Table of Contents

Principia - Prop. III.1

Enunciation

That the forces by which the planets around Jupiter are perpetually drawn back from rectilinear motions and held back in their orbits, look to the center of Jupiter, and are inversely as the squares of the distance from the same center.

Comments

The forces…

  1. “Force” is Newton’s name for a supernatural cause he invented to impose his atomic materialism dogma on nature and on humanity.
  2. Supernatural causes do not exist in this world.
  3. Supernatural causes are no longer used in scientific theories. Only an occultist and anti-science fanatic creationist or a charlatan snake oil salesman would use supernatural causes to explain natural phenomena.
  4. Using “force” defined as a supernatural cause to explain natural phenomena is no different than using “God” to explain natural phenomena.
  5. When we expose Newton’s secret assumptions and his sophistry in this proposition we end up with a text like this:

The supernatural causes by which the planets around Jupiter are perpetually drawn back from rectilinear motion and held back in their orbits…

  1. Or more simply,

A supernatural cause we call “force” draws back Jupiter’s moons from rectilinear (inertial) motion and the same supernatural (and intelligent) cause holds the moons in orbit around Jupiter after capturing them.

This supernatural cause is directed toward the center of Jupiter and this supernatural cause called force varies inversely as the square of the distances from the center of Jupiter.

  1. I’m awed by Newton’s genius who can make a supernatural cause that does not exist in this world to have so much physical effects in this world.
  2. But Newton’s genius is unfathomable. Newton uses this supernatural force gimmick as a red herring to augment his mythical powers. Wow, Newton is making computations with a supernatural cause and he gets good results. This is what Newton’s followers have been saying to this day. But the truth is different. This supernatural cause does not enter any of the orbital calculations in the Principia. What a genius. An evil genius.
  3. We are wasting our time discussing Newton’s supernatural cause called force. The effect of Newton’s force in orbits is nil.
  4. Newton’s is the anti-science who blocked the development of natural sciences for over three hundreds years.
  5. In this proposition III.1 what justification do have that the supernatural cause Newton calls force is the active agent that holds orbits in plays and powers the orbits?
  6. There is nothing that ties this Newton’s force to orbits in the proposition.
  7. Newton says that his force varies as the inverse of the distance to the center. Can this be true? No.
  8. This is clear from Kepler’s Rule that Newton is using. Newton writes Kepler’s Rule as \(R/T^2=1/R^2\) and calls \(R/T^2\) “force” and calls \(1/R^2\) the measure of how the force propagates. We clearly see that these two terms are not independent of each other. \(F=R/T^2\) does not increase as \(1/R^2\) because the \(R\) term is in both terms. So force, even if there were such a supernatural force, it will reduce less than \(1/R^2\). But again these are all irrelevant. Newton is not using any force terms in his calculations. He is just using Kepler’s Rule which has only two terms, \(R\) ant \(T\).
  9. So we have a non-existing supernatural cause that Newton assume is active in this world. This can only be if we assume that nature is supernatural. I reject this assumption. Nature is not supernatural and nature is not not-natural.
  10. Newton force is not-nature so it does not exist here.
  11. But we also have the absurdity Newton tried to legalize by his first so-called law.
  12. For over 3 hundred years for more than 10 generations Newton’s disciples ruled the intellectual realm and accepted Newton’s rectilinear inertia without question.
  13. Rectilinear inertia is a silly and self-serving concept Newton invented in analogy to spin rotation motion like the sling motion.
  14. Humanity has been observing the heavens for over six thousand years and no astronomer in all those years observed one single object moving inertially on a straight line. In space the concept of straight line make no sense.
  15. And in scientific discussions we don’t use the word “perpetually”, nothing moves perpetually in this world. If we assume the possible perpetual motion we could hope to build perpetual motion machines. This is forbidden. No one so far ever succeeded in removing friction.
  16. Here in orbits in analogy to the sling motion the planet endeavors to escape from the pull of the Newtonian force. There’s no tension in orbital motion because Newton’s force exists only in Newtonian fairy tales it does not exist in this world.
  17. And we showed that the supernatural force is not \(1/r^2\).
  18. Even simpler, force travels distances by bypassing time and also by bypassing friction, it is supernatural, something that travels the distances without time passing will diminish in strength.
  19. So if the distance is \(AB\), \(A\) is the center of orbit \(B\) is the satellite, the force, by definition, never travels each section of \(AB\) in sections of time, so we never divide \(AB\) in smaller distances or smaller times which is necessary for traveling distances, but force is everywhere at once. Therefore, we understand that Newton’s force is another name for “God” because only God can be everywhere at once.
  20. Newton says that his supernatural cause called force that does not recognize or acknowledge distances is diminished es \(1/R^2\).

Explanation

The former part of the proposition is clear from the first Phenomenon and the second or third Proposition of the first Book, and the latter part is clear from the first Phenomenon and the sixth Corollary of the fourth Proposition of the same Book.

The same is understood of the planets that accompany Saturn, from the second Phenomenon.

Expansion of Newton’s sketch of III.1

That the forces by which the planets around Jupiter are perpetually drawn back from rectilinear motions and held back in their orbits, look to the center of Jupiter, and are inversely as the squares of the distance from the same center. [\(\ldots\)] The same is understood of the planets that accompany Saturn…

To prove

  1. That the forces on the moons tend towards Jupiter’s center
    1. There are no forces on the moons. The only evidence for this assumption Newton gives is his absurd hypothesis he calls “Law” 1.
  2. that the forces on the moons are inversely as the squares of the distances from Jupiter
    1. This is not true either. You cannot break Kepler’s into two terms calling one of them “force” the other the measure of how that force propagates. This is absurd. The force does not propagate by definition. It is a timeless traveler.
  3. Both parts may be shown for Saturn as well.

The former part of the proposition is clear from the first Phenomenon and the second or third Proposition of the first Book, …

Proof

Part 1
  1. By Phenomenon 1, the moons sweep out areas proportional to the times about Jupiter as a center.
    1. Yes, because the orbits of Jupiter’s moons are practically circular. And they have uniform motion. Obviously, they will cover equal areas in equal times. Nothing to prove here.
  2. If Jupiter were at rest or moving with uniform rectilinear motion we could use Proposition I.2, and would be able to conclude that the center of Jupiter is the center of forces towards which the moons are being impelled by the centripetal force.
    1. There is no such thing as uniform rectilinear motion in this world. Such a motion was never observed in about 6 thousands years that we have been observations the heavenly objects.
  3. Proposition I.2 says

Every body that moves in some curved line described in a plane, and, by a radius drawn to a point that either is immobile or proceeds uniformly in a straight line, describes areas about that point proportional to the times, is urged by a centripetal force tending to the same point.

  1. But Jupiter is not at rest, nor is it even moving uniformly in a straight line.
  2. Jupiter is, by Phenomenon 3, encompassing the sun in its own curved orbit.
  3. (We don’t at this point know whether the sun might be at any kind of center for Jupiter’s orbit; it’s enough to know that to encompass the sun Jupiter will not be moving in a straight line.)
    1. So Densmore is saying that Newton’s reference to his Prop. I.2 is bogus. As usual in this book, Newton is trying to deceive his readers by trying to assert his authority. If Newton refers to Prop. I.2 as proof of this proposition, we are supposed to accept this deceptive reference by Newton’s authority. At least, Densmore questions Newton’s authority.
  4. So we must go to Proposition I.3 for our situation here. I.3 says

Every body that, by a radius drawn to the center of another body moved in any way whatever describes areas about that center proportional to the time, is urged by a force compounded of a centripetal force tending toward that other body, and of all the accelerative force by which that other body is urged.

  1. What is he talking about? Something like, Jupiter is revolving around the sun and the moons are revolving about Jupiter. These are all academic because what Newton calls force is really a force that exist only in fairy tales and in Isaac’s Wonderland.
    1. So, he is saying that if the satellite describes areas proportional to times, then the satellite will be urged toward the central body by a force called centripetal force towards the central body plus accelerative forces the central body is urged.
    2. And “moved in any way whatever” is premature and unjustified and silly generalization. Nothing else.
    3. What’s the point I don’t get it
  2. Densmore: We are told here that the moon, which describe areas around the center of Jupiter proportional to the times, are urged by forces compounded of those which impel them to Jupiter and all the forces by which Jupiter is urged.
    1. But force is a supernatural cause. There are no forces urging the moons. Nothing is impelling nothing.
    2. Here Newton uses the spin rotation of a sling as analogy and projects the properties of spin rotation to orbital revolutions.
    3. But the tension in the string in a sling and the tendency to fly off along tangent are real physical quantities that can be represented in a mathematical formula.
    4. But in orbital motion planets are not connected to the central body by a string. Newton wants his force to act like the string. But orbital revolution and spin rotation are not analogous. In spin rotation all points along the radius move with the same angular velocity. This is not the case for orbital motion because of Kepler’s Rule. In systems obeying Kepler’s Rule all points on the radius do not move with the same angular velocity.
    5. So, we dismiss the Prop. I.3 as a fairy tale because it uses a non-existent, occult and supernatural cause Newton calls “force” to explain a natural phenomenon, namely, orbits.
  3. Densmore: If we subtract out the common accelerative force which is impelling a moon-Jupiter system, we are left with the force which is impelling that moon toward the center of Jupiter.
    1. impel: «drive, force, or urge (someone) to do something.» I guess the same cause for something. But how do you impel something, or an inert body to do something. You need to be Newton’s supernatural force.
    2. chatgpt says Google translate did not give all of the meanings of the word “impel”. It can be used for force because we are living in the supernatural Newtonian world where supernatural forces traveling timelessly set distant objects in motion.
    3. But this question is still valid: How do all those “impellings” impel? There are two possibilities: 1) Either by Newton’s sacred authority or 2) by God’s sacred authority.
    4. In our world where nature is not supernatural, or nature is not not-nature, supernatural causes such as the occult and mysterious agent Newton calls force does not exist.
    5. So unless we suspend our disbelief and blindly accept Newton’s authority the way physicists do the above sentence makes no sense.
    6. Because Newtonian force is defined as a cause that travels distances without time passing. There is a reason why Newton defined his force as a timeless traveler. The reason is in orbital motion there is nothing that travels from body to body. In an accelerating airplane you feel the pressure against your seat but a Newtonian mass located in the rear of the plane is not pulling you. That is, there is no mass at the rear of the plane reaching out to you and pulling you. But Newton says that there is a mass that pulls the passenger and he makes his calculation but nothing travels the distance from the rear to the passenger so Newton says this force is a timeless traveler.
    7. This force is by definition a timeless traveler. This undeniable fact eliminates this Newtonian supernatural force as a cause in natural sciences. Of course, Newton’s force may be allowed in Newton’s fairy tale called Newton’s System of Wonderland.
    8. So, what is accelerative force? Are we supposed to accept Newton’s bullshit explanation?
    9. What are these forces that impel distant bodies without time passing?
Newton’s force is intelligent
  1. Newton’s force is occult and supernatural but it is also intelligent. Newtonian force must be intelligent because it must know exactly what “force” to “impel” to the satellite to pull it into orbit from its rectilinear motion and to keep it in orbit.
  2. So, this intelligent Newtonian force reaches out to the body moving inertially on its rectilinear path, weighs the body to measure its mass (how?) and traverses timelessly the distance between them and applies just the right amount of its own supernatural force and pulls the body into an orbit. This force is so intelligent that as soon as the body is in orbit it continuously interacts with the body without time passing and applies just the right force to keep it in its orbit. We as humans cannot compute the forces even for three bodies but Newton’s intelligent force can compute instantly (by using Newtonian mechanics, of course) all of the perturbations coming from the sun from other planets and even stars. We might as well call this Newtonian force “God”!
  3. Do you believe that inert matter has intelligence? [chatgpt answer]
  4. What a fairy tale Newton fooled humanity with?

Part 2

  1. Newton; “…and the latter part is clear from the first Phenomenon and the sixth Corollary of the fourth Proposition of the same book.
  2. The “latter part” is Part 2 of our to-prove: that the forces [again supernatural cause] on the moons are inversely as the squares of the distances from Jupiter.
  3. This is really what I’m trying to understand.
  4. What does this mean?
    1. the forces on the moons are inversely as the squares of the distances from Jupiter.
    2. Newton’s doctrines is being taught at schools for 11 generations and now we see Newton’s force as the most true physical agent in nature. That’s why we interprete a sentence like the one above by Newtonian doctrines that were instilled into us since childhood.
  5. \(1/r^2\) thing again
  6. “The forces on the moon”?
    1. What forces?
    2. These forces exist only in the fairy tale called “Isaac in Wonderland”.
  7. But still I’m taking this seriously and trying to understand how something that travels distances without time passing varies as \(1/r^2\) as time passes.
  8. This is silly. Newton’s supernatural force travels from Micro-Alice to Giant-Alice without time passing. So both Micro-Alice and Giant-Alice feels this force at the same time.
  9. For the force to vary as \(1/r^2\) it needs to travel the radius \(r\) in time \(t\) but there is no time \(t\) for Newton’s force because it is a timeless traveler and it is everywhere at once. And the formulas used to compute orbits do not include a variable \(t\), for time. If so, how can the force vary in time by \(1/r^2\)? It can’t. But it can in Newton’s fairy tale world.
  10. Newton is really stretching the boundaries of believability.
  11. Newton claims that the forces on the moon of Jupiter vary as \(1/r^2\)
  12. \(1/r^2\) is the measure of intensity. So if something is \("1/r^2"\) then it must propagate and has intensity that diminishes as \(1/r^2\). But Newton’s force does not propagate by definition.
  13. Newton’s absurdities are piling up.
  14. Densmore: Part 1 of Phenomenon 1 shows that Jupiter’s moons travel en equable circular concentric orbits.
  15. [and don’t forget orbits of the Newtonian kind must be extremely unstable (like a magnetic orbit) there must be a way to prove this.] So the smallest perturbation, if \(1/r^2\) force assumed, will cause the satellite fall to the center at no time at all.
  16. [chatgpt says magnetic orbits may be possible but there are more variables than gravity]
  17. Densmore: (We ignore the motion common to the Jupiter-moons system.) This means that we can invoke Prop. I.4 which deals with motion in such circles.
  18. Part 2 of Phenomenon 1 shows that their periodic times are as the \(3/2\) powers of their radii.
  19. So this means that Newton assumes Kepler’s Rule as an astronomical phenomenon, or systems that obey Kepler’s Rule. Planetary systems in the solar system obey Kepler’s Rule. So all the computations in the Principia assume Kepler’s Rule.
  20. But Newton prefers to say, in order to hide that he is using a rule discovered by a German astronomer, “periodic times are as the \(3/2\) powers of their radii.” Same thing. Newton paraphrases Kepler’s Rule.
  21. Densmore: This means that we can use I.4 Cor. 6 [Use what? Kepler’s Rule is already assumed. There is nothing else to use.] which says that

if the periodic times vary as the \(3/2\) powers of the radii, the centripetal forces will be inversely as the squares of the radii.

  1. Densmore: We now know something about the centripetal force causing the moons of Jupiter to depart from their tangential rectilinear inertial motion and curve into orbits around Jupiter: [fairy tale about Newton’s amazing supernaturol force with godly powers.]
  2. We know that the force acts inversely as the square of the distances of the moons from the center of Jupiter. That is \[f\propto \frac{1}{\text{SP}^2}\]
  3. OK, \(SP\) is the distance between Jupiter and its moons but why does she use \(SP\)?
    1. Here \(f\) is a placeholder for the other term of Kepler’s Rule \(R/T^2\). Newton uses deception and writes Kepler’s Rule hidden under his force terms. But hes force terms are nothing more than placeholders and must be cancelled in order to make calculations with Kepler’s Rule.
    2. “force is proportional to \(\1/r^2\)” does not say anything. It is a part of Kepler’s Rule and make no sense when it separated from Kepler’s Rule.
    3. Is force, whatever force means, proportional to \(1/r^2\)? No. This is just a ratio in Kepler’s Rule. Kepler’s Rule chopped up into two independent ratios make no sense even if the chopper is called Newton.

Part 3

  1. “The same is understood of the planets that accompany Saturn, from the second Phenomenon”
  2. We may follow the same reasoning to the same conclusions for the moons of Saturn, substituting the conclusions of Phen. 2 for those of Phen. 1.
  3. Therefore, for Saturn’s moons as well as Jupiter’s, \[f \propto \frac{1}{\texk{SP}^2}\]

Created: 2025-02-17 Mon 13:07

Validate