, is “hidden” unnecessary or superfluous?

You’re right that “occult” means “hidden,” but it carries additional connotations beyond mere concealment. In Newton’s time, calling something “occult” often implied that it was inexplicable or had no mechanistic explanation.

In your phrase— “Newton’s force is occult, supernatural, mysterious, and hidden” —“hidden” might be somewhat redundant because “occult” already implies something not directly observable. However, “hidden” could still add nuance if you want to emphasize a specific aspect of its unobservability.
.
.

1. Mechanism
   
   1. « Underlying process or mechanism »
      
   2. But this must result in infinite recursion, right? There will always be a privious cause. Our effect will be the cause of something else. The cause was an effect and so on. Cause and effect all the way down. I think Newton says something like this, that the search for causes must stop somewhere.
      
   3. See also Newton’s hypothesis non fingo
      
2. Cause and effect relationship
   
   1. involving 1) contact, 2) interaction, 3) intermediary steps
      
3. « Physical transmission of forces… »
   
   1. Forces are not transmitted. Only motion can be transmitted or transferred.
      
   2. Newton corrupted the word “force” so badly that this word still confuses us.
      

.
.
.

• If you mean that Newton’s force is conceptually inexplicable, “occult” alone suffices.
  
  • conceptually inexplicable…
    
    • what does this mean?
      
    • the force operates unseen but has known effects
      
    • this I deny
      
    • chatgpt has difficulties giving non-gravitational examples
      
• If you mean that the force operates unseen but has known effects, “hidden” could reinforce that.
  
  • force operates…
    
    • Force does not operate. Force “operates” only in Newtonian fairy tales.
      

-. If you want to emphasize a more mystical interpretation, “supernatural” and “mysterious” already push it in that direction.

.
.
.

1. observable
   
   1. measurable [?]
      
2. inexplicable
   
   1. can be measurable and observable but inexplicable
      
   2. They mean its cause is inexplicable [?]
      
   3. cannot be explained
      
   4. cannot be rationalized
      
   5. cannot be put into rational forms as ratios and proportionalities
      
   6. cannot be explained with a unit
      
   7. cannot be measured
      
   8. chatgpt disagrees, inexplicable does not mean not measurable and he gives tha standard Newtonian gravity excuse. This is what we need to refute. Step by step.
      
3. had no mechanistic explanation…
   
   1. We need to understand if Newton computes orbits with some agent that has no mechanical explanation.
      
4. Newton’s force…
   
   1. More correctly Newton’s voodoo force.
      
   2. We really don’t care about what Newton thinks how this supernatural thing he calls force works.
      
   3. Newton’s self-serving polemics about his supposed principle of not framing hypotheses is not relevant.
      
   4. What is relevant is that Newton defined this “force” as a supernatural cause that traveled distances without time passing. There is nothing else to discuss. Why should we discuss the cause of something that does not exist in nature? That would be silly.
      
   5. Do we agree that this force is defined as a supernatural cause that does not exist in this world? Yes. Then why are discussing its cause if it does not exist in this world? Because Newton says that he used this supernatural cause he called force in his orbit calculations. No one can use a supernatural cause to calculate orbits. Newton is lying. He never uses this fore to compute orbits.
      
   6. Discussions of the cause of this supernatural cause is a red herring invented by Newton in order to hide the fact that he was using a supernatural cause to compute orbits
      
   7. We don’t care about Newton’s approach to gravity because Newton’s self-serving polemics about his supernatural cause he calls force are irrelevant.
      
   8. What is relevant is Newton’s use of this supernatural cause he calls force. We look at what Newton does. We don’t care about what Newton says.
      

.
.
.

Historically, critics of Newton, like Leibniz and Huygens, called his force occult because it acted at a distance without direct mechanical contact. They saw this as a return to Aristotelian “qualities” rather than a proper mechanistic explanation. Newton, however, avoided calling it supernatural—he insisted that gravity was a real, natural force, even if he couldn’t yet explain how it worked.

.
.
.

1. « Newton, however, avoided calling it supernatural—he insisted that gravity was a real, natural force, even if he couldn’t yet explain how it worked. »
   
   1. This is not true.
      
   2. Newton explained how his gravity worked. It worked by traveling distances without time passing.
      
   3. Newton did not know how this force traveled distances without time passing.
      
   4. There is nothing to be known because nothing can travel without time passing.
      
   5. This is sophistry.
      
   6. Newton’s mathematical formulation (which is nothing other than Kepler’s Rule) does not require an agent traveling from center to the satellite this is why Newton’s force does not work in the case of orbital motion. Since Newton must assume as dictated by his atomic materialist doctrines, he realizes that his “force” does not travel in time but it is a timeless traveler. Thus, Newton moves into the realm of fairy tales.
      

.
.
.

Chatgpt wrote: Newton, however, avoided calling it supernatural—he insisted that gravity was a real, natural force, even if he couldn’t yet explain how it worked.

1. I don’t agree with this.
   
2. Newton knew how his force worked because he defined it as a cause that travels distances without time passing.
   
3. This is how Newton’s force works. I see this as the mechanics of Newton’s force.
   
4. Newton may be saying, “this supernatural cause that I call gravity or force is supernatural but my orbital calculations with it gives correct results so I accept this mystery” or something like that.
   
5. But this is sophistry Newton uses to hide the fact that he is using a supernatural cause to explain natural phenomena. I know this is controversial stance on my part. What do you think?
   

Your interpretation touches on a long-standing debate about Newton’s approach to gravity. Newton’s formulation in the Principia provided a remarkably accurate mathematical description of gravitational attraction—it allowed him to predict the motions of celestial bodies with great precision. However, it’s important to note that Newton himself was deliberately cautious about speculating on the underlying mechanism of gravity. His famous remark, “hypotheses non fingo” (I frame no hypotheses), reflects his refusal to offer an explanation for how gravity operates at a distance, rather than a confident claim that he fully understood its mechanism.

.
.
.

1. « a long-standing debate about Newton’s approach to gravity… »
   
   1. Wo don’t care about Newton’s approach to gravity and his self-servic sophistry about this supernatural cause he calls force. We only care about Newton’s computations.
      
2. « Newton’s formulation in the Principia provided a remarkably accurate mathematical description of gravitational attraction—it allowed him to predict the motions of celestial bodies with great precision. »
   
   1. Really? When I look at the propositions in the Principia where Newton makes orbital calculations, I see that he only uses Kepler’s Rule.
      
   2. So, what you call, “remarkably accurate mathematical description of gravitational attractions” is nothing more than Kepler’s Rule.
      
3. « his refusal to offer an explanation for how gravity operates at a distance, rather than a confident claim that he fully understood its mechanism. »
   
   1. These speculations about how the supernatural cause Newton calls fravity “operate at a distance” is irrelevant. This is red herring that Newton successfully used to hide the fact that what he calls gravity was a supernatural cause.
      
   2. Gravity does not “operate” and does not operate “at a distance” because it does not exist in this world.
      
   3. If so, how come was able to compute orbits by using something that does not exist in this world?
      
   4. Even Hermes Trismegistus, let alone Newton, can compute orbits by using something that does not exist. This is called magic and we don’t use magic to explain natural phenomena.
      
   5. Therefore, we don’t need to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that Newton never uses this supernatural cause he calls gravity to compute orbits. When we eliminate what is impossible, what remains, not matter how improbable must be true. Newton cannot match Holmes when it comes to scientific reasoning.
      
   6. To prove that Newton never uses any force terms in his calculations of orbits, we ignore Newton’s self-serving polemicis and we open his Principia and look at his computations of orbits. And indeed we see that Newton never uses any force terms in his computations.
      
   7. But Newton’s faithful disciples will never accept their master is lying to them so they say “you don’t see the force terms, but we see it because we the magical Newtonian vision,” or something like, “force terms are invisible because they are implicit,” which is same thing.
      
   8. Now we must spend time Newton’s sophistry
      

.
.
.

Newton’s Descriptive Versus Explanatory Approach

• Descriptive Success: Newton defined gravitational force mathematically—as an inverse-square law—which enabled precise orbital calculations. This model was extremely successful in predicting natural phenomena.
  
• Mechanistic Explanation: Despite the predictive power of his equations, Newton did not provide a physical mechanism for gravity. Critics of his time (and later historians) have argued that this left gravity as an “occult” quality—something mysterious that acted at a distance without a clear, mechanistic explanation.
  
• Your Stance: You suggest that by defining gravity as a cause that travels distances without time passing, Newton effectively provided a mechanism, albeit one that invokes a sort of supernatural, timeless agency. From your perspective, this amounts to sophistry: a clever mathematical model that masks an appeal to the supernatural.
  

.
.
.

1. « Newton defined gravitational force mathematically—as an inverse-square law—which enabled precise orbital calculations. »
   
   1. In general, whenever we see the words “force” or “gravity” in the Newtonian context, we must replace them with the phrase “supernatural cause.” Because force and gravity and similar words Newton uses are euphemisms or labels Newton uses to hide the fact that he is using a supernatural cause to explain natural phenomena. Newton’s powers of deception by using rhetorical sophistry is unmatched.
      
   2. That Newton defined gravitational force mathematically is one of the big lies Newton told and got away with it. This lie is still propagated by Newton’s followers. It is fundamental to show that this is a lie and it makes no sense that Newton defined force or attraction or gravity mathematically.
      
   3. Yes, this is a lie Newton successfully established as truth to hide the fact that he was using a supernatural cause to explain natural phenomena.
      
   4. The claim that Newton defined gravitational attraction mathematically makes no sense because planetary orbits are given by Kepler’s Rule. There is no other rule and there is no other “mathematical framework” to explain orbits.
      
   5. Therefore Newton must use Kepler’s Rule to compute orbits and he does. He has no choice. He just obcures this fact by throwing around his dynamical jargon –before– he makes computations. None of his dynamical and forceful jargon enter his effective formulas he uses to compute orbits
      
2. « Despite the predictive power of his equations… »
   
   1. The predictive powers of “Newton’s equations” come from Kepler’s Rule since Newton uses Kepler’s Rule to compute orbits.
      
3. « Newton did not provide a physical mechanism for gravity… »
   
   1. Yes, he did. Newton’s force is a timeless traveler. This is the mechanism. Newton’s superanatural cause called euphemistically “gravity” travels distances without time passing.
      
   2. But since the supernatural cause Newton calls “gravity” is supernatural and does not exist in this world it cannot have a mechanical or non-mechanical cause. IT DOES NOT EXIST! IT’S ABSURD TO DISCUSS THE CAUSE OF SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT EXIST.
      
4. « as an inverse-square law… »
   
   1. Newton labeled one of the terms of Kepler’s Rule “force”. That’s all Newton did.
      
   2. There is no inverse square law because there is no inverse square law that explains orbits. Orbits are given by Kepler’s Rule. There is no other rule or law that can be used to describe orbits.
      
   3. Newton never discovered a new law that explained orbits or gravity. Gravity is acceleration. Gravity is not “force of acceleration”.
      
   4. Newton “discovered” Kepler’s Rule and branded it as Newton’s laws by labeling its terms force. That’s it there is no inverse square law.
      
5. « which enabled precise orbital calculations. »
   
   1. This is not true. Newton uses Kepler’s Rule to compute orbits. But he attaches his own labels to Kepler’s Rule and pretends that he is using Newton’s dynamical laws.
      
   2. You can take a jet engine made by Rolls-Royce and cover the Rolls-Royce loga and paste your own “Newton’s Universal Jet Engine”. Yes you can fool some people but most people will realize that you are a liar and a scoundrel. This is what Newton did to Kepler’s Law. He tried to brand it as Newton’s Dynamical Laws.
      
   3. Calling the terms of a proportionality with any label at all does not change that proportionality.
      
   4. Newton calls the \(R/T^2\) term in Kepler’s Rule “force”. I may call \(R/T^2\) “Newton’s Soul” and nothing will change. Do you think because I called one of the terms of Kepler’s Rule “Newton’s Soul” now orbits will be powered by Newton’s Soul? I guess not.
      
6. « This model was extremely successful in predicting natural phenomena. »
   
   1. Yes, this is true because “this model” can only refer to Kepler’s Rule. Newton’s model is Kepler’s Rule.
      
   2. Newton uses Kepler’s Rule with his own labels attached to it. Kepler’s Rule with Newtonian labels is still Kepler’s Rule.
      
   3. Newton’s disciples went even further and decorated Kepler’s Rule with Newtonian sounding units. But using Newtonian sounding units still does not make Kepler’s Rule Newton’s laws
      
   4. I say that Newton’s branding of Kepler’s Rule as Newton’s dynamical laws is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, fraud in the history of science.
      

.
.
.

Context and Interpretations

• Historical Context: In the 17th century, the idea of action at a distance was deeply unsettling to many natural philosophers because it seemed to invoke mysterious or even supernatural forces. Newton’s reluctance to delve into the “how” was partly a response to these concerns.
  
• Modern Perspective: Today, we tend to view Newton’s theory as a phenomenal predictive tool, even though it leaves unanswered questions about the nature of gravitational interaction—questions that were later addressed by Einstein’s theory of general relativity. In Einstein’s framework, gravity is not a force transmitted through space but a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime.
  
• Philosophical Implications: Whether Newton’s approach constitutes “sophistry” or a pragmatic limitation of his era depends on one’s philosophical stance. Some see his refusal to speculate as an honest admission of the limits of contemporary science, while others, like yourself, interpret it as a strategic avoidance of a deeper inquiry into the natural world.
  

.
.
.

1. « the idea of action at a distance… »
   
   1. The concept of action at a distance is better decribed as traveling distances without time passing. So Newton’s “force” is defined as a timeless traveler.
      
2. « even supernatural forces… »
   
   1. There are no forces, (in the sense defined by Newton), neither natural nor supernatural.
      
3. « Newton’s reluctance to delve into the “how” was partly a response to these concerns… »
   
   1. There is no “how”. This is what I’m saying. This is red herring invented by Newton to hide the fact that he is using a supernatural cause to explain natural phenomana.
      
   2. Do we discuss how God corrects Newtonian mechanics by fixing orbits that start to disobey “Newtonian mechanics” and start to go chaotic? Do we search for a cause of how God fixes the orbits of planets? No. We say that God is a supernatural cause and since it is supernatural it is beyond human understanding.
      
   3. We no longer use supernatural causes to explain natural phenomena. I guess this news reached Leibniz and Huygens but not Newton who was stuck in the pre-scientific era.
      
   4. Newton’s supernatural cause called force is exactly the same thing as “God”.
      
   5. God is a supernatural cause that Newton calls “God (the supernatural cause that saves Newtonian orbits from chaotic orbits). The supernatural cause that Newton calls ”force“ is exactly like God and it magically powers planetary orbits.
      
   6. So Newton uses two types of supernatural cause to explain natural phenomena: One he calls God. Newtonian mechanics predicts chaotic orbits. Since Newton and Newtonian mechanics can never be wrong, Newton, the greatest scientis ever lived, a megalomaniac supernaturalist, invokes God to fix his orbits. A lesser genius that Newton would said that my formulas predict chaotic behavior, so either I’l fix my formulas or dump my theory. But Newton invokes God! And ever since then there was 10 generations of scientists and no one saw anything fishy in Newton’s explanation of natural phenomena with God.
      
   7. God as a supernatural cause gets involved or sends his angels, we don’t know, the angels may be flapping their wings against the planets and adjust their orbits, and this would be a mechanical explanation, right? No, wrong. When we see Newton using a supernatural cause he calls “God” to explain natural phenomena, we dismiss this supernatural cause outright as unscinetific nonesense, we don’t say “I frame no hypotheses” so I don’t know how God does his business. If we say that we don’t know how God fixes chaotic orbits, would God become a natural cause? Of course not. Same with Newton’s other supernatural cause he calls force.
      
   8. Finding a supernatural cause to explain a supernatural effect does not make that cause a natural cause. And vice versa.
      
   9. Newton’s self-serving polemics on his supernatural cause he calls force does not interest us.
      
4. « that were later addressed by Einstein’s theory of general relativity. In Einstein’s framework, gravity is not a force transmitted through space but a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime. »
   
   1. This is wrong too. Einstein correctly identified Newton’s force as a supernatural cause and tried to free physics from Newton’s supernaturalism. But Einstein was not successful. But this is anothar topic, not suitable here.
      
5. « supernatural forces… »
   
   1. In Newtonian context we have
      

\[ \text{supernatural cause} \equiv \text{force} \equiv \text{God} \equiv \text{Voodoo Force} \]

2. These three are the same supernatural causes used by Newton.
   
3. Newton uses both God and gravity as supernatural causes to explain natural effects.
   
4. Starting with Newton and continuing with his disciples, claimed that force is non-physical and supernatural, in a way, but it is also, in a way, physical and natural. This way Newton and Newtonians proved that they are masterful casuists.
   
5. In terms of supernaturalness God is exactly as supernatural a cause as force is.
   

6. « Some see his refusal to speculate as an honest admission of the limits of contemporary science… »
   
   1. I don’t agree with this statement. What is Newton not speculating about? He defined a supernatural cause and he calls this supernatural cause “force.” There is nothing to speculate or not to speculate because this supernatural cause, by definition, is supernatural and therefore it does not exist in this world.
      
   2. We do not inquire how God fixes orbits, because God is a supernatural cause and as scientists we don’t deal with supernatural causes. The same goes for Newton supernatural force.
      

.
.
.

Conclusion

Your controversial stance raises important questions about the nature of scientific explanation. While the mainstream historical and scientific view credits Newton for his predictive genius without necessarily endorsing a full explanation of gravity’s mechanism, your interpretation invites a reevaluation of what it means to “know” how a force works. This debate reflects the evolving nature of scientific inquiry, where models that are effective in prediction are sometimes later supplanted by theories that provide deeper mechanistic insights.

Ultimately, whether Newton’s approach is seen as ingenious pragmatism or a masking of the supernatural is a matter of interpretation—and one that continues to spark lively debate among historians and philosophers of science.
.
.
.

1. « While the mainstream historical and scientific view credits Newton for his predictive genius… »
   
   1. Newton does not have a “predictive genius”. The “predictive genius” is Kepler’s Rule.
      
2. « your interpretation invites a reevaluation of what it means to “know” how a force works. »
   
   1. What Newton calls “force” is a supernatural cause and therefore it does not exist in this world. There is nothing to know here. All we know is that Newton’s force, or gravity is a supernatural cause and does not exist in this world. There is nothing else to discuss.
      
3. « models that are effective in prediction… »
   
   1. There is one model, and that is Kepler’s Rule. Newton uses Kepler’s Rule to compute orbit. Newton predictions are powered by Kepler’s Rule.
      
   2. Newton makes no predictions with some natural cause or rule or law that he found himself. Newton uses Kepler’s Rule with his dynamical jargon.
      
4. « where models that are effective in prediction are sometimes later supplanted by theories that provide deeper mechanistic insights. »
   
   1. Is there any possibility that Newton supernatural force will eventually be discovered to a natural cause? No. There is no possibility. For Newton’s force to be a natural physical force, nature must be supernatural. This will not happen.
      
5. « ingenious pragmatism or a masking of the supernatural is a matter of interpretation… »
   
   1. No, there is no ingenious pragmatism in Newton’s part. Newton genius is his realization of the fundamental nature of Kepler’s Rule. Before Newton, even Kepler did not realize the true power of his namesake rule.
      

1. Is there a doubt about this fact? No.
   
2. Newton himself admits that this thing he calls force is a supernatural cause.
   
3. Furthermore, Newton implies that this force is occult (hidden), mysterious and mystical.
   
4. Furthermore, Newton admits that he has no idea where this force is located or if it exists at all. Newton famously stated that he was so ignorant about the workings of this force as a man of science he would not speculate about the workings of this force.
   
5. Newton’s force does not exist in this world but it exists as a masterpiece of scholastic sophistry.
   

1. Several of Newton’s rational contemporaries immediately recognized that what Newton was marketing as a “force” of attraction was actually the old scholastic occult quality, or virtue.
   
2. If Newton’s force is the name of an occult quality, this is same as saying that Newton’s force was and still is a supernatural cause.
   
3. Newton did not discover a force of nature. He defined a supernatural cause that can set objects in motion from a distance. He then imposed that supernatural cause to nature. Newton’s Principia is a masterful attemp to make nature supernatural by sophistry, lies and propaganda.
   
   1. Are there forces in nature as defined by Newton?
      
   2. No. Because nature is not supernatural.
      
   3. Nature is not not-nature
      

1. The answer is No.
   
2. Newton did not use force terms to compute orbits. [Link to Newton’s astronomical calculations in the Principia] Newton is lying. There is no other word for Newton’s deception about his appropriation of Kepler’s Rule.
   
3. But Newton’s disciples, all of whom are Doctors of Philosophy, are very proficient in the art of scholastic deception techniques by using rhetorical sophistry.
   
4. Newton’s disciples aka the physicists rationalized Newton’s supernatural force by sophistry and incorporated into physics as a natural agent existing in this world. Newton’s supernatural force has become the universal mover even though it only exist in a Newtonian fairy tale world.
   
5. You and I may not see force terms in Newton’s orbit calculations but Newton’s disciples can because they have the magical Newtonian vision that gives them to see invisible terms in Newtonian formulas. Their faith allows them to see hidden terms euphemistically known as “implicit terms”.
   
6. This is the reason I say that Newtonism is a cult. Newton’s disciples believe by faith that Newton discovered this supernatural force that acts magically between objects and sets them in motion.
   
7. Their rationalization of this supernatural thing is childish. They parrot Newton’s sophistry and say that “we don’t know how this occult force works but since it works it must be a real physical cause.”
   
8. No. This is wrong. This force does not work because it never enters the formulas used to compute orbits. This force exists only in Newton’s fairy tale world and his disciples aka physicists believe the sacred authority of their master.
   

1. The fundamental problem here is Newton’s assertion that his force varies with the inverse square of the distance. Can this be true?
   
2. No. This cannot be true for two reasons:
   
   1. This supposed force is supernatural by definition and does not exist in this world. The famous so-called “equation” \(F=GMm/r^2\) is a display equation, it is decorative with no physical meaning. It’s nothing more than a political statement, the official flag of the Cult of the Vis.
      
      1. The symbol \(F\) here is a placeholder. It is written as a prayer to Newton’s sacred authority then in the next step it is eliminated. If \(F\) were not a placeholder but a true quantity it could not be eliminated.
         
   2. The \(1/r^2\) of the famous “inverse square law” is half of the Kepler’s Rule written as \[\frac{r}{t^2}=\frac{1}{r^2}\]
      
      1. Even if we assume that this supernatural force exists in nature it cannot be an inverse square law because there is another \(r\) on the left hand side of Kepler’s Rule written as \[\frac{r}{t^2}=\frac{1}{r^2}\] The true relation is \[r^3 \propto t^2\] not \[\text{something}\propto 1/r^2\]
         

1. Yes. The analogy is perfect.
   
2. In astrology stars apply a mysterious, invisible, hidden, unknown force to influence individuals’ fate. Astrologers assume this force and try to prove by correlation to human affairs. So thy throw the dart and then draw the target later.
   
3. Newton force has the same properties as the astrological force, it is mysterious, invisible, hidden, unknown but nevertheless it exists.
   
4. But we classify Newton as a bigger charlatan than the astrologers because Newton pretends to be a scientist.
   

1. Knowing that Newton’s force is supernatural how do physicists still claim in the 21st century to use it to compute orbits?
   
2. There are several ways to rationalize Newton’s absurd force.
   
3. One is to say that “Newtoniam mechanics is only an approximation.” (As if there non-approximate theories in science)
   
4. The other is to say, with Newton, that this force may be supernatural but it works so we keep using it.
   
5. But Newton’s absurd force does not work because it never enters the formulas used to compute orbits. The force terms are written and then cancelled and they disapper from the formulas. Like the Cheshire cat, the force terms disappear from formulas but its supernatural grin remains. The force is not represented in the formulas but somehow, magically, it remains “implicitly” in the formulas and keep acting on distant objects.
   

1. No.
   

1. Newton has something to hide.
   
2. He is using a supernatural causes to explain natural phenomena.
   
3. He knows that this makes him an anti-scientist and an occultist.
   
4. Huygens and Leibniz accused Newton of bringing back occult qualities to natural sciences.
   
5. So Newton had to defend himself. Did Newton repent and stopped using his supernatural cause he called “force” to explain natural phenomena? No. Newton chose sophistry and deception.
   
6. He did this in several layers. First he denied that he was using supernatura causes.