Did Newton and Gauss Prove Their Laws?
Saturday 27th January 2024: World-leading LED lighting expert, Dr Nisa Khan appears on the popular TNT Radio science show, Sky Dragon Slaying, to explain why continuous exposure to LED lights in our homes and vehicles may cause life-threatening cancers.
Principia Scientific International has just published the latest paper by Dr Nisa Khan, a much sought independent consultant for general lighting applications.
Dr Khan is recognised globally as a leading intellect and pioneer in LED lighting technology. She served in the technical advisory board of LED Professional Symposium – Europe’s foremost annual event in LED lighting until 2016 and wrote the LED Update column in Signs of the Times magazine from 2007 to 2016.
Her website is www.iem-led.com
Principia Scientific’s Joe Postma and John O’Sullivan will be interviewing Dr Khan LIVE on video broadcast from 9am to 10am Eastern (2pm to 3pm GMT) on Saturday 27th January 2023. Past episode recordings may be accessed at tntradio.live/shows/sky-dragon-slaying/
Dr Khan will be speaking in detail about her concerns for the lack of safety oversight for long term exposure to penetrating LED lights we now see everywhere in our day to day lives.
Below is a summary of the paper, the full version may be accessed here.
Did Newton and Gauss Prove Their Laws?
Why Are Practical or Analytical Proofs for Foremost Physics Laws Missing From Mainstream?
Introduction: Did Newton and Gauss Prove Their Laws?
Isaac Newton could not have proven Newton’s Law of Gravity that is also known as the Inverse Square Law as debated by the author previously in a PSI article. According to Newton’s Principia, Newton offered “philosophy” later inferred by Western scientists as “experimental” philosophy to render Newton’s particular propositions as “general laws” by means of supposed “induction”.
Proving the so-called Newton’s Law of Gravity analytically requires the knowledge of advanced calculus in non-Cartesian coordinate systems and analytic geometry and Newton sadly misunderstood even simple calculus in 1-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system. Newton also did not prove the so-called Newton’s Law of Gravity empirically as this was only later supported by Henry Cavendish, although in an incomplete and hand-waving manner.
Cavendish’s hand-waving justification came more than a 100 years after Principia was published! Regardless of such an inadequate justification by Cavendish, this law is not universal and does not hold true for arbitrarily shaped objects and distances.
The author provided this proof in another publication. So what about other prominent physics laws that claimed to have been discovered by European scientists during and after the Renaissance Period? For example, did Gauss prove Gauss’ Laws?
Gauss’ Law of electric force field (or energetic field) is the first of the 4 Maxwell’s Equations and used in the derivation of the wave equation that governs the behavior of electromagnetic radiation in all space and time. Gauss’ Divergence Theorem offers descriptions of the force or energy-flux field diverted out of a bounded source generating the directional force or energy flux-fields by the substance that escape through the surface of a bounded solid containing that substance.
While both of these laws are used in electromagnetism, the same Gauss’ Laws are also analogously used in other areas of physics, such as mechanics including hydraulics and aerodynamics as well as thermodynamics – by appropriately using suitable resistance, forces, and other inherent properties of some substance contained in physical domains or media.
These laws are some of the bedrock equations for physics and used extensively in many engineering solutions.
Have these Gauss’s Laws ever been practically proven by Gauss or others during his time or ever since? If so, the author kindly requests the documents, which should have been left by Gauss, or his colleagues or their contemporaries, to be made public. After all, written records became all but common in Europe since the Gutenberg Bible in the 15th century.
What Prompted the Request or Challenge?
Apart from the proofs for Gauss’ Laws that do not seem to exist in any existing publications, the author has firsthand extensive knowledge that not a single professional, amateur, or regular person can describe what Gauss’ Laws say in plain language!
In fact, the plain language descriptions of Gauss’ Divergence Theorem in this article and that found in the author’s book, “Understanding LED Illumination” (CRC Press, 2013), are the first ones to exist in literature worldwide as now! Thus it begs the question, did Gauss prove Gauss’ Laws?
The question is similar to, “Did Pythagoras prove the Pythagorean Theorem?” The truth was published by Springer in 2009 that Pythagoras in fact did not prove the Pythagorean Theorem. The author also challenges mainstream academia and industries that Euler did not prove Euler’s Equation, Fourier did not prove Fourier Transform Relations and Lambert did not prove Lambert’s Cosine Law.
She humbly requests the academic communities for the written proofs of these by the original authors or discoverers because one would expect the prestigious European universities to have recorded such.
Western-Developed Mathematics and Physics Rely on Faith
After some pioneering work in the areas of light and EM radiation and years of literature search from other notable mathematicians and physicists, the author notes that mathematics became a formal discipline decoupled from physics or other scientific fields in modern times; likewise physics became decoupled from mathematical laws that are not justified from empirical demonstrations.
Academics appear to have adopted mathematics manipulated by the Western schools of thought that treat mathematics as a set of postulates and hypotheses. These postulates are axioms that are often taken as theorems written with symbolic, denoted formulas; but not in plain spoken or written language used for everyday communication among humans in society.
These axioms formed the beginnings of modern science, mostly credited to the West, are bothersome to say the least. Educating all students in this manner then surely appears very dishonest. Further, such education practice has proved to be difficult for most people to grasp physics and mathematics.
The Western schools offered proofs for only some of their mathematical theorems albeit with the use of another axiom that was never proven to be true empirically by any Western scholars.
If any empirical or purely logical or comprehensive analytical proofs existed for their theorems many of which are well-known and often used in physics, they would have kept such records in the notable European universities and towns where many of those mathematicians worked and lived only a few centuries ago.
Despite the West claiming math and science are not religious, their math and science actually became faith-based for which major equations were embraced as axioms dubbed as some great scientists’ or mathematicians’ laws, without proper practical proofs.
Ganita or Bharatiya Mathematics Before Macaulay is Not Based on Faith
Unlike today’s mainstream academic mathematics, the mathematics discipline as referred to as ‘ganita’ in ancient Bharatvarsha that now stands as separate countries in the Indian Subcontinent, used empirical proofs.
Ganita included number systems and counting methods now known as Arabic Numerals; it included algebra, geometry, trigonometry, calculus, and much more. Ganita supported physics, and physical, i.e., practical proofs were used as demonstrations to establish mathematical relations. A
s of now, evidence for a rich set of examples of Bharatiya ganita and biggyan (science) can be found to have existed long before the Muslim World and European Christian society repackaged much of the same work albeit erroneously.
The author cautions that
ganita today in India refers to mathematics that is synonymous with Western mathematics and therefore one must differentiate ancient Bharatiya ganita from ‘ganita. However, there is a widespread misunderstanding today that ancient Bharatiya ganita is synonymous with “Vedic ganita” and this reference to Vedic ganita or Vedic mathematics is often associated with certain arithmetic tricks or shortcuts. The author refers to ancient Bharatiya Ganita as that which established mathematical equations based on natural laws by means of practical proofs and that which developed into a rich set of quantification, description and qualification dogma or fields and methods to assess natural substances and their behaviors. These fields and methods fall into the subsets of the entire ganita discipline that included algebra, geometry, trigonometry, calculus and others.
Why Should We Care Now?
So why does it matter if much of today’s mathematics and physics are newer versions of the more ancient mathematics and physics? It matters because Europe systematically syphoned Indian mathematics, physics and general scientific knowledge, starting mostly during the 15th century.
However, during this process of scientific knowledge transfer, some very crucial concepts in mathematics and physics were misunderstood at the very fundamental level! One such concept is how basic mathematical equations or relations represent physical reality under certain physical circumstances – usually in specified domains of physical space and time continuum.
The West failed to understand that
ganita and physics are one and the same because ganita uses natural physical phenomena for establishing mathematical formulas thereby every valid mathematical formula is a physical representation of a certain physical system.
Only Ganita’s Calculus Adopted by Aryabhata Can Offer a Rescue
Such faith-based association for Western science and mathematics is especially true for calculus! Neither Newton nor Leibniz understood the fundamental concepts behind calculus and did not demonstrate why and how calculus is a necessary and sufficient method of calculation for any general physical substance such as energy and matter in any user-specified space and time and space-time!
In fact the crucial concept of calculus for a general problem that requires the usage of the most appropriate coordinate system and the usage of an appropriate infinitesimal have gone amiss in modern science and mathematics. Could this lack of aptitude be directly related to deliberately holding Newton at a ‘sainthood’ status by Western science and mathematics communities?
A bigger concern today is that the measurement methods that became the norm in physics, general science and engineering only work within limited scope because every physical measurement must apply appropriate calculus concept and techniques and not some generic calculation concept and techniques.
For example, for an arbitrary physical substance measurement, one cannot apply the same calculation techniques that make use of only calculus in either Cartesian coordinates or avoid using any calculus altogether by only using the ‘point’ concept that is taken to be dimensionless spatially.
Such practice is erroneous for practical physics and poses a great danger to our lives and environment because grossly inaccurate calculations and assessments can lead to calamities of all sorts.
Primary examples of such grave mistakes in measurement and calculation can be widely noted in illumination from LED car headlights and many outdoor and stadium lights where the horrendous glare from these lights or luminaires are witnessed by many people around the world.
Although microwave and RF radiation is not visible, similar problems also exist for today’s smart phone antennas and base station antennas that generate excessive radiation from 4G and 5G signals. These radiation devices are making many people sick and debilitated. The academic and industry authorities for these devices and technologies are IEEE, IES, CIE, ICNIRP, NHTSA, UL, NIST and others.
They are all making a grave mistake when they either confine themselves to only Cartesian coordinate calculations or treat flat radiators such as LEDs, lasers, and cell phone antennas as dimension-less ‘point’ radiation sources without defining their flat structures.
Surely they need to recognize that a point-source radiator can only be spherical like the sun, which spreads radiation uniformly in all directions in 3D space and thus has zero directivity. In contrast, every flat radiator shows a directive behavior and their directivity is finite and quantifiable, which is a violation of a ‘point’ source radiator at the fundamental level.
Such violation is overlooked by mainstream academia and industries today because modern physics and mathematics, shaped by the Western World, has been under false pretension that Newton proved his Inverse Square Law of Gravity in some valid manner with or without the augmentation from Cavendish! It is a false pretension because neither one used calculus that is necessary to measure or analyze this so-called Universal Law of Gravity.
Is illumination from a flat radiator supposedly described by Lambert via his Cosine Law? Even when the best mainstream physicists and engineers from the optics and lighting industries state that the light distributions from LEDs are Lambertian, do they know what that means and how such a radiation pattern is different from that created by the sun?
The author repeatedly experienced from the industry leaders that they do not know what a Lambertian radiation pattern in 3D space means and how to visualize it in 3D space. Thus it begs the questions: did Lambert ever measure a flat radiator’s directivity? Did he ever prove his so-called Lambert’s Cosine Law?
What is Lambert’s Law for a finite, flat radiator? Did he know that such a radiator invariably produces a directive beam? If so, where are these proofs or written descriptions that a Lambertian radiator has a finite directivity?
The author respectfully requests the Swiss and German esteemed universities and academic communities to provide that Lambert either analytically or empirically proved his law since Lambert was a Swiss-German scientist in the 1800’s and recording work of great importance during that time was all but common in his geographical region.
Ganita’s Calculus Imperative for Proving Lambert’s Cosine Law
Lambert’s Cosine Law could not be proven without advanced calculus and analytic geometry that utilizes Cartesian as well as spherical, polar, and cylindrical coordinates to solve a finite problem encountered in a physical system that can be also verified empirically. Lambert simply could not have done either. If anyone has proof of the contrary, they should present to the public how Lambert proved Lambert’s Law either analytically or empirically.
Further, the generic Lambert’s Cosine Law that exists in the mainstream literature is incomplete in that it does not show that the magnitude of the peak optical power at the center of the flat radiator is related to the radiator’s inherent parameters such as the size of the flat radiator and its inherent radiance for the infinitesimal part of the flat radiator.
In contrast, the author has demonstrated that a suitable infinitesimal representing infinitesimal radiative power from a flat radiative source must be integrated over the finite size of the radiator to prove Lambert’s Cosine Law for a finite, flat radiation source.
The optical, lighting and the RF communities have been simulating the near-field of surface radiation intensity of flat radiators using Cartesian coordinate systems exclusively. While this is a valid approach to determine the radiative power distribution on the surface of a flat antenna or an LED or a laser, the mainstream RF wireless, waveguide, or antenna community has been unable to simulate what the radiative power distribution is in 3D near-field just following the antenna, or an LED, or a laser. Why not?
Because these communities do not know how to solve the analytic problem for 3D near-field radiation emitted off a flat antenna or a generic radiator! Still, miraculously, the entire RF simulation community is aware of its far-field 3D radiation pattern!
The author challenges the RF community to honestly explain why they have decided that the far-field simulated radiation pattern of a flat antenna is a Lambertian as shown in a typical simulation routinely in the literature.
We Can Create Our Better Future
The author’s main interest in getting the message of this article to the public as a set of challenges to the esteemed, mainstream physics and electrical engineering community – is to meet her moral obligation to the millions and billions of people suffering from outdoor LED lighting including automotive LED lighting and consumer wireless smart phones.
She has received dire messages from many grown-up men who lost their good jobs because of facing LED lights in public places. She is often contacted by sufferers of smart phone radiation. In order to help such helpless communities of real people around the world, the author respectfully presents her challenges here and the details of such challenges are found in her recent PSI long paper found here.
If the current authorities are not able to meet her challenges in a public forum or several such forums in any decent timeframe, the author humbly asks to immediately ban all LED outdoor lights, especially LED car headlights; also to stop using consumer wireless.
Read the full paper here.
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About Covid 19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Ken Hughes
| #
Hello,
I have to disagree. It is “a.priori” that all energetic processes radiate their effects in accordance with the inverse square law.
Any point source or small spherical source of energy radiates outwards in all directions evenly, such that at any distance “r”, the total, finite energy at the point is now is spread over the surface of a hypothetical sphere of radius “r”. The area of a sphere is 4.pi.r^2, so the energy per unit area at this distance is spread over a surface of area 4.pi.r^2 and so the energy per unit area is a function of 1/r^2.
I.e. the inverse square law.
QED.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Ken,
Energy decreases with distance, Kepler’s law C=dv^2, It is the strength (accretion) of the force of energy that decreases asana square of the distance. When energies radiated from objects are in equilibrium with the source of energy they will have a constant velocity. and will travel in a circular path prod the source, neither gaining or losing energy. Nothing in the universe travels in a straight line (1st law).
Energy is attracted to mass (Positive charge) but not a product of mass. The proper formula for the force of energy between objects is not F=AB/d^2 but F=A/distance a + B/distance b where distance a is the radiated energy field of A and distance b is the radiated energy field of B. Matter produces a force that has opposite behavior to the force of energy. When opposite force fields from energy come together they create a greater radiated force. When opposite opposite radiated matter electric fields of force come together they cancel each other out reducing the radiated fields.
Since the force of energy is greater than the force of matter, objects are created with both an attractive radiated energy fields and a smaller matter repelling electrical field.
Herb
Reply
Dr. M. Nisa Khan
| #
Dear Herb Rose,
No – nothing moves in a straight line. Flow well.
Let’s hope for a better future for all of us.
Regards,
Dr. Khan
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Dr. Khan,
I am afraid it is futile. People will believe nothing that shows them to be wrong but anything that shows them to be light.
Herb
Reply
Dr. M. Nisa Khan
| #
Yes. It is not a good feeling for a modern scientist/engineer/mathematician to be proven wrong or for them to hear that they don’t understand how things really work! It is futile indeed. I am okay with this though. Flow well.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
“Why Are Practical Or Analytical Proofs For Foremost Physics Laws Missing From Mainstream? Is the question being asked in this article.
The publisher, Louis Elzevir, of Galileo’s famous book wrote a preface to this book. And in this preface Elzevir wrote that a common saying in 1638 was ‘Intuitive knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition.” This has been translated to English by Crew and de Salvio (1914)
So I believe the answer is that the accurate definition of a physical law precludes that a Physical Law has any proof. A physical law is something that has always been observed or measured given a certain well defined set of detailed circumstances. Hence it is, It is not a theory which can be disproven by empirical experimental results. But another fact of fundamental Science is that no theory can be proven to be absolutely TRUE (correct) according to an accurate definition of physical SCIENCE.
Have a good day
Reply
Dr. M. Nisa Khan
| #
Good points. But it can be proven that a semiconductor LED and a semiconductor laser is NOT a point source where a point source in mainstream physics has a very clear definition regarding its radiation properties – in that a point radiation source radiates omnidirectionally in all 4 pi steradian solid angles. Such a point source must have a shape of a sphere and semiconductor chips that make up an LED and a laser are flat chips!
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
HI Dr. Khan,
“Such a point source must have a shape of a sphere.” Your words, hence there is no point source which radiates (emits radiation).
Have a good day
Reply
Dr. M. Nisa Khan
| #
The sun radiates as a point source from the far distance relative to the earth. This is a good approximation of a point source. An LED that is flat at the source NEVER radiates at any distance. This is when you have to have the knowledge of Fourier Transforms. But no one out there in mainstream physics, math or engineering really gets what a Fourier Transform does and why Fourier Transform Relations are true.
Have a nice day.
Dr. Khan
Reply
Dr. M. Nisa Khan
| #
I meant to say that an LED that is flat at the source as an emitter NEVER radiates like a point source at ANY distance – near or far or anywhere in between. Flow well.
Herb Rose
| #
Jerry,
Hang a light bulb from the ceiling and turn it on. It radiates light in all direction. Now take a concave mirror and raise it up to surround the lightbulb. Now you have a searchlight that is radiating light in one direction. The light is now not decreasing as the square of the distance but linearly allowing it to go further.
Reply
Dr. M. Nisa Khan
| #
Mr. Herb Rose gives a very practical example. If you heard my live TNT interview, I explain that an incandescent light bulb is a fairly good approximation of a ‘point’ source in that it radiate more or less uniformly in most of the 4 pi steradian or solid angle directions. If it is lensed, it becomes directional as Mr. Rose pointed out. LEDs and lasers are inherently directional because they are flat. I proved it 20 years after my master’s thesis adviser who challenged me to find the answer why a laser is automatically lensed! He invented the ruby laser and not Theodore Maiman. Maiman invented the first optical amplifier well under the lasing threshold.
Worse yet, LED and lasers have a different wavefront in their lensed behavior and this wavefront is very unsuitable for lighting applications. Further, such spatial light distribution is disturbing for the human and other biological species’ brain or neurological systems. Some people are immediately thrown into an epileptic seizure seeing an LED light; but are okay with a flashlight that is made of an incandescent lamp. Flow well.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Dr Chan,
“The sun radiates as a point source from the far distance relative to the earth. ” your words. How come I see the sun as a DISK of light? I see a star as a point source of light even If I understand this star may be even as large of our sun, a near sphere much larger than the Earth.
Please do not write to me as if I am a dunce. Have a good day
Reply
Dr. M. Nisa Khan
| #
Jerry Krause,
This is my last comment to you. I can explain why we see the sun as a disk of light. But I won’t here. Interested people can learn from here:
https://dr-nisa-s-site.thinkific.com
Dr. Khan
Reply
Wisenox
| #
Good article, although the comments section isn’t large enough for it. There are a lot of topics.
“the same Gauss’ Laws are also analogously used in other areas of physics, such as mechanics including hydraulics”
That caught me, because I have commented on here for a similar topic. There was an article about a thought experiment ran by Einstein and a colleague regarding the shear force and rotating cylinders.
I questioned whether electricity circulating a spinning disk would create a hydraulic effect. I would like to see more of her thoughts on hydraulics.
“Did Pythagoras prove the Pythagorean Theorem?”
Pythagoras wasn’t a person.
“The author challenges the RF community to honestly explain why they have decided that the far-field simulated radiation pattern of a flat antenna is a Lambertian as shown in a typical simulation routinely in the literature.”
That challenge will go unmet. The flat face gives them directionality with the EMF radiation, and that’s a capability that they will not allow ‘safety’ to take away.
The LED’s are pushed because they can emit EF radiation and be pulsed.
“Despite the West claiming math and science are not religious”
Tetragrammaton? Started between ancient Sumeria and Akkadia along with geometry and the platonic solids. 666 refers to the octahedron, and mother mary is a cube (black cube at mecca). Her husband, Enki/Adam, is the tetrahedron. The cube encloses an octahedron (Jesus), which in turn encloses a cube. So, jesus both marries mom and is born from mom.
Reply
Dr. M. Nisa Khan
| #
Dear Wisenox,
Thank you. Wish I could help further as you asked. But will have to wait until I am able to publish more. Fibonacci also was not real. Western math and science do have disturbing origin and the Church was involved. But let’s hope for a better world from here.
Regards,
Dr. Khan
Reply
Dr. M. Nisa Khan
| #
Good points. But it can be proven that a semiconductor LED and a semiconductor laser is NOT a point source where a point source in mainstream physics has a very clear definition regarding its radiation properties – in that a point radiation source radiates omnidirectionally in all 4 pi steradian solid angles. Such a point source must have a shape of a sphere and semiconductor chips that make up an LED and a laser are flat chips!
Reply
Dr. M. Nisa Khan
| #
Dear Wisenox,
Thank you. Wish I could help further as you asked. But will have to wait until I am able to publish more. Fibonacci also was not real. Western math and science do have disturbing origin and the Church was involved. But let’s hope for a better world from here.
Regards,
Dr. Khan
Reply
Dr. M. Nisa Khan
| #
If some people argue that physical laws cannot be proven in their entirety, then at least famous laws like Newton’s Laws, Gauss’ Laws, Fourier Transform Relations and others I mentioned should be proven to the extent that they can and the best scientists and mathematicians should be able to describe such laws in plain English; further specifying when they do NOT hold. That is my challenge and objection!
Reply