18 ms·

Gravity is not a force; gravity is a hoax. I am glad that physics establishment finally is realizing this: http://science1.wordpress.com/2008/12/25/dear-physici

by zeynel1 15y ago

Gravity is not a force; gravity is a hoax. I am glad that physics establishment finally is realizing this: http://science1.wordpress.com/2008/12/25/dear-physicist/ http://science1.wordpress.com/2008/12/25/dear-physicist/

davidmathers 15y ago
Newton is a self-anointed prophet. It’s true that the faithful followers of self-anointed prophets will believe without question the dogma of their prophet and perpetuate the dogma. But such cults have always come to an end. The Newtonian cult called physics will also end. w t f
- lwat 15y ago
  Might be related to the Timecube theory http://www.timecube.com/ http://www.timecube.com/
  - TheBurningOr 15y ago
    Is it sad that my first thought on seeing this is "That's a valuable domain name!"
  - eru 15y ago
    Nope. This is more clever, and written tongue in cheek.
- jarin 15y ago
  Newtonian gravity is obviously a conspiracy by the intellectual elite to maintain control over the masses.
  - demallien 15y ago
    I find your theory attractive, but they only achieve relative control...
  - zeynel1 15y ago
    Newtonian gravity is obviously a conspiracy by the intellectual elite to maintain control over the masses. Not sure if this is intended to be sarcastic, but your “intellectual elite” better known as professional classes, aka priestly scribes, http://science1.wordpress.com/2007/11/05/knowledge-divides/ http://science1.wordpress.com/2007/11/05/knowledge-divides/ since the times of Egyptians, defined and built a cosmology for the rulers for whom they worked so that rulers could control their citizens. So, more than a conspiracy, cosmology is the fundamental method used by rulers to control their subjects. You can no doubt find examples of how cosmology has always been the projection of the social order into the cosmos and vice versa (e.g. old Egypt: cosmos as river; 20th century: cosmos as nuclear explosion.) Therefore, Newton’s forceful, atomic materialistic worldview with an all powerful sun “exalted on his throne” http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1930PASP...42..164.&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_quer... at the center controlling its subjects the planets with a god-given force may remind you the structure of the 18th century society ruled by all powerful kings; Newton’s “System of the World” was the world system these ruling classes wanted to impose on their citizens. I am sure you heard about the Sun-king. Whoever controls cosmology controls your mind; whoever controls cosmology, controls how you perceive nature... This is true today more than ever.
teraflop 15y ago
That's certainly an unorthodox view. As far as I can make out from that post and the rest of your blog, you seem to reject Newtonian gravitation in favor of Kepler's laws of planetary orbits. How does your model account for the perturbations that are observed in three-body and more complex systems? For instance, right now there is a satellite called SOHO at the Sun-Earth L_1 Lagrangian point. Why do you say that Newtonian gravity is a myth, when the existence of such an orbit violates Kepler's third law but is in perfect agreement with calculations according to the Newtonian model?
- HelloBeautiful 15y ago
  <OFF TOPIC> There's a live feed from that satellite with some interesting moments - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpNyAtU-3Tc&feature=share http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpNyAtU-3Tc&feature=share
- zeynel1 15y ago
  As far as I can make out from that post and the rest of your blog, you seem to reject Newtonian gravitation... Reject Newtonian gravitation? Why would I reject a meaningless concept such as “Newtonian gravitation?” Newton did not know “Newtonian gravitation.” There is no “Newton’s constant of gravitation G” in the Principia. There are no equations in the Principia... “Newtonian gravitation” is an invention of Newtonian physicists. My point is that if you want to understand the concept of force; look at its origins in Newton’s writings. Why? Because academic physics is a legal system. In legal systems, once a “law” enters the system, and it is canonized that law can never be removed from the system. The legal system of physics must remain consistent. This is the reason why Einstein’s Field Equations which claim to describe a nature without force has Newton’s constant of force G in them. Only in a legal system an equation denying force can have the unit of force in it. As you can see from reading the comments in this thread by otherwise intelligent people they are utterly confused about what force is because they take the authority of physics as the absolute truth; and physics teaches nothing but the legal concepts of physics; in a legal system there is no right or wrong, or true and untrue, the truth table is not valid and there is no and/or; there is only legal and not legal. Consequently, in a legal system, every concept comes in triplicates: 1. the letter interpretation of the law; 2. the spirit interpretation of the law; and 3. combination of letter and spirit interpretation of the law. So, in physics it is legal to state 1. “force exists”; 2. “force does not exist”, and 3. “force existsnot”. These are all legal statements in physics. If you try to conform your research on force to physics, you can only write a commentary on the concept of force in physics. The original article is a commentary on force in physics; it is a legal document. ...in favor of Kepler's laws of planetary orbits. You see how much the Newtonian worldview is innate in your reasoning. You can only perceive nature in Newtonian terms. “Kepler’s laws” is the invention of Newton’s disciples who now call themselves physicists. Newton did not call “Kepler’s Rule” “Kepler’s Third Law.” Kepler’s Rule is a rule, because it is a proportionality which ties the radius of an orbit to its period. Newton used Kepler’s rule to compute planetary orbits; this is what my blog is about. If you disagree; or you believe that my math is wrong, I cannot be happier to know that. But do not try to dismiss what I write by throwing Newtonian mythology at it. How does your model account for the perturbations that are observed in three-body and more complex systems? Again, you are using post-Newtonian notions invented by Newton’s disciples the physicists. You are assuming, when you write “three-body system”, that the world is Newtonian, and the three bodies in question interact according Newtonian occult force. The world is not Newtonian. Newton dealt with perturbations in the Principia in proposition III.13 http://science1.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/the-cause-of-saturns-perihelion-motion/ http://science1.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/the-cause-of-saturn... So the myth that “perturbation” is a dynamical phenomenon goes back to that proposition in the Principia. What is perturbation and how does astronomy account for perturbations? There is only 1 way to make orbit calculations in astronomy: define a model; make observations; subtract observations from the model to obtain residuals. This is it. There is no other way. This is how astronomical calculations are made. Anyone who claims otherwise is a charlatan. The residuals are the perturbations. So for example: if your model is the Ptolemaic model; and you make a table of naked-eye observations, and take residuals you will find that your residuals are close to zero; Ptolemaic theory explains planetary orbits perfectly well for the naked eye observations. Now take the residuals of Ptolemaic theory with the telescopic observations of planets and you will see sinusoidal “perturbations.” How do you account for these perturbations? You add new terms to your model to eliminate the perturbations. This is usually done with trigonometric expansions. There is no other way; you must add new terms to your model to account for perturbations. There is no Newtonian magic or occult force that explains these perturbations. This is where the hoax is. So take a look at the proposition III.13 and you will see that Newton’s explanation is geometrical, not dynamical. This is why “Newtonian gravitation” is a hoax. Newton used Kepler’s Rule to compute orbits but he claimed to have used his dynamical force instead. http://science1.wordpress.com/2007/08/20/periodic-reminder-of-newtons-fraud/ http://science1.wordpress.com/2007/08/20/periodic-reminder-o... For instance, right now there is a satellite called SOHO at the Sun-Earth L_1 Lagrangian point. Why do you say that Newtonian gravity is a myth, when the existence of such an orbit violates Kepler's third law but is in perfect agreement with calculations according to the Newtonian model? Can you tell me how Lagrangian point violates “Kepler’s Rule”? Can you compute Lagrangian points by using Kepler’s Rule only? And conversely, can you compute Lagrangian points without using Kepler’s Rule? No you can’t. If you can let me know. What physicists do, is to express Kepler’s Rule in Newtonian units such as GM http://science1.wordpress.com/2008/12/17/is-newtons-constant-a-conventional-unit/ http://science1.wordpress.com/2008/12/17/is-newtons-constant... and they claim that because they used a conventional unit of their own invention and named it after their master Newton, they used Newtonian dynamical force in astronomical calculations. If this is not a hoax what is it? Take a look at Lagrange’s original paper here: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k229225j/f231 http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k229225j/f231 He states his goal as to calculate the orbit of three bodies by nothing but the distances between them. This is the definition of Kepler’s Rule. But Lagrange must still conform to Newtonian doctrines so he adds A, B, C as the “mass” of bodies A, B, C. But “mass” exists only to scale the calculations. Once you realize that mass in the Newtonian lingo is the constant term R03/T02; in other words, “mass” is the ratio of two lengths and it serves only to set the scale, you will see that Lagrange’s original equations do not concern themselves with Newtonian force; force terms exist only as cosmetic terms either eliminated or used as scaling units. From Newton to the present day, physicists compute orbits by using Kepler’s Rule but claim to have used Newton’s dynamical terms. All we have to do is to look at the equations, ignore what Newton’s disciples write in their commentary; look at the equations. Can you look at this calculation http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Slagrang.htm http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Slagrang.htm and compute L1 by using Kepler’s Rule only? Try it. All you have to do is to eliminate Newtonian labels G, M, m and F from formulas and use Kepler’s Rule directly: http://science1.wordpress.com/2011/04/10/computation-of-lagrange-point-l1-without-newtonian-branding/ http://science1.wordpress.com/2011/04/10/computation-of-lagr...
wladimir 15y ago
Oh man, you aren't this guy are you. He's trolling arxiv blog all the time with similar "scientific" arguments: http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/ http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/
Wientje 15y ago
"We postulate the density continuum defined by the rule R03/T02 = R3/T2" T is in seconds, R is in meters. So R3/T2 is in cubic meters per square seconds. A density is something per cubic meters. How exactly do 'square seconds' form a density in any meaningful way? Don't worry, I won't be holding my breath. Postulating is al good fun but are you actually planning to do some physics with it? You're just saying Newton is evil and wrong but are not giving any reasons why his laws don't sufficicently confirm to reality. Neither are you explaining why your alternative fits reality better. Calling relativity an offshoot of Newtonian gravity is also not quite correct. On the Verlinde article, I haven't read it. While it sounds interesting, it hinges on the definition of entropy. IMO, it might be a big circular argument.
- zeynel1 15y ago
  How exactly do 'square seconds' form a density in any meaningful way? Frequency f is the reciprocal of period T: T = 1/f. Take a string and turn it into a sling by attaching a stone to it and whirl. A fly may go through your sling initially; as you spin faster and faster any time a fly will try to cross your sling, it will hit your sling as if hitting a “solid” wall; higher frequency means higher density. There is no other kind of density. Read Newton’s definition I in the Principia where I get that formula and let me know if you can find Kepler’s Rule in it. Kepler’s Rule is the definition of density: R03/T02 = R3/T2 Postulating is all good fun but are you actually planning to do some physics with it? No. Definitely not. Physics is modern scholasticism; it is a corrupt legal field no different than law. Your comment only proves how Newtonism aka physics indoctrinates human beings and shapes their worldview. Your assumption is that nature is physical and since physical means Newtonian nature is Newtonian. This is not true. You may start in your scientific quest to understand nature by questioning physics. Once you realize that physics is Kepler’s Rule expressed in Newtonian units as described in this article http://science1.wordpress.com/2008/12/25/dear-physicist/ http://science1.wordpress.com/2008/12/25/dear-physicist/ all you have to do is to remove Newtonian units added to it by generations of Newton’s disciples. But first, you need to realize that all of us have been indoctrinated since childhood by the Newtonian doctrine which is taught all around the world as the state religion. That’s why you reject automatically any criticism of Newtonian atomic materialism as nonsense. You're just saying Newton is evil and wrong... Yes, I wrote that Newton is an evil marketing genius; but I am not saying Newton is wrong. This is the puzzle that you need to understand. Read the article again. Newton uses Kepler’s Rule but names it with his own dynamical sounding names. Newton himself did not use conventional units such as G, he used Earth-Venus distance as his unit (R0 in the article), but generations of Newton’s disciples invented a unit system with Newtonian names; so you can no longer separate what is conventional unit and what is the rule that is used in computations. Physicists have been fooling us into believing that because an equation contains G (a conventional unit they named after Newton) that equation must be a dynamical equation. This is the hoax. If you think otherwise let me know. ...but are not giving any reasons why his laws don't sufficicently confirm to reality. “Newton’s laws” are not used in astronomical calculations. This may come as a surprise to you, but it is true. NASA (more correctly JPL) computes orbits with numerical integration; no Newtonian terms enter astronomical calculations. But it is a tradition started by Newton himself to call geometric calculations “Newton’s laws”. Read this article http://science1.wordpress.com/2008/10/27/mercurys-perihelion-and-einsteins-general-relativity/ http://science1.wordpress.com/2008/10/27/mercurys-perihelion... and check the link for LeVerrier’s original calculations for anomalies in Mercury’s motion. It is all geometric and trigonometric expansions, yet physicists insist on calling it “Newton’s laws”. Same is true today; physicists compute orbits by geometric and numerical means but they call their calculations “Newtonian.” Neither are you explaining why your alternative fits reality better. The alternative is to remove the Newtonian units; what is left is Kepler’s Rule. The rule is the same. So if you use in your calculations the conventional physics unit called GM and call your calculations “Newtonian” or alternatively, if you use Earth-Venus distance as your unit, it makes no difference, in both cases you are using Kepler’s Rule to compute orbits. In other words, Newton’s disciples branded Kepler’s Rule as Newton’s laws. Calling relativity an offshoot of Newtonian gravity is also not quite correct. Why? Einstein started from the anomaly in Mercury’s motion and added a term to correct that anomaly. He presented his correction terms in the new mathematical fad of his time, namely, non-Euclidean geometry and couched the whole thing with his philosophical doctrines about the “space” and “time” and so on. No operational astronomical equation contains terms for “space” or “time”, only terms for “radius” and “period”. Astronomical calculations are simple: you take residuals between your model and observations. Anyone who claims otherwise is a charlatan. On the Verlinde article, I haven't read it. While it sounds interesting, it hinges on the definition of entropy. IMO, it might be a big circular argument. Verlinde article is trying to solve the problem of force within physics; that’s nonsense. In physics force is a legal concept. If Verlinde succeeds he will succeed only to add a new legal definition of force in physics. Einstein thought he could overthrow Newton; but he failed. You cannot overthrow the guy who started the academic school named after himself and whose disciples named the main unit of their school after their founder. It’s like trying to change the name of Washington D.C.; it’s not going to happen.

by zeynel1 15y ago

davidmathers 15y ago

Newton is a self-anointed prophet. It’s true that the faithful followers of self-anointed prophets will believe without question the dogma of their prophet and perpetuate the dogma. But such cults have always come to an end. The Newtonian cult called physics will also end. w t f

lwat 15y ago
Might be related to the Timecube theory http://www.timecube.com/ http://www.timecube.com/
- TheBurningOr 15y ago
  Is it sad that my first thought on seeing this is "That's a valuable domain name!"
- eru 15y ago
  Nope. This is more clever, and written tongue in cheek.
jarin 15y ago
Newtonian gravity is obviously a conspiracy by the intellectual elite to maintain control over the masses.
- demallien 15y ago
  I find your theory attractive, but they only achieve relative control...
- zeynel1 15y ago
  Newtonian gravity is obviously a conspiracy by the intellectual elite to maintain control over the masses. Not sure if this is intended to be sarcastic, but your “intellectual elite” better known as professional classes, aka priestly scribes, http://science1.wordpress.com/2007/11/05/knowledge-divides/ http://science1.wordpress.com/2007/11/05/knowledge-divides/ since the times of Egyptians, defined and built a cosmology for the rulers for whom they worked so that rulers could control their citizens. So, more than a conspiracy, cosmology is the fundamental method used by rulers to control their subjects. You can no doubt find examples of how cosmology has always been the projection of the social order into the cosmos and vice versa (e.g. old Egypt: cosmos as river; 20th century: cosmos as nuclear explosion.) Therefore, Newton’s forceful, atomic materialistic worldview with an all powerful sun “exalted on his throne” http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1930PASP...42..164.&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_quer... at the center controlling its subjects the planets with a god-given force may remind you the structure of the 18th century society ruled by all powerful kings; Newton’s “System of the World” was the world system these ruling classes wanted to impose on their citizens. I am sure you heard about the Sun-king. Whoever controls cosmology controls your mind; whoever controls cosmology, controls how you perceive nature... This is true today more than ever.

teraflop 15y ago

That's certainly an unorthodox view. As far as I can make out from that post and the rest of your blog, you seem to reject Newtonian gravitation in favor of Kepler's laws of planetary orbits. How does your model account for the perturbations that are observed in three-body and more complex systems? For instance, right now there is a satellite called SOHO at the Sun-Earth L_1 Lagrangian point. Why do you say that Newtonian gravity is a myth, when the existence of such an orbit violates Kepler's third law but is in perfect agreement with calculations according to the Newtonian model?

HelloBeautiful 15y ago
<OFF TOPIC> There's a live feed from that satellite with some interesting moments - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpNyAtU-3Tc&feature=share http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpNyAtU-3Tc&feature=share
zeynel1 15y ago
As far as I can make out from that post and the rest of your blog, you seem to reject Newtonian gravitation... Reject Newtonian gravitation? Why would I reject a meaningless concept such as “Newtonian gravitation?” Newton did not know “Newtonian gravitation.” There is no “Newton’s constant of gravitation G” in the Principia. There are no equations in the Principia... “Newtonian gravitation” is an invention of Newtonian physicists. My point is that if you want to understand the concept of force; look at its origins in Newton’s writings. Why? Because academic physics is a legal system. In legal systems, once a “law” enters the system, and it is canonized that law can never be removed from the system. The legal system of physics must remain consistent. This is the reason why Einstein’s Field Equations which claim to describe a nature without force has Newton’s constant of force G in them. Only in a legal system an equation denying force can have the unit of force in it. As you can see from reading the comments in this thread by otherwise intelligent people they are utterly confused about what force is because they take the authority of physics as the absolute truth; and physics teaches nothing but the legal concepts of physics; in a legal system there is no right or wrong, or true and untrue, the truth table is not valid and there is no and/or; there is only legal and not legal. Consequently, in a legal system, every concept comes in triplicates: 1. the letter interpretation of the law; 2. the spirit interpretation of the law; and 3. combination of letter and spirit interpretation of the law. So, in physics it is legal to state 1. “force exists”; 2. “force does not exist”, and 3. “force existsnot”. These are all legal statements in physics. If you try to conform your research on force to physics, you can only write a commentary on the concept of force in physics. The original article is a commentary on force in physics; it is a legal document. ...in favor of Kepler's laws of planetary orbits. You see how much the Newtonian worldview is innate in your reasoning. You can only perceive nature in Newtonian terms. “Kepler’s laws” is the invention of Newton’s disciples who now call themselves physicists. Newton did not call “Kepler’s Rule” “Kepler’s Third Law.” Kepler’s Rule is a rule, because it is a proportionality which ties the radius of an orbit to its period. Newton used Kepler’s rule to compute planetary orbits; this is what my blog is about. If you disagree; or you believe that my math is wrong, I cannot be happier to know that. But do not try to dismiss what I write by throwing Newtonian mythology at it. How does your model account for the perturbations that are observed in three-body and more complex systems? Again, you are using post-Newtonian notions invented by Newton’s disciples the physicists. You are assuming, when you write “three-body system”, that the world is Newtonian, and the three bodies in question interact according Newtonian occult force. The world is not Newtonian. Newton dealt with perturbations in the Principia in proposition III.13 http://science1.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/the-cause-of-saturns-perihelion-motion/ http://science1.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/the-cause-of-saturn... So the myth that “perturbation” is a dynamical phenomenon goes back to that proposition in the Principia. What is perturbation and how does astronomy account for perturbations? There is only 1 way to make orbit calculations in astronomy: define a model; make observations; subtract observations from the model to obtain residuals. This is it. There is no other way. This is how astronomical calculations are made. Anyone who claims otherwise is a charlatan. The residuals are the perturbations. So for example: if your model is the Ptolemaic model; and you make a table of naked-eye observations, and take residuals you will find that your residuals are close to zero; Ptolemaic theory explains planetary orbits perfectly well for the naked eye observations. Now take the residuals of Ptolemaic theory with the telescopic observations of planets and you will see sinusoidal “perturbations.” How do you account for these perturbations? You add new terms to your model to eliminate the perturbations. This is usually done with trigonometric expansions. There is no other way; you must add new terms to your model to account for perturbations. There is no Newtonian magic or occult force that explains these perturbations. This is where the hoax is. So take a look at the proposition III.13 and you will see that Newton’s explanation is geometrical, not dynamical. This is why “Newtonian gravitation” is a hoax. Newton used Kepler’s Rule to compute orbits but he claimed to have used his dynamical force instead. http://science1.wordpress.com/2007/08/20/periodic-reminder-of-newtons-fraud/ http://science1.wordpress.com/2007/08/20/periodic-reminder-o... For instance, right now there is a satellite called SOHO at the Sun-Earth L_1 Lagrangian point. Why do you say that Newtonian gravity is a myth, when the existence of such an orbit violates Kepler's third law but is in perfect agreement with calculations according to the Newtonian model? Can you tell me how Lagrangian point violates “Kepler’s Rule”? Can you compute Lagrangian points by using Kepler’s Rule only? And conversely, can you compute Lagrangian points without using Kepler’s Rule? No you can’t. If you can let me know. What physicists do, is to express Kepler’s Rule in Newtonian units such as GM http://science1.wordpress.com/2008/12/17/is-newtons-constant-a-conventional-unit/ http://science1.wordpress.com/2008/12/17/is-newtons-constant... and they claim that because they used a conventional unit of their own invention and named it after their master Newton, they used Newtonian dynamical force in astronomical calculations. If this is not a hoax what is it? Take a look at Lagrange’s original paper here: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k229225j/f231 http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k229225j/f231 He states his goal as to calculate the orbit of three bodies by nothing but the distances between them. This is the definition of Kepler’s Rule. But Lagrange must still conform to Newtonian doctrines so he adds A, B, C as the “mass” of bodies A, B, C. But “mass” exists only to scale the calculations. Once you realize that mass in the Newtonian lingo is the constant term R03/T02; in other words, “mass” is the ratio of two lengths and it serves only to set the scale, you will see that Lagrange’s original equations do not concern themselves with Newtonian force; force terms exist only as cosmetic terms either eliminated or used as scaling units. From Newton to the present day, physicists compute orbits by using Kepler’s Rule but claim to have used Newton’s dynamical terms. All we have to do is to look at the equations, ignore what Newton’s disciples write in their commentary; look at the equations. Can you look at this calculation http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Slagrang.htm http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Slagrang.htm and compute L1 by using Kepler’s Rule only? Try it. All you have to do is to eliminate Newtonian labels G, M, m and F from formulas and use Kepler’s Rule directly: http://science1.wordpress.com/2011/04/10/computation-of-lagrange-point-l1-without-newtonian-branding/ http://science1.wordpress.com/2011/04/10/computation-of-lagr...

wladimir 15y ago

Oh man, you aren't this guy are you. He's trolling arxiv blog all the time with similar "scientific" arguments: http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/ http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/

Wientje 15y ago

"We postulate the density continuum defined by the rule R03/T02 = R3/T2" T is in seconds, R is in meters. So R3/T2 is in cubic meters per square seconds. A density is something per cubic meters. How exactly do 'square seconds' form a density in any meaningful way? Don't worry, I won't be holding my breath. Postulating is al good fun but are you actually planning to do some physics with it? You're just saying Newton is evil and wrong but are not giving any reasons why his laws don't sufficicently confirm to reality. Neither are you explaining why your alternative fits reality better. Calling relativity an offshoot of Newtonian gravity is also not quite correct. On the Verlinde article, I haven't read it. While it sounds interesting, it hinges on the definition of entropy. IMO, it might be a big circular argument.

zeynel1 15y ago
How exactly do 'square seconds' form a density in any meaningful way? Frequency f is the reciprocal of period T: T = 1/f. Take a string and turn it into a sling by attaching a stone to it and whirl. A fly may go through your sling initially; as you spin faster and faster any time a fly will try to cross your sling, it will hit your sling as if hitting a “solid” wall; higher frequency means higher density. There is no other kind of density. Read Newton’s definition I in the Principia where I get that formula and let me know if you can find Kepler’s Rule in it. Kepler’s Rule is the definition of density: R03/T02 = R3/T2 Postulating is all good fun but are you actually planning to do some physics with it? No. Definitely not. Physics is modern scholasticism; it is a corrupt legal field no different than law. Your comment only proves how Newtonism aka physics indoctrinates human beings and shapes their worldview. Your assumption is that nature is physical and since physical means Newtonian nature is Newtonian. This is not true. You may start in your scientific quest to understand nature by questioning physics. Once you realize that physics is Kepler’s Rule expressed in Newtonian units as described in this article http://science1.wordpress.com/2008/12/25/dear-physicist/ http://science1.wordpress.com/2008/12/25/dear-physicist/ all you have to do is to remove Newtonian units added to it by generations of Newton’s disciples. But first, you need to realize that all of us have been indoctrinated since childhood by the Newtonian doctrine which is taught all around the world as the state religion. That’s why you reject automatically any criticism of Newtonian atomic materialism as nonsense. You're just saying Newton is evil and wrong... Yes, I wrote that Newton is an evil marketing genius; but I am not saying Newton is wrong. This is the puzzle that you need to understand. Read the article again. Newton uses Kepler’s Rule but names it with his own dynamical sounding names. Newton himself did not use conventional units such as G, he used Earth-Venus distance as his unit (R0 in the article), but generations of Newton’s disciples invented a unit system with Newtonian names; so you can no longer separate what is conventional unit and what is the rule that is used in computations. Physicists have been fooling us into believing that because an equation contains G (a conventional unit they named after Newton) that equation must be a dynamical equation. This is the hoax. If you think otherwise let me know. ...but are not giving any reasons why his laws don't sufficicently confirm to reality. “Newton’s laws” are not used in astronomical calculations. This may come as a surprise to you, but it is true. NASA (more correctly JPL) computes orbits with numerical integration; no Newtonian terms enter astronomical calculations. But it is a tradition started by Newton himself to call geometric calculations “Newton’s laws”. Read this article http://science1.wordpress.com/2008/10/27/mercurys-perihelion-and-einsteins-general-relativity/ http://science1.wordpress.com/2008/10/27/mercurys-perihelion... and check the link for LeVerrier’s original calculations for anomalies in Mercury’s motion. It is all geometric and trigonometric expansions, yet physicists insist on calling it “Newton’s laws”. Same is true today; physicists compute orbits by geometric and numerical means but they call their calculations “Newtonian.” Neither are you explaining why your alternative fits reality better. The alternative is to remove the Newtonian units; what is left is Kepler’s Rule. The rule is the same. So if you use in your calculations the conventional physics unit called GM and call your calculations “Newtonian” or alternatively, if you use Earth-Venus distance as your unit, it makes no difference, in both cases you are using Kepler’s Rule to compute orbits. In other words, Newton’s disciples branded Kepler’s Rule as Newton’s laws. Calling relativity an offshoot of Newtonian gravity is also not quite correct. Why? Einstein started from the anomaly in Mercury’s motion and added a term to correct that anomaly. He presented his correction terms in the new mathematical fad of his time, namely, non-Euclidean geometry and couched the whole thing with his philosophical doctrines about the “space” and “time” and so on. No operational astronomical equation contains terms for “space” or “time”, only terms for “radius” and “period”. Astronomical calculations are simple: you take residuals between your model and observations. Anyone who claims otherwise is a charlatan. On the Verlinde article, I haven't read it. While it sounds interesting, it hinges on the definition of entropy. IMO, it might be a big circular argument. Verlinde article is trying to solve the problem of force within physics; that’s nonsense. In physics force is a legal concept. If Verlinde succeeds he will succeed only to add a new legal definition of force in physics. Einstein thought he could overthrow Newton; but he failed. You cannot overthrow the guy who started the academic school named after himself and whose disciples named the main unit of their school after their founder. It’s like trying to change the name of Washington D.C.; it’s not going to happen.