KEPLER – NEWTON – LEIBNIZ – HEGEL

Abdul Malek

doi:10.24297/jap.v19i.9106

Abstract

Kepler’s Laws of planetary motion (following the Copernican revolution in cosmology), according to Leibniz and his follower Hegel, for the first-time in history discovered the keys to what Hegel called the absolute mechanics mediated by dialectical laws, which drives the celestial bodies, in opposition to finite mechanics in terrestrial Nature developed by mathematical and empirical sciences, but that are of very limited scope. Newton wrongly extended and imposed finite mechanics on the absolute mechanics of the cosmic bodies in the form of his Law of one-sided Universal Gravitational Attraction, by distorting and misrepresenting Kepler’s profound laws and in opposition to Leibniz’s more appropriate “Radial Planetary Orbital Equation”. The still-prevailing error by Newton (notwithstanding his well known manipulation of science for selfish ends), not only shows the limitation of mathematical idealism and prejudice driven modern cosmology in the form of Einstein’s theories of relativity; but also, have made gaining positive knowledge of the cosmos an impossibility and has impaired social/historical development of humanity by reinforcing decadent ruling ideas. Hegel’s Naturphilosophie is not only a protest against the misrepresentation of Kepler’s Laws in particular; his Enzyklopädie der Philosophischem Wissenschaften is the negation and the direct rebuttal of Newtonian physics and Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, in general. Modern natural science ignores Leibniz and Hegel at its own peril! Kepler’s phenomenological laws of planetary motion and the dialectical insights of Leibnitz and Hegel opens the way for gaining positive knowledge of the dynamics, structure and the evolution of the cosmic bodies and other cosmic phenomena; without invoking mysteries and dark/black cosmic entities, which has been the pabulum of official astrophysics and cosmology so far.

Highlights

Quō Vādis Theoretical Physics and Cosmology? From Newtonian Wrong Turn to Einsteinian Mathematical Wonderland!“At first sight, what we seem to have here [i.e. in the relation between the works of Hegel and Newton A.M.] is little more than the contrast between the tested accomplishments of the founding father of modern science, and the random remarks of a confused and somewhat disgruntled philosopher; and if we are persuaded to concede that it may perhaps be something more than this – between the work of a clearsighted mathematician and experimentalist, and the blind assertions of some sort of Kantian logician, blundering about among the facts of the real world”
Hegel, is one vital point that Newton’s crass mechanistic and mathematical approach to natural science apparently successful in terrestrial Nature; was like a poison pill that was destined to undo the Copernican revolution itself! In particular, Newton’s unlimited and one-sided extension and transference of his dynamical laws developed in terrestrial Nature; to the realm of the cosmos in the form of his law of universal gravitational attraction; even if unwittingly, distorted and undermined Kepler’s profound phenomenological laws of the heavens; and thereby clouded the vision of the cosmos
It is evident that Newton clearly rejected materialist and conceptual (Begrieff) methods of philosophical enquiry of Aristotle in favour of the mathematical idealism of Plato; which posits that mathematical forms define the phenomenology of objective reality or at least the phenomena described by the sciences have a mathematical structure – a point of view that Einstein brought to its extreme with the following words [16], “Our experience hitherto justifies us in believing that nature is the realization of the simplest conceivable mathematical ideas

Summary

Introduction

Quō Vādis Theoretical Physics and Cosmology? From Newtonian Wrong Turn to Einsteinian Mathematical Wonderland!“At first sight, what we seem to have here [i.e. in the relation between the works of Hegel and Newton A.M.] is little more than the contrast between the tested accomplishments of the founding father of modern science, and the random remarks of a confused and somewhat disgruntled philosopher; and if we are persuaded to concede that it may perhaps be something more than this – between the work of a clearsighted mathematician and experimentalist, and the blind assertions of some sort of Kantian logician, blundering about among the facts of the real world”.

Results

Conclusion